Top
Best
New

Posted by EwanG 20 hours ago

CIA funding helped keep NeXT afloat in the 80s(www.wsj.com)
https://archive.is/JfB5V
268 points | 163 comments
jldugger 3 hours ago|
You know, when I see the phrase "CIA funding" I expect something like "the CIA put a backdoor in NeXT computers destined for Hungary" or something, not "NeXT made computers and the CIA bought and used them."
AdmiralAsshat 3 hours ago||
Did you know about the CIA's DECADES-LONG FUNDING of Coca-Cola? I have a hot tip from my good friend the soda machine technician that the CIA regularly funnels THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS a month into the pockets of BIG SODA when they restock their office kitchens and vending machines with Coca-Cola products!

This insidious relationship goes ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP, my friend!

rl3 2 hours ago|||
Your satire probably isn't that far off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaltrainal_v._Coca-Cola_Co.

https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/colombia0106/inde...

jimt1234 2 minutes ago|||
Whoa. This is weird. My friend's dad was an FBI agent for over 20 years. I remember him telling us a story about a case he worked in the early-90s where a Coca Cola exec was embezzling millions from the company. The exec was caught, basically red-handed. After working with his lawyer, the exec provided a story about some South American gang that strong-armed him into washing money for them (threatened to kill him and his family; I think he said they even kidnapped his daughter). My friend's dad said his team worked with the exec for several months to corroborate the story about the South American gang. Apparently he was telling the truth. Then, after gathering intel on the gang, they came up with a plan to go after them. However, a few days before they were set to act on their plan, they were told to stand down. Actually, no, before that they were told by their leadership that there would be no capture (of the gang), only kill. Then the plan was cancelled altogether.

My friend's dad rarely, if ever, talked about his work. However, he got loose lips after retiring, and if he had a few beers in him.

DANmode 47 minutes ago|||
I was also going to mention this - unfortunate example they chose!
hbn 2 hours ago||||
They're putting poison in the sugar water!
AndrewKemendo 3 hours ago|||
It’s a good point

I’m not sure why we shouldn’t hold other brands accountable for their public relations.

I served a long time and if no pizza place would deliver to a military base because they were protesting military action, it would have actually made an impact. To what degree is unknown but I know every dominos in a 20 mile radius from our base was on call to deliver 8000 pizzas from time to time.

That aint nothing

kphorn 2 hours ago|||
The Civil Reserve Pizza fleet always amazed me. About once a quarter, the Air Force Academy would get dominoes pizza for all 4000 cadets. every cadet + staff and some visitors gets a medium pizza for dinner. that's about 4000 pizzas stuffed into the back seats of honda civics from around colorado springs arriving in a 2 hour span. I dont know how they did it but boy could they mobilize
blipvert 14 minutes ago|||
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a fully laden Honda Civic
goalieca 1 hour ago|||
We used to have pizza day at my elementary school and every kid would get their own personal sized dominos pizza. It's impressive how they can deliver on 600+ pizzas all warm and delivered at the same time.
krrrh 51 minutes ago||||
It’s a free country. This sort of boycott would just result in Black Rifle Pizza.
kennywinker 15 minutes ago||
Black Riffle Coffee was founded because Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 refugees, not because they boycotted the military.

The moral of the story as I see it is: not acting because you don't want a backlash is a loosing game - they'll find a reason to backlash anyway.

sph 2 hours ago|||
It is a worthwhile question to ask "why is the foreign intelligence service funding a private company?"
dgellow 41 minutes ago|||
The CIA and NSA have provided money to a lot of private companies, including Signal. They have multiple startup funding programs. Nothing special about it, they expect to benefit from what the company will research or sell. It’s not necessarily with strings attached
kennywinker 11 minutes ago||
No, but it's always with an aligned agenda.

When the CIA funneled money to modernist artists, they weren't expecting spy devices in paintings. They're waging a cultural war.

