News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract. Parent comment

[dead]
Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by dragonwriter on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:52PM (#17630800)
> It does go into just enough detail about JPay to bring a smile to my face

I shudder to think that the description of the exploitive terms of the deal would bring a smile to anyone's face, but in addition to the fully comprehensive summary provided by the text, the article provides an in-text link to the full state contract with JPay; I'm not sure how much more detail it is possible to provide.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by mmirate on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:56PM (#17630813)
> I shudder to think that the description of the exploitive terms of the deal would bring a smile to anyone's face

The past several decades have seen that idiots and their resources are departed less swiftly than before. I gladly welcome solutions to that set of problems.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The hidden costs in a “no-cost” tablet contract by danso on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:30PM (#17630701)
Just by looking at the text, it looks like 40% of the text deals with JPay's specific business details (pricing for its services), and 30% of background info (e.g. a description of the contract, services rendered, the specific government dept.). And 30% rhetoric, arguing that this is an exploitative deal and that lawmakers have not performed due diligence in considering the long-term impact of this revenue model. Not sure what the right proportion of content mix is needed to make this a legitimate article in your eyes, but consider that not everyone feels the immediate need to argue the public policy position.
[ Parent | on HN ]