FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

This sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MITRE was vandalized by a mob and has nothing to do with mismanagement.

Details?

They’re referencing the current administration.

Not unfairly, but still ignoring a whole lotta recent MITRE history.

The word "mob" has specific connotations for MITRE folks...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the status of CNA's IPR group?

Not good. The Naval Analyses part of CNA is fine.

Please provide details.

[Anonymous]

My boss is in the news again. Sigh.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meet-ex-biden-appointee-could-214413937.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

There's a consensus among major news outlets and former DOD officials quoted in the press. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meet-ex-biden-appointee-could-214413937.html

[Anonymous]

It is not obvious how Rand can claim to be offering neutral unbiased inputs on AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not obvious how Rand can claim to be offering neutral unbiased inputs on AI.

Nobody is going to ask RAND for help on AI policy now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the status of CNA's IPR group?

Not good. The Naval Analyses part of CNA is fine.

Please provide details.

Not PP, but I've heard that IPR's DOJ and HHS work have been significantly impacted by grant and contract cuts/non-renewals. Their IPR and Emergency Management/Homeland Security work are hanging on by a thread. FEMA work has not been renewed/recompeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

There's a consensus among major news outlets and former DOD officials quoted in the press. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meet-ex-biden-appointee-could-214413937.html

Do you know who that was from? They're anonymous because if they weren't, it would be immediately clear what their agenda is. They are not on your side here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

There's a consensus among major news outlets and former DOD officials quoted in the press. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meet-ex-biden-appointee-could-214413937.html

Do you know who that was from? They're anonymous because if they weren't, it would be immediately clear what their agenda is. They are not on your side here.

This is obviously targeted, but inexperienced leadership buys you these kinds of problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

There's a consensus among major news outlets and former DOD officials quoted in the press. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meet-ex-biden-appointee-could-214413937.html

Do you know who that was from? They're anonymous because if they weren't, it would be immediately clear what their agenda is. They are not on your side here.

Jason Matheny, Jeff Alstott, and their friends in GER aren't on my side either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not obvious how Rand can claim to be offering neutral unbiased inputs on AI.

Nobody is going to ask RAND for help on AI policy now.

Maybe not the government anytime soon, but there are still are still all the tech billionaires who can hand over money. Rand is really sticking to its principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not obvious how Rand can claim to be offering neutral unbiased inputs on AI.

Nobody is going to ask RAND for help on AI policy now.

Maybe not the government anytime soon, but there are still are still all the tech billionaires who can hand over money. Rand is really sticking to its principles.

tech billionaires give $ to buy influence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not obvious how Rand can claim to be offering neutral unbiased inputs on AI.

Nobody is going to ask RAND for help on AI policy now.

Maybe not the government anytime soon, but there are still are still all the tech billionaires who can hand over money. Rand is really sticking to its principles.

sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not obvious how Rand can claim to be offering neutral unbiased inputs on AI.

Nobody is going to ask RAND for help on AI policy now.

Maybe not the government anytime soon, but there are still are still all the tech billionaires who can hand over money. Rand is really sticking to its principles.

sarcasm?

Yes. Damn, tough crowd.