4 ms·

I have zero technical skills and I would do this for a mere 85 million. I'm pretty sure for 85 million, I could assemble a crack team of devs to knock this out

I have zero technical skills and I would do this for a mere 85 million. I'm pretty sure for 85 million, I could assemble a crack team of devs to knock this out as a more competitive price.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> I'm pretty sure for 85 million, I could assemble a crack team of devs to knock this out as a more competitive price. Of course. Anyone could, but you see, this is not about using your money or getting the job done well. The $90 million is going to companies that have bribed politicians appropriately, and are now reaping the returns on their investments.
Guvante 13y ago
They probably based the amount on the cost to create it. 25% of upfront costs for a year of maintenance is incredibly common.
pinaceae 13y ago
nope. this is highly sensitive data, you can't treat it like a private business does, say like Target. this needs to survive countless audits, from code, to docs, to various accessiblity and other norms. a large number of data interfaces in the background to byzantine and opaque systems. etc etc etc. COMPLIANCE is the cost driver. and not necessarily for a bad reason.
- erichocean 13y ago
  this is highly sensitive data, you can't treat it like a private business does, say like Target. You're joking, right? Because the lack of care that was put into security is WIDELY documented. They couldn't even get internal signoffs on security and decided to launch anyway. It's simple, really: the government doesn't care if they break their own laws. The laws are for everyone else.
  - pinaceae 13y ago
    that's launch, in a rushed way. political decision. but as you see, highly visible. some new business site/app does not fall under the same public and governmental scrutiny. the ones that do with the same scope as this site - cost as much.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  Still, I think for 85 million I could figure out a way.

I have zero technical skills and I would do this for a mere 85 million. I'm pretty sure for 85 million, I could assemble a crack team of devs to knock this out as a more competitive price.

whatevsbro 13y ago

> I'm pretty sure for 85 million, I could assemble a crack team of devs to knock this out as a more competitive price. Of course. Anyone could, but you see, this is not about using your money or getting the job done well. The $90 million is going to companies that have bribed politicians appropriately, and are now reaping the returns on their investments.

Guvante 13y ago

They probably based the amount on the cost to create it. 25% of upfront costs for a year of maintenance is incredibly common.

pinaceae 13y ago

nope. this is highly sensitive data, you can't treat it like a private business does, say like Target. this needs to survive countless audits, from code, to docs, to various accessiblity and other norms. a large number of data interfaces in the background to byzantine and opaque systems. etc etc etc. COMPLIANCE is the cost driver. and not necessarily for a bad reason.

erichocean 13y ago
this is highly sensitive data, you can't treat it like a private business does, say like Target. You're joking, right? Because the lack of care that was put into security is WIDELY documented. They couldn't even get internal signoffs on security and decided to launch anyway. It's simple, really: the government doesn't care if they break their own laws. The laws are for everyone else.
- pinaceae 13y ago
  that's launch, in a rushed way. political decision. but as you see, highly visible. some new business site/app does not fall under the same public and governmental scrutiny. the ones that do with the same scope as this site - cost as much.
joelrunyon 13y ago
Still, I think for 85 million I could figure out a way.