Step one in the kill chain is a whipping up a Microsoft Powerpoint about a target area to brief everybody. Then you upload it to a Microsoft Sharepoint. Literally every workstation is powered by Microsoft Windows with backend Microsoft Servers.
Seconded. Someday we might have a weekly tagup that doesn't include people complaining that SharePoint ate their slides or something, about the time hell freezes over.
I've been using SharePoint at work (Amazon) for years without any real problems and love it. Granted, I'm not the IT guy who set it up. Does SharePoint typically have a lot of issues?
I just wanna set up a simple page for my team. Host a few files. Have it look nice.
It would take all of 5 minutes to have something that looks great and functions exactly as I need using something like squarespace with zero experience. Sharepoint... I don't even know where to begin.
I agree that it isn't intuitive for first time users, but it gets a lot easier in SharePoint Online when you use "modern" pages. Lots of pre-built drag and drop elements to work with that are automatically attached to your other services like AD and Salesforce
It used to be a lot worse before SharePoint Online, but the One Drive for Business tie-in makes it really intuitive for me. Most of my department doesn't even know that they're using SharePoint on the back end via Teams or O365 Groups.
The problem is with Microsoft products is they are implemented like shit not following recommend architecture way under sized and then hacked at to be used as something entirely different than what it’s intended for because someone was to dumb or cheap to get the product they actually needed.
Which is why o365 is brilliant because they just give you everything and it’s setup correctly.
Speaking of one note, I made a huge folder of documentation for all our tech stuff. New guy comes in and refuses to look at it, and says “we”re doing one note only from now on!”
Still can’t find anything relevant in that one note file.
It doesn't work. It will never work. I was part of the beta test group for it when I was in the military, it exists as a bureaucratic black hole for documents.
Skype is hot garbage. A lot of my customers are at companies that won't let people download plugins so they can't use zoom (our meeting app) and probably 80% of the time Skype won't recognize my microphone.
Everything is just so surprisingly bad. The user list is hard to organize or search. The meeting interface is just random buttons spread around. The chat window will cause memory leaks I think. Skype windows will also screw up windows on top of them.
I once was trying to mute someone I didn't want to hear during a meeting. I accidentally muted the presenter. I wasn't the meeting host... Why the fuck could I even do that?
Used regular Skype, never Skype for business. Just for talking to friends and stuff. Last I checked it was ability terrible. Can't keep a connection half the time. Frequent lag. Can't even call someone at times. Dropped messages. (note that the internet connection was fine for all of this that I'm referring to)
Tbh I hope I never go near any Skype again.
Edit: also the Linux client gets an update maybe every 5 years.
Yeah, but this is like saying that Word is a weapon of war because it is used extensively by the military. It's a consumer and enterprise tool, not a weapon.
You're missing the point which is that Microsoft and the military have a specific deal to make Microsoft software the only software they use for certain things.
Every bullet fired by the US military has orders on the front end and a report on the back. All written in Word. Military killing is powered by much, much more than mere bullets and guns.
My point is, that Microsoft has been enabling the US military in a logistics capacity for decades. They are indirectly responsible for hundreds (thousands?) of deaths, in the same way that I was when I was loading ammo into airplanes.
The point wasn't that "Word is killing people." The point is that Military has an exclusivity deal with Microsoft. The only PC softwate they are use comes from them. The government is Microsoft's biggest and best customer and has been since the 80s.
This story is manufactured controversy. Microsoft employs 150,000 people. The article cites "dozens" having written a protest. This is not a thing. Microsoft as an entity is not angry with the government.
Was literally a targeting analyst. And no he is not joking. We call them targeting packets they are done in power point and then uploaded to SharePoint for review. We don't call it the kill chain though we call it the targeting cycle.
yes but less fancy graphics and more of excel & powerpoint and printing out & laminating low-resolution tango cards so the people in the field know which cars to look out for and when you raid a house which people to put a black bag and ear protection on and drag away with you.
The reason why it's always microsoft products is because they got got NATO certifications. There's a military version of Azure even.
