4 ms·
No, that $15M is for the analysis platform at EPA. Adding embassy data to it did not cost $15M, and turning it off now certainly does not save $15M. Turning of
by epistasis 2y ago
No, that $15M is for the analysis platform at EPA. Adding embassy data to it did not cost $15M, and turning it off now certainly does not save $15M. Turning off the embassy data now merely prevents us from getting the most out of that $15M.
And if $15M seems like a lot, check out all the boondoggles that are par for the course in large corporations. The EPA system is a marvel of efficiency compared to what is frequently seen at large well-funded.
And if there actually is incompetence that resulted in overspending on the system, the financially prudent response would be to replace the decision makers rather than limiting the functionality of the existing system. The sunk-cost fallacy is endemic in these sort of low-information cost-cuts that actually end up costing us far far more than they save us, all so the outside consultants can pretend that they are doing something g to save a company.
- genewitch 2y agothey're not turning off the embassy sensors. In fact, the embassies were told to "keep them logging" so that "at some point in the future we can restart collecting the data from the sensors". I don't really care about the sensors or really the $15,000,000. I just think ignoring externalities like "poking the CCP via showing a billion people their government 'lied to them'." and thinking that 15 million against our defense budget was a good way to spend my "dime" of taxes. I don't want to go to war with China. I certainly don't want my taxes going to screw with the chinese citizens. Since i can't control that, i'll complain about the costs.