Is signal funded to put backdoors? Maybe, but probably not. It's probably something more vague - A tool for anti-gov actors in countries that are our enemies, or to sell us all the idea that we are able to freely communicate while our devices are tapped by other means.

seizethecheese 2 hours ago||||
Strange comment. The comment you're replying to is pointing out that the CIA bought computers for its own use. Am I confused and they also "provided funding" other than buying computers?
butwaitTheres4 2 hours ago||
You're reading their comment in isolation. The thread starts with "I assumed something completely different."

You replied to a "still, good to ask in order to seek clarity" type point.

Comment hierarchy is part of the overall context.

seizethecheese 2 hours ago||
Another strange comment, this time from an account made 15 hours ago. My entire point was contextual and not in isolation!
bigyabai 1 hour ago||
There's no conspiracy, I think people just disagree with what "funding" can mean. A bulk sale in the realm of ~20,000 units is equivalent to stakeholder funding when you're at NeXT's scale. It doesn't inherently mean that anything nefarious happened, but there was a B2B contract written up with the feds, and Jobs accepted it.

The root comment is a perfectly valid question. Since the government wanted to replace the guts with custom Motorola/Intel parts, it's a bit weird that they'd single-out NeXT to sell them an off-the-shelf shell. I'm guessing that Steve's number was in a lot of government Rolodexes after Michael Dell and the others.

seizethecheese 1 hour ago|||
Sure, and that would be a reasonable thing to reply to the main comment here, but the actual comment was just muddying the waters and a total non sequitur, as written.
orliesaurus 1 hour ago||
ai bots on hn? naaaaa.....
readthenotes1 29 minutes ago||||
A guy from the CIA told me that they bought a ton of early sun boxes to keep them afloat, seeing American-made technology as a key national security interest.

He signed the visitor log as working for 'the company'. The CIA bit was a well-trod inference.

darig 2 hours ago||||
[dead]
iamnothere 2 hours ago|||
Or explicit investment, as with the many companies that were partially funded through In-Q-Tel. This is a strange article. All government agencies acquire computers for normal operations.
itsamario 1 hour ago|||
Most never dealt with procurement to realize choosing an operating system for an organization requires everyone agreeing to use vendors that support the os.
everdrive 1 hour ago|||
But that sort of analysis would prevent you from dropping a wikipedia link about something only somewhat related, and then implying that EVERYTHING is backdoor'd by the government.
baxtr 1 hour ago|||
You NeXT and Krispy Kreme are in the same category?!
jasonvorhe 3 hours ago|||
I'd trust my own intuitive suspicions more than official claims by the CIA.
philipallstar 1 hour ago||
But of course. Doesn't mean they're right, but you're right to acknowledge you probably do trust them more.
starik36 3 hours ago||
Yep, same expectation, but it's just click bait. I never learn.
shrubble 43 minutes ago||
Sun Microsystems had hardware and a version of Unix that was POSIX-compliant. This passed the government openness/interoperability test in existence and anyone with authority and budget could buy Sun, and then buy approved applications and run them.

NeXT had a superior development environment, but, Steve Jobs didn't spend the 1 or 2 engineer-years it would have taken to make the OS be POSIX-compliant. Thus, in addition to authority and budget, a waiver needed to be signed off on, in order to buy NeXT hardware.

The "three letter agency" or "TLA" portion of the US government, didn't always need off the shelf apps, but they had to build their own; and they didn't have to pass scrutiny over a waiver for something with a national-security implication.

Thus the CIA, DIA, NSA etc. bought both Sun and NeXT hardware.

Alien1Being 5 hours ago||
Apple :

"In 2012, Apple joined the PRISM data collection program run by the National Security Agency (NSA)."

"The firm added that between 1 December 2012 and 31 May 2013 it received between 4,000 and 5,000 requests from US law enforcement for customer data, involving between 9,000 and 10,000 accounts or devices. It did not say with how many it had complied."

john_strinlai 4 hours ago||
just as a point of comparison, google had 25,879 requests involving 42,500 accounts in approximately the same time period (january 1 through june 2013)

google complied with ~65% of the requests

("fun" tidbit: the number for the last half year are 304,915 requests for 748,478 accounts, and google complied with.... 98%!)

leonidasrup 3 minutes ago|||
The question is, how much data NSA accesses in a single request. The official rules have changed but the "two hop" rule permits the agency to recover metadata from about 25,000 phones with a single request, according to 2016 Stanford study.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/nsa-can-legally-access-metadata-of...