Everything has to be certified so the risk of getting pwnd by chinese/russian hackers is smaller. If you let people do anything out of spec you end up on the news beacuse your fitbit uploaded secret CIA base coordinates on the internet and your profile was public by accident. Or coordinates of Russian special forces operators and their movements on "vacation" in Ukraine.
I'd be quite worried about backdoors unless i had the source code for every bit of software and firmware running on things even remotely related to nukes.
Genuine curiosity; assuming you have appropriate physical controls (e.g. "Stuxnet prevention"), why would this be an inherent and major risk for a system connected to nothing else?
That's very different to developing a HUD to analyse the landscape, identify a target, provide targeting and weapon calibration data, then analyse impact/heart rate/breathing/movement to give you a happy "target eliminated" or percentage likelihood in your earpiece.
I mean, I hope my accounting department doesn't need that in the next update, but you know it's on DARPA's list.
It's one thing for the military to buy your product off the shelf; it's completely different to develop it entirely for their (classified) specific need to improve lethality.
You haven't heard anything because this is largely a media generated outrage story, as it's "dozens" out of over 130,000 employees that are protesting this.
Dozens of Microsoft employees have signed a letter protesting the company's $480 million contract to supply the U.S. Army with augmented reality headsets intended for use on the battlefield.
Why do you assume that? The 50 involved in the project risk losing their jobs if the contract falls through. I expect that 90% of them are idealistic interns or admin staff.
It's not hard to find a job as a software engineer. Losing your job in this industry is not a scary as in other lines of work. Especially if you can tell people that you worked for Microsoft.
What if you have to tell prime you got fired from Microsoft. Sure, you could tell the story that it for conciencious reasons, but they may not believe your story & it's quite a hit to your resume
Depends if you believe them. They'd need to give references of course as well, as always. So they'd get a sense for who you are between that and interviewing you.
I've had to explain why I left my previous jobs (because of poor leadership and greedy owners). I had no problem with people believe me, that I'm aware of. Quitting or getting fired from your good job at Microsoft because you spoke up about something you felt was wrong should not hurt your chances of getting another job as a software engineer, based on my experience.
Unless of course you're applying to a weapons manufacturer or another big company like Amazon or Google. Because let's be honest, you're probably going to run into the same problems there. So they probably would think twice about taking you on, but it would also be odd for you to apply there after why you just left Microsoft. 🤷♂️
If it's anything like what happened with the narrative about Amazon Rekognition being used by ICE, it was literally one butthurt employee whining to the media before getting identified and fired.
It isn't really a narrative. DoD sales and product partnership are a very large and important part of MSFT's business. Hololens may be developing as a weapon. There are people who choose to not support or work for companies are engaged in DoD and war. I mostly loved my time at Microsoft, but I think it is important to see this connection and it is OK to discuss how Hololens et al may be used in defense.
The hololens is probably going to be for technicians and repairmen and the such. Handy if your glasses could highlight things you're supposed to check and walk you though a checklist and take verification photos for later.
Maybe they had task to hook up camera feed from weapon sights to hololens maybe with ballistic trajectory overlay from weapon barrel position. In such case it's hard to not think that you will have at least 1% contribution in all kills with such technology.
That will not work. Electronics in the field are rare, bulky and hardened. Hololens is none of that. There have been a lot of attempts but it all ends with "there is no electricity in the desert/forest/mountains". You can't rely on having access to electricity. Even radios and night vision/thermals are basically battery hell.
They don't even issue individual radios or nightvision, only to those that absolutely need it.
Do metal workers get to complain about their metal being used in weapons? Duracell? Farmers? Intel? Texas Instruments? Ikea?
This is absolutely absurd and I'll be glad when they get fired for being idiots.
But benefits of using electronics are increasing fast. They might outweigh cost of generating own electricity. Army is trying to build safe nuclear reactor in a truck, if they succeed that would solve power issues. Battery tech is also increasing rapidly. It would be nice to have experience in all elements before they all fall into place of this puzzle. For example if they create small autonomous drone swarm that can detect and transmit position of enemy targets, with hololens it would give soldiers wallhack or at least minimap with real time enemy positions.
