FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the FFRDCs are at risk for losing work, especially work that does not align with administration priorities. That said, as government contractors, this is not the first downturn they have dealt with. The drawdown after the Cold War ended and sequestration were two events that put funding at risk, and the FFRDCs survived. There is always a push to prove value and show how much money research can save or otherwise the value it delivers. The need for FFRDCs will endure, even though it is not clear if the current administration supports independent research. That said, China researchers will be better placed than those working on trans-Atlantic security. The industrial base remains a hot topic. Leaders may need to kiss the ring to survive.

I feel bad for think tanks whose CEOs came from the Biden administration (Brookings and RAND) because Trump and co. are clearly on a war path.

But MITRE is the most targeted, and that's not what's going on with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

I would not qualify working with industry to enhance a capability that MITRE created as “monetizing” it, at least not with a negative connotation to something underhanded.

This is straight from MITRE’s homepage:

“Acting as a bridge and convener to government, industry, and academia, MITRE delivers public interest impact to enhance the safety, stability, and well-being of our nation and the world.”

MITRE is permitted to work with industry. How that’s done is spelled out in the FFRDC agreements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Straight from the website describing the work you referenced:

“ATT&CK® Evaluations' mission is to bridge the gap between the security solution providers and their users/customers by enabling users to better understand and defend against known adversary behaviors through a transparent evaluation process and publicly available results - leading to a more informed community and safer world for all.”

The fact that the effort exists, which companies are involved in each assessment, and the details/results of the work are all being published online for anyone to read.

That’s not “shady.” Take off your tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea if MITRE is shady, but I know that's not the issue here. You think Palantir isn't shady?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

[Anonymous]

Have MITRE staff already been notified about layoffs? Or are they not happening until June?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have MITRE staff already been notified about layoffs? Or are they not happening until June?

The first round was this week. We are told to expect more over the coming weeks and months.

-current MITRE employee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have MITRE staff already been notified about layoffs? Or are they not happening until June?

The first round was this week. We are told to expect more over the coming weeks and months.

-current MITRE employee

I’m so sorry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

But the difference is also that at other organizations, if you don't like the leadership and direction, you leave. At RAND, people stay and then complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

But the difference is also that at other organizations, if you don't like the leadership and direction, you leave. At RAND, people stay and then complain.

Maybe they complain bc they want the board to actually do something about the mess the new leadership has created? Several leaders at RAND have no business running such a large organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

But the difference is also that at other organizations, if you don't like the leadership and direction, you leave. At RAND, people stay and then complain.

Maybe they complain bc they want the board to actually do something about the mess the new leadership has created? Several leaders at RAND have no business running such a large organization.

It's been more than two years. Wouldn't it feel better to go someplace better aligned with your values rather than to trash your organization in public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

But the difference is also that at other organizations, if you don't like the leadership and direction, you leave. At RAND, people stay and then complain.

Maybe they complain bc they want the board to actually do something about the mess the new leadership has created? Several leaders at RAND have no business running such a large organization.

It's been more than two years. Wouldn't it feel better to go someplace better aligned with your values rather than to trash your organization in public?

This has nothing to do with values. It's about mismanagement.