• 0 Posts
  • 1.87K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • What you’re talking about, and what myself and the author are talking about, are clearly not the same thing.

    Unless you’re Doctorow, I don’t think you can speak for the author, but you can certainly for yourself.

    I looked at your post history and I don’t see anything I’d consider trolling, but your responses her are screaming that in this thread of conversation. I’m just going to chalk this up to us SERIOUSLY not communicating with one another for some unknown reason.

    There’s no point in us conversing further on this. I’m making clear my point in multiple ways. You’re still not getting it so lets just end this here.

    I hope your other conversation with others are more communicative that this one. Have a great day!


  • Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.

    I’m talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that “through government procurement laws, governments” DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”

    I’m confused how you’re spending so much effort in a conversation and you’re not able to connect basic concepts.

    Article premise: “Wouldn’t it be great if X exists?”

    Me: “X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp.”

    Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?


  • Its the whole point of this point in this thread.

    Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject… Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…

    I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.

    “Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”

    I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.

    No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.

    Oh, honey…

    Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?










  • It’s paying to rebuild infrastructure where the state government has been neglecting.

    Besides Texas, none of those states listed are population dense or otherwise rich. In fact the low population density may require the cost per subscriber to be significantly higher because more infrastructure is required to bring service to fewer people. This is a perfect example of good federal government spending.

    Is your preference that if these regions can’t afford to build/maintain this infrastructure they should go without?