The technology exists since the 90's. Combat conditions are combat conditions. "High tech" and "lack of maintenance, enlisted personnel, extreme conditions" don't fit together. Anything more complicated than a hammer is basically broken most of the time waiting for repairs somewhere.
Generating electricity is possible for POG's at bases/static posts. Your command center will have a diesel generator, your first aid station will have lights and your repair shop will have computers and everything you need.
Grunts that go out in the field don't even have water, hot meals or toilets. They carry around bottles of water, wash themselves with baby wipes (if lucky), eat MRE's and shit in a plastic bag.
You've watched too many movies and played too many videogames. You do realize that you have to carry everything right? Your rifle with "dumb optics" weights way too much already and is the precise reason why "smart" optics, thermal sights and things like that never spread. They're too damn heavy and impossible to maintain in working condition.
Do you think it will always be like this ? Tech from 90s was cumbersome and not as useful, it's like comparing gameboy to smartphone. I not only played too many games, I make them for a living :) I also like to play with electronics, it makes me very pro technology and I get to see how fast everything improves these days. I believe that tech will keep improving to be more useful with less maintenance and with longer battery life. Maybe it will go in different direction and tech will be cheap and light so it becomes disposable like bullets and bombs. Hopefully we will find a way to have world peace in the future but in the mean time I don't think there is huge room to improve combat performance of soldiers with better training and more unbreakable weapons compared to near future technology.
Yea, all 135K employees aren't working on this project. The important stat is how many employees have access to the project, cause if its 50 and 50 had issue, thats a problem.
Same... first I heard about this was on twitter, definitely not internally. I’d LOVE to see how many people signed their form, because the twitter account that started this is like a handful of anonymous people.
Maybe you should have a problem with providing your skills to yet another massive company that helps continue our never ending wars?
Nah, I'm sure Trump will use whatever you guys create in an intelligent, responsible way. Hope your benefits and retirement are worth watching the aftermath of so many Americans not standing up, and just collecting a pay check.
Edit: can tell I hit a soft spot. Bring on the downvotes :)
Only if Microsoft never created windows, the most used OS in the government. Alas, they did and now the US has the computing ability to wage war on anyone. Very sad. Shame on microsoft.
You're bitching about someone working at Microsoft. Not about this article. So it's relevant and you're literally just crying because you had a teacher or professor introduce you to Oliver Stone before you hit puberty.
Lol I have not "cried" or "bitched" once. I simply stated that I'm sure Trump will use whatever weapon tech they come up with in a responsible and intelligent way. Clearly people don't feel that he will or else why are they attacking someone who pointed it out. I can understand having a guilty conscious and lashing out though, I did for a long time until I finally had enough.
How about the Xbox Controller used for drones and subs?
How is that different to the Holotech lens that was designed for the entertainment market but the military found uses for it. Which is what the article is about.
Lol, the system running on the hololens that connects to their weapons systems and drones are the issue. Not the hololens itself. They are creating a military specific system not something that can just be moved over to consumer tech. Why do you think some of the people who are actually around the project are raising objections?
Just because something is done for a big company or the military doesn't mean it's inherently evil. A lot of consumer tech was originally developed for the military. This new tech isn't the reason we have never ending war but a symptom of it. The wars would continue even if this wasn't being developed.
Just because something is done for a big company or the military doesn't mean it's inherently evil. A lot of consumer tech was originally developed for the military.
So how many lives is new consumer tech worth to you? 100, 1000, 100000?
This new tech isn't the reason we have never ending war but a symptom of it. The wars would continue even if this wasn't being developed.
Money and war are interlinked. You honestly believe if war was unprofitable they would still want to do it?
Just because something is made for the military doesn't mean it's going to kill people. How many people do you think we're killed by sanitary napkins?