In addidition to the official request NSA infiltrated links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641378

hulitu 3 hours ago||||
> google had ... requests

Official requests.

john_strinlai 3 hours ago||
>Official requests.

obviously.

i dont have access to the number of gag-order requests, and if i did, i wouldnt be posting them on hn

kakacik 3 hours ago|||
Google's privacy ain't main/one of main selling point since we all know how things work in ad business.

If apple was principally against sharing those things they wouldnt be joining the very organization made for that.

Plus any public statement from anybody, unless forced by court, shouldnt be taken as facts. We have no way of knowing if it was 25k cases or 25 million cases, and they have no reason to tell such non-public truth if its harmful to them.

john_strinlai 3 hours ago||
my comment is primarily to give a sense of scale.

you don't know whether "4,000 to 5,000 requests" is a lot or a little if you have no point of comparison.

i am not commenting on the conclusions, everyone should have the opportunity to draw those themselves.

detourdog 3 hours ago|||
I didn’t find this in the article where did this come from? I remember when Apple suddenly shutdown the developer network to deal with a security breach in 2013.

https://giga.law/daily-news/2013/07/22/apples-developer-site...

autoexec 4 hours ago|||
Whatever number they give publicly on how many US law enforcement requests they received you can be sure that number won't include anything they turned over the NSA which is probably everything in their cloud all of the time. We know they backdoored the devices (https://www.cultofmac.com/news/nsa-spyware-allegedly-gives-b...)
paimapi 3 hours ago|||
from NIST [0] to AT&T [1], the NSA has always had a backdoor into huge swathes of data created or transmitted through whatever means along with having Congress laws passed to retroactively make all of this collection legal [2]

it really makes you wish that the lesson the Ruby Ridge far-right took away was simple anti-authoritarianism and not the antisocial tendencies of racial separatism and a Judeo-Christian theocracy

[0] https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ethic... [1] https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-whistleblower-who-unc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(...

mistrial9 3 hours ago||
I will argue that Judeo-Christian theocracy tempered even more egregious "rule by might and violence" that has always been a real factor
lostlogin 1 hour ago|||
> you can be sure that number won't include anything they turned over the NSA

Once the requests number in the tens or hundreds of thousands, including NSA requests isn’t going to result in ‘Ha, gotcha!’

Are any of the requests identifiable?

jrexilius 3 hours ago|||
You understand that there is difference between US law enforcement and the intelligence community? And that all service providers are required, by law in almost ALL countries, to respond to legal requests from their governments? What you are citing is not any serious evidence of some shadowy conspiracy between apple and the "government".. Not that I believe Apple's bullshit about protecting users privacy, but you're grasping at straws there.
onetokeoverthe 1 hour ago||
[dead]
yesod 56 minutes ago||
We had a Kendall Square Research machine with a NeXT front end. Can't say what it was being used for though, but it did take a lot of security clearances to get into that machine room...
drewg123 3 hours ago||
“Nobody had business cards”

That sounds accurate. I worked for a NIC company that had one of the first full speed 10GbE packet sniffers in the early 2000s, and some of our customers were 3-letter govt agencies. We'd get support requests / bug reports with almost no details from random aol.com addresses. It was bizarre.

palmotea 3 hours ago||
> ...some of our customers were 3-letter govt agencies. We'd get support requests / bug reports with almost no details from random aol.com addresses. It was bizarre.

