3 ms·
They can't afford you for free. It would cost them so much more to vet you than using one of their usual "pre-approved" government contractors, it wouldn't even
by noonespecial 13y ago
They can't afford you for free. It would cost them so much more to vet you than using one of their usual "pre-approved" government contractors, it wouldn't even be worth their considering. Even if that could be done, no one would be willing to take responsibility for giving you access. The system is designed (or has evolved) specifically to diffuse this sort of responsibility. It would be impossible to focus it sharply enough to allow you to do this.
The code is broken, but not the broken part of this system.
- smoyer 13y agoI made the offer with the assumption that there were three or four reasons it wouldn't be taken ... you've described one of them. The others are: b) The selected contractor won the work as payback for some political benefit, and the person who made sure they won can't allow them to be perceived as incompetent. c) They don't believe it's really broken so much as it just needs to be "tuned" (almost "the myth of sunk costs"). d) No one in the government cares ... so they're not reading our thoughts and comments on the system.
- vinhboy 13y agoReading your comments, I can really sense your frustration because I feel the same way. I live 15 minutes from California's state capital and this whole fiasco makes me want to just drive up there and do something.
- gngeal 13y agoThey can't afford you for free. It would cost them so much more to vet you than using one of their usual "pre-approved" government contractors Why don't they vet the results instead of vetting the people? Isn't that what matters? Not even the Soviets believed that the grain imports from the US were poisoned in order to kill them.