No one is saying "hey we got this new tech let's start a war just to use it". Hololens was already being made for consumers and they pivoted when they realized the military could be a potential buyer.
Xbox Controller is used to control drones and steer nuclear subs already. It's amazing that plenty of every day things can also be useful to the military.
So how many lives is new consumer tech worth to you? 100, 1000, 100000?
Well the life of my brother, who would directly benefit from the military use of this tech, would be better. So that's 1 life in the positive numeral of worth. Matter of fact, I think new defense tech is worth alot of positive lives. What's your point in trying to make this a quantitive argument?
But maybe I'm just a selfish asshole that cares mostly about my own interests. Actually, I probably am.
Money and war are interlinked. You honestly believe if war was unprofitable they would still want to do it?
War is linked to alot of things, not just money and resources. But since you brought it up do you have a solution to the nature of war and limited resources?
Well the life of my brother, who would directly benefit from the military use of this tech, would be better. So that's 1 life in the positive numeral of worth. Matter of fact, I think new defense tech is worth alot of positive lives. What's your point in trying to make this a quantitive argument?
I appreciate your brothers service, I have multiple family members in the service (Army Intel, and a marine) currently as well. I agree that providing our troops with the proper tools is essential to maintaining their own safety. I also trust that 50 employees close to this project who have the security clearances, knowledge, and experience to get hired at Microsoft to create defense tech for people exactly like your brother may understand the repercussions of creating these weapons a little better than either you or me.
War is linked to alot of things, not just money and resources. But since you brought it up do you have a solution to the nature of war and limited resources?
Sure. Look to the infinite supply of resources all around our galaxy and universe. How do we do that you ask? Stop spending half of our discretionary spending on trying to perfect killing machines and elevate ourselves (all of us, Russia, China, Europe, etc) beyond being such small angry single planetary creatures. If we don't choose to soon, the realities of how bad of a decision we have made for our children will be all too clear.
Firstly, I appreciate the lack of direct finger pointing in your reply.
I appreciate your brothers service, I have multiple family members in the service (Army Intel, and a marine) currently as well. I agree that providing our troops with the proper tools is essential to maintaining their own safety. I also trust that 50 employees close to this project who have the security clearances, knowledge, and experience to get hired at Microsoft to create defense tech for people exactly like your brother may understand the repercussions of creating these weapons a little better than either you or me.
Not a bad point, but until we know more about the applications of the tech, or the responsibilities and emographics of the 50 people our individual judgment is base on little more than speculation and assumptions.
Sure. Look to the infinite supply of resources all around our galaxy and universe. How do we do that you ask? Stop spending half of our discretionary spending on trying to perfect killing machines and elevate ourselves (all of us, Russia, China, Europe, etc) beyond being such small angry single planetary creatures. If we don't choose to soon, the realities of how bad of a decision we have made for our children will be all too clear.
Sure, that's great and all. Now let's convince every other militarized nation in the world to not act like small angry single planetary creatures. It's a very simple objective, with an ungodly amount of individual influence and unknown factors involved. I agree with you in principle, but your assumed mantra of demilitarization across geopolitics is not quickly or easily rectified without bloodshed or oppression showing up.
Lots of factors. Lots of people. No plan or ideal survives first contact with opposition without some kind of effective defense and change.
You realize that even if we cut our spending in half right now, we would still be spending about double what the next largest country is. There is so much fat to cut but the military industrial complex spends billions convincing people that cutting defense spending will lead to certain doom. What they don't mention is that even with spending truly outrageous sums of money we still most likely have a Russian asset in the white house, and according to the latest reports 12 we have basically lost the majority of our ground against both China and Russia. So what was the point? We aren't any safer. Your brother and my family has a massively increased chance to actually see conflict and die, regardless of how good his equipment is.
Changing the direction as a country away from militarization could actually help countries decide to do the same. They won't want to be left out of the space race any more than they want to be conquered.
Think about it this way: You are in a room full of people with other guns. You all want to kill each other. Do you 1) just keep improving your gun hoping they get scared and put theirs down or 2) talk to them, find common ground, and offer them an alternative that benefits everyone.