You'd think they could at least setup a front company at least. Using AOL addresses that way seems too suspicious. Competent person using AOL with a weird technical question? Must be the NSA.

drewg123 3 hours ago|||
And the incompetent questions all came from defense contractors..
kotaKat 2 hours ago|||
Hey now, Flowers By Irene was just really connected to the World Wide Web back then. Who knew Teleflora was a secret numbers station?
raverbashing 3 hours ago||
Funny

You know there's the "excessive formalism and thorough certifications" for some gov positions (sounds like red lamp), but I don't doubt there's the "you didn't see anything" level where the objective is to pretend it's just a disinterested party asking some funny questions.

mrhottakes 5 hours ago||
CIA funding helped keep a lot of industries afloat in the 20th century.
dataviz1000 4 hours ago||
CIA funding helped keep Abstract Expressionist artists like Jackson Pollock afloat, serving as propaganda for freedom of expression and individualism in contrast to Soviet collectivism.
alexjplant 4 hours ago|||
Fellow readers whose interests are piqued by this comment: this is apparently true. This book [1] talks about it in greater depth. From Wikipedia:

> [The author] describes the growth of the Abstract Expressionist art movement, and its frequent showcasing in New York's Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), as largely a CIA-sponsored operation [...] Since many abstract expressionist painters and sculptors were anarchistic, and strongly anti-CIA, a "long leash" policy was adopted that "kept CIA operatives at a remove of two or three degrees from the artists and art exhibitions—sometimes even more—so that they could not be linked to any furtive governmental bankrolling."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Paid_the_Piper%3F

faidit 3 hours ago|||
This narrative has been popularized all over social media for the last couple years.

Obviously it's true and not a surprise to anyone familiar with the history. But no one is asking more complex questions: why is it being pushed by algorithms and networks ultimately controlled by the same powers? Is it a "limited hangout"? Well poisoning? What does the "CIA" gain from revealing a sliver of its past activities and discrediting (both directly and by insinuation) a large number of radical artists and thinkers?

oldsklgdfth 1 hour ago|||
My brain tingles when I hear "three letter letter agency did X"

But my take on the question: "why is it being pushed by algorithms" is that it is a property of the medium of "algorithmic feeds".

YT, shorts, etc. are a great medium for attention grabbing in a way that is district from TV. Broadcast TV caters to the "average" viewer, ex. Sienfeld, Johnny Carson show. "Algorithmic TV" caters to specialized viewers. Fringe ideas and science, "the truth about X". The crown prince of "algorithmic TV" (IMO of course) is Joe Rogan. For every niche quest he has on, there's many more YT channels on that topic. Weird history, ancient aliens, psychedelics.

So I don't really think the "algorithms" are controlled, rather they "algorithm" elevate weird ideas more than other mediums.

qarl2 3 hours ago||||
One idea - these days there are many MANY more players using the same strategy - maybe the CIA wants us to be aware of the technique to limit its effectiveness.
willy_k 3 hours ago||||
Not a direct response to your question; I figure you or others reading this may be interested in the thoughts of the host of The War on Beauty (best found on youtube).
DANmode 26 minutes ago|||
Simple enough mechanism in use for normies on YouTube to grasp, vague nationalistic bend, and plenty of people who don’t know makes great YouTube click rates.

I like your comment, though.

sourdecor 3 hours ago|||
That was because Russia was creating actual art and laughing at the media America produced.
TFNA 12 minutes ago|||
Within the former USSR, there is very, very little demand today for the socialist-realist works produced during the Stalin era. No one goes to see museum exhibitions of the visual art except as a historical oddity, and the literature of that time is rotting unread in myriad provincial libraries. Its own market rejected it. Meanwhile, some of the Western abstract expressionists still appeal to a decent audience of art lovers.
a34729t 2 hours ago||||
Russia has exceptional art education and the best art school in the world. I am proud as an American that we weaponized shitty art as a cultural weapon (Pollock bukkake)
throw-the-towel 2 hours ago|||
What art school do you mean?
a34729t 14 minutes ago||
St. Petersburg Institute for Painting, Sculpture and Architecture
anigbrowl 1 hour ago|||
Is this ironic or did you inadvertently omit a word
PearlRiver 3 hours ago|||
The USSR was selling art to fund the KGB. Stone glass houses.
Arkhaine_kupo 3 hours ago||||
> CIA funding helped keep Abstract Expressionist artists like Jackson Pollock afloat

No.

I swear CIA exploits go through so many games of telephone, that reality is whatever people want by the end.

