FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't the government give work to bloated FFRDCs? At RAND, a Security Manager with a GED can out-earn a Research Lead in AI Security Policy. Apparently, keeping the doors locked is more valuable than securing the future of humanity. SMH.

https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Santa-Monica-CA-Greater-Los-Angeles-Area/Manager--Security-Services_R3466

https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Research-Lead---AI-Security-Policy_R3121

Are you seriously doing this again? You hate GER and don't think AI is real.

Making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the criticism itself. Very sophisticated.

I know even before looking that it's another one with overlapping salary ranges probably not reflecting what the hires are actually going to make. There's no criticism, just a crazy person who should have left RAND years ago.

If you’re looking for the crazy ones, look at the leadership. They traded RAND’s legacy for science fiction, and the market responded with a 40%+ drop in sales. The math just doesn't add up.

RAND's legacy was long gone by the time current leadership came aboard. When was the last Nobel prize winner associated with RAND, 1981?

Let’s see how many Nobel prizes go to GERD’ers in the future. What I do know is that revenue never dropped by almost half at RAND in recent decades.

I'm sorry your expensive lit reviews got crushed by the same forces crushing everything else in your field.

You can totally have an econometric model and a lit review. Either one is way better than just dropping an opinion on AI and calling it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't the government give work to bloated FFRDCs? At RAND, a Security Manager with a GED can out-earn a Research Lead in AI Security Policy. Apparently, keeping the doors locked is more valuable than securing the future of humanity. SMH.

https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Santa-Monica-CA-Greater-Los-Angeles-Area/Manager--Security-Services_R3466

https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Research-Lead---AI-Security-Policy_R3121

Are you seriously doing this again? You hate GER and don't think AI is real.

Making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the criticism itself. Very sophisticated.

I know even before looking that it's another one with overlapping salary ranges probably not reflecting what the hires are actually going to make. There's no criticism, just a crazy person who should have left RAND years ago.

If you’re looking for the crazy ones, look at the leadership. They traded RAND’s legacy for science fiction, and the market responded with a 40%+ drop in sales. The math just doesn't add up.

RAND's legacy was long gone by the time current leadership came aboard. When was the last Nobel prize winner associated with RAND, 1981?

Let’s see how many Nobel prizes go to GERD’ers in the future. What I do know is that revenue never dropped by almost half at RAND in recent decades.

I'm sorry your expensive lit reviews got crushed by the same forces crushing everything else in your field.

It will take years to undue the damage from Jason and Jim.

[Anonymous]

Damage may never be undone.

[Anonymous]

Jason and Jim have turnd RAND into a total masterclass in corporate suicide. I thought the Board was actually supposed to keep the lights on but I guess they'd rather just grab some popcorn and watch the whole place go up in flames.

[Anonymous]

This is Jason’s board now. If you don’t like it, leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is Jason’s board now. If you don’t like it, leave.

What about trying to change things for the better? Why must one submit to or run from poor leadership?

[Anonymous]

That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

New person responding here. The point you conveniently overlooked is that some of the current fiscal realities are a direct result of dumb decisions by your current leadership. Yes, Trump and MAGA have a role too but it seems like RAND cannot stay away from controversies starting at the very top of the place. At some point you need to take a step back to seriously consider whether the people in charge are really capable of leading during this particular time. It’s hard to realize this but eventually that day will come… despite the spin one tries to put out.

[Anonymous]

Mitre moral is low. Not sure the place will be around in a few years…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That suggests you have actual constructive comments and recommendations based on current fiscal realities, versus bemoaning the good old days or criticizing current leadership.

New person responding here. The point you conveniently overlooked is that some of the current fiscal realities are a direct result of dumb decisions by your current leadership. Yes, Trump and MAGA have a role too but it seems like RAND cannot stay away from controversies starting at the very top of the place. At some point you need to take a step back to seriously consider whether the people in charge are really capable of leading during this particular time. It’s hard to realize this but eventually that day will come… despite the spin one tries to put out.

Yeah, it’s amazing how ‘unforeseen circumstances’ keep looking suspiciously like ‘very foreseeable decisions.’ At some point you can’t keep blaming the weather when you’re the one holding the umbrella upside down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mitre moral is low. Not sure the place will be around in a few years…

How does one lead to the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mitre moral is low. Not sure the place will be around in a few years…

I thought MITRE's new AI- focused FFRDC's were its future. Is that still the plan?

[Anonymous]

CNA AI will cause them to layoff more staff in both the FFRDC and IPR divisions. Price of doing business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre moral is low. Not sure the place will be around in a few years…

I thought MITRE's new AI- focused FFRDC's were its future. Is that still the plan?

What new AI focused FFRDC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre moral is low. Not sure the place will be around in a few years…

I thought MITRE's new AI- focused FFRDC's were its future. Is that still the plan?

What new AI focused FFRDC?

all of ‘em