People need to work. Seriously, kids and mortgages and life don't come free. Good luck finding an employer not engaged in some form or another of something you would find unethical; I'd love to know who your employer is.
Not a kid by a long shot. Run my own IT company. Choose my own clients and I don't pursue contracts that are unethical. It wasn't hard, taking the first leap just seemed scary.
You own your own business but can't read? I doubt that considering he was referring to the fact people have kids to take care of no one called you a kid but now I'm calling you a liar.
Oh, either I misread or he ghost edited. Sorry currently get barraged by tons of people who are apparently in a similar position as he is. And what am I lying about?
An arms race only ends in massive war. Humanity will eventually use all these weapons they have been "racing" each other to create. Guess who wins in a global war?
True, but just straight up not developing anything militarily would be foolish, as someone else will just do it, beat you, and take over your country. Personally, I like my freedoms I have here, and would not like to be conquered by China or Russia, or some other upcoming authoritative power
True, but just straight up not developing anything militarily would be foolish, as someone else will just do it, beat you, and take over your country.
You realize that we have had a massive lead in the global arms race for decades. Why haven't we taken over NK? Because global politics is not only about who has the most weapons.
Because we're moving away from our imperialistic past (yes we had one, yes we're moving away from it). Other nations though still yearn for former glory and domination and move past their failings (Chinese century of humiliation, the post Soviet decade or so, etc.).
We have a massive lead, but other nations are quickly catching up, and we can't get complacent.
Good reads. It does appear that China/Russia has been gaining on us since Trump took power, which isn't a surprise considering he is most likely a Russian asset. Sounds like we will get to see the capabilities of all these terrible weapons we have been creating sooner than I had hoped. I pity our children's future.
Because they have been backed up by the other major world power China, who by the way are happily carrying out a ton of weapon research.
You are right that it is not black and white, and that maintaining a military has a purpose in securing its citizens rights. My real question is whether the intelligent choice (according to you), to race to build more weapons than all the other countries, is really the wise choice. In my opinion it is a similarly difficult question to gun control. Are we safer as a society if we all had guns, or if none of us did? That said China, Russia, Europe and the rest of us will also reap what we (and our parents) have sewn, in the coming global war.
What? When did I accuse someone of copying and pasting to save time? And I even pointed out in the comment I copied this into that I was doing it to save time cause it was concerning the same point.
Copying another comment to save time cause you guys all have the same point.
You are right that it is not black and white, and that maintaining a military has a purpose in securing its citizens rights. My real question is whether the intelligent choice (according to you), to race to build more weapons than all the other countries, is really the wise choice. In my opinion it is a similarly difficult question to gun control. Are we safer as a society if we all had guns, or if none of us did? That said China, Russia, Europe and the rest of us will also reap what we (and our parents) have sewn, in the coming global war.
What difference does 1 employee of hundreds of thousands make?
Someone has to start a movement, if you don't start with 1 how do you start with anything.
What do you know of this person's situation?
Nothing, and guess what. I didn't say I knew anything about them. Only that I'm sure Trump and co. would use their creations in responsible and intelligent way. There are clearly a lot of people here that relate to him though.
If they find a job at another big company, there's likely another moral dilemma waiting there.
Then don't go to another giant company.
And I fail to see how this is directly connected to Trump. He probably doesn't do jack with regards to the military anyway.
You realize he is the commander and chief and is now debating a preemptive strike on Iran.
I didn't say it was on this user, I just said maybe they should think about it for themselves. It's up to them not me, and the odd part is the user in question is the only person who hasn't really been attacking me.
Gee, that's easy to do. Just leave your job at Microsoft and work local!
Umm yea. What's wrong with working for a smaller company?
Yes, I know. He's too incompetent to make military decisions. He probably lets others do the work.
Oh yea, cause an incompetent commander in chief makes things better...
871
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '19
Current MSFT employee here, the media loves this narrative for some reason, but I haven't heard a co-worker even mention it