The CIA was involved in including artists like Pollock in the 60s in the MoMA, by then he was well established.

The aim of the CIA was to use american art in juxtaposition to USSR propaganda. Freedom and individualism vs the boring state propaganda of russian workers that people saw leave the iron curtain.

This would be similar to now a days helping american movies get through Chinese censors or to win the Cannes award to showcase how good hollywood and america is. You still need to make the 200 million blockbuster first before the CIA uses their influence.

The myth also perpetuates the idea that modern and contemporary art is basically worthless and that its only valuable because of psyop campaigns from "them" (make it the cia, rich money laundering, sometimes weird antisemetic things take your pick), when in reality Pollock and Rothko were incredibly talented artists and their art has endured well after the CIA ended its operation

coliveira 38 minutes ago|||
The art may have been created independently, but rich money laundering is the main reason why that art is considered valuable. Remember that this is a movement created in NYC, where they perfected the connection between strange new art forms and billionaire collections of paintings valued into the several million dollars.
detourdog 2 hours ago||||
The problem with this approach is that the Russian Constructivists and their dealers were very successful in the Soviet Union.

https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-russian-constructivism/

alwa 2 hours ago|||
Why is that a problem? Two schools can both produce good work, and still illustrate a contrast.

If a muscular Soviet art scene embarrassed the Americans into juicing up their own art scene, isn’t that good and healthy for both?

detourdog 1 hour ago||
I meant the CIA’s approach to destabilizing the Soviet Union through artistic expression. Definitely good for the Art World.
jhbadger 1 hour ago|||
Under Lenin sure. Not so much under Stalin, though. He had old fashioned tastes and disliked abstract art. He preferred "socialist realism" which featured cheesy pictures of happy peasants and tractor drivers working to build Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism

detourdog 1 hour ago||
That could be I don’t know much history and my school never offered classes to study Soviet Realism unlike Russian Constructivism.
dylan604 2 hours ago||||
Damn, now I'm going to see every Pollock image as some sort of encrypted data where it just looks random because you don't have the key.
altmanaltman 4 hours ago||||
You are correct in the sense that CIA was absolutely using art as a propoganda tool and highlighting how US has such a strong artistic foundation. But that doesn't mean they were personally financially keeping Pollock afloat because it somewhat implies that Pollock is a product of CIA funding when in reality, CIA used Pollock's work as an asset in their cold war.
throwitaway___ 4 hours ago|||
Yes, in a similar way to how RATM’s music was used in Guantanamo.
redsocksfan45 4 hours ago|||
[dead]
random_ind_dude 4 hours ago|||
Nothing says rugged individualism like some good-old state-sponsored abstract art.
teekert 8 minutes ago|||
American industries that is. (I’m currently reading the new Economic Hitman.)
joezydeco 4 hours ago|||
Those sub-miniature microphones and speakers in your phones? More CIA investment, eventually commercialized by companies like Knowles.
ludicrousdispla 3 hours ago|||
they were an early sponsor of the research that yielded relational databases, so I guess we can thank them for Oracle as well
justincormack 3 hours ago||
Yes they were a major early customer for Oracle, there is a little in [1] but not much, some hints that the first customer was running Oracle in a submarine.

[1] https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20...

KellyCriterion 3 hours ago|||
...and from US military perspective, a lot of these "investment" paid in the end to their favour, Id say?
bflesch 3 hours ago|||
It's not like CIA has some mastermind strategy, it is also a preferred career for old money nepo kids who gain quasi-global legal immunity from these government roles. CIA job is much better than being a honorary consul for some shithole just to evade parking tickets.

If those nepo kids like to mingle in the NYC artsy scene, then that's where the funds flow.

high_na_euv 4 hours ago|||
And somehow people freak out some bullshit about free market when there is gov intervention, even if it is reasonable
voakbasda 4 hours ago|||
Let’s be clear: if the CIA was doing it, then it was not overt and obvious. It was secret manipulation.

Is that the kind of government intervention that you want to get?

huxley 4 hours ago|||
As a general rule, probably not ...

But if I had my druthers, I'd rather the CIA was "manipulating" us more often by subsidizing jazz artists rather than funnelling cash and prisoners to torture sites in El Salvador.

You dig?

tharmas 3 hours ago||
Two Thumbs up!

It's time more people fully understood the meaning of "I don't care what color the Cat is, as long as it catches the Mouse".

willy_k 2 hours ago||
Which is an opinionated rephrasing of the question whether ends justify the means. It’s not clear cut.
mannanj 4 hours ago|||
[flagged]
john_strinlai 4 hours ago|||
if you have anyone specific in mind, you should email hn@ycombinator.com

if you dont have anyone specific in mind, this comment does nothing except "FUD"

edit: really, getting downvoted into oblivion for this? baseless and general accusations of deepstate actors is really what we want the comment sections of hn to be?

enragebait 4 hours ago||
Absolutely certainly true.

You’re naive if think there is an intelligence organization in the world who can log into the internet who doesn’t scrape analyze and opinionate over the intellectual bastion which is HN.

john_strinlai 3 hours ago||
baseless and generally-applicable accusations of deepstate activity are worthless as a comment.

that does not mean i dont think governments, corps, etc. aren't scraping data or even attempting to shape narrative. but i dont want to read general, non-actionable, vague comments about deepstate actors while browsing hn.

comments like that are not interesting, they don't pique curiosity, they don't promote good conversation, and there's nothing to learn from them.

they are a net negative on hn.

mannanj 1 hour ago|||
I've responded to you in one of the deeper threads below. I'll avoid creating too many open threads. I am disappointed though in your overly critical, quick to judge and dismiss attitude where you are stating your opinions as though they are fact:

> "they don't pique curiosity" > "they don't promote good conversation"

For you they don't. Who are you to judge and proclaim your own opinion as though it's fact for everyone? We call that gas lighting and bad faith on this side. And on hacker news, the community forum you are engaging in here, you agree to engage with good faith. Maybe you should question whether its possible to have a good conversation, learn something from this experience, if you'd retained an open mind.

john_strinlai 1 hour ago||
>And on hacker news, the community forum you are engaging in here, you agree to engage with good faith.

you should perhaps freshen yourself up on the other rules of engagement here. specifically this part:

Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

hulitu 3 hours ago|||
> there's nothing to learn from them.

Some people never learn. When the "police" is at their door, it is too late.

Forgeties79 4 hours ago|||
> deep state actors

Can we please not do this here? Can we please not vaguely gesticulate towards some government bogeyman anytime our comments are downvoted or flagged or just because we see something we don’t agree with?

To quote Sesame Street: One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn’t belong.

hulitu 3 hours ago||
> Can we please not do this here?

Why ? The quality of HN has decreased due to those paid propaganda spreaders. People shall have a minimum of spine.

john_strinlai 3 hours ago||
>People shall have a minimum of spine.

there is no "spine" involved in writing a generic, vague, one-liner about "being careful".

mannanj 1 hour ago||
Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me.

I've openly criticized the agency at hand, and faced prior risk and harm and ridicule and embarrassingly the most closed minded to these messages of mine are "rational types" in forums like these. Though as I shared, I'm unsure whether to judge them as legitimate accounts or propaganda/astroturf/deepstate actors.

I'd have been open to sharing some more info rather than being vague, though I think I'm needing a break from being gaslit and receiving hostility from my very own people for pointing things out even if what I shared was vague.

How do you think someone would really go about finding specificity of accounts here being deep state, any experience or advice on that matter? What would you think I could find on this, when this orgs entire premise would be going un-detected and having plausible deniability. Doesn't that mean I can not really provide you what you are asking. I don't have the journalistic experience or OSINT know how to validate these things. Maybe someone else does. Though you and I are entitled to our likes and dislikes and resorting to name calling when we are feeling uncomfortable or annoyed with a topic.

I've already shared my experience in these forums and have nothing to prove to you. For these kinds of matters, you can't even approach the topic without being vague or generic. Have you ever even seen a single thread anywhere where someone specifically shared concerns and wasn't ridiculed