News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by arp242 on Friday June 23, 2023 @09:59AM (#36446893)
Some price increase after that would be completely fair and reasonable, because it is harder and more expensive to produce. But 165×? Colour me skeptical on that. At $50k you can hire a craftsman to custom fit something (at a $500k income a year they'd have about a month for it).

There's also some foresight involved here. I used to work for a company that delivered computers for industrial applications such as ASML and FEI (lithography machines and electron microscopes). They had very precise requirements: "we want Intel Xeon 5119 Rev 3 CPUs for the next 4 years, not Rev 2, not Rev 4, the revision shall be 3 and 3 shall be the revision. Rev 5 is right out". The same applied with mainboards, memory, etc. There was also an entire testing procedure involved for many of these things and not all components passed.

So, we charged them more for this then $random_person buying a component, obviously, but we also talked to them beforehand and knew roughly how many they needed, overbought components in bulk beforehand before they were EOL, and sold the rest afterwards fairly cheaply (because by then they were pretty old components). The volumes for these kind of machines is low (on the order of dozens or hundreds a year) so this was all practical. We made a fair but far from exuberant profit from this.

I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them".

I don't know which party failed on this part, but someone did. Possibly both. Even ordering two new-price trash cans leaves you with 250 of them at the old price. Storage isn't free either so let's assume 150 of them.

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by ceejayoz on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:07AM (#36447006)
> I see no reason why this couldn't have happened here: "oh, your trash cans are going EOL; we expect to need 40 of them in the next 30 years, please produce them before you EOL them".

Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!"

Examples:

Rand Paul complaining about things like $8M in unused solar panels: https://www.paul.senate.gov/news-sen-rand-paul-highlights-18...

Bobby Jindal saying "Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.": https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/bobby-jindal-...

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by vanchor3 on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:48AM (#36447559)
> Congress. The big stink would go from "we bought four $52k trash cans" to "we bought hundreds of trash cans we won't need for a decade, if ever!"

Unfortunately, both of those things frequently happen simultaneously.

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by paulddraper on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:49AM (#36447574)
Hyperbole. Orders of magnitude different.

4 extra =/= hundreds extra

---

And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels? I could have gotten 26,000+ trash cans at $300 each!

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by ceejayoz on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:52AM (#36447609)
The article says they needed another 11 the next year. Buying a couple hundred seems sensible if (as I suspect it is) most of the cost is at the project level rather than the unit level.

> And why did the government spend $8M(!!) in unused solar panels?

Spares? A lower than expected defect rate? Who knows? Paul doesn't provide useful specifics, just the politically sexy top-level numbers.

In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by paulddraper on Friday June 23, 2023 @10:55AM (#36447671)
Presumably that would be for the Dept of VA to clarify.

> In an organization with a multi-trillion dollar annual budget, $8M in unused solar panels is a bit like you throwing away a ream of paper that got some water damage.

And yet a fraction of that amount is front page HN.

Clearly a lot of other people believe differently.

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by ceejayoz on Friday June 23, 2023 @11:05AM (#36447843)
> And yet a fraction of that amount is front page HN. Clearly a lot of other people believe differently.

A lot of people believe incorrect things about stuff they don't understand, yes. HN most certainly isn't immune.

Outrage bait is hardly a new phenomenon. The unit cost looks insane because it's a side effect of the fact that a defense contractor won't get out of bed without a minimum of a couple hundred grand in the contract to cover the program.

Re:The Pentagon’s $52,000 trash can by crote on Friday June 23, 2023 @12:42PM (#36449277)
You don't know in advance that you need 4 extra. Maybe the planes get replaced quickly and you're left with a hundred trash cans, maybe they keep using them for a century and you need a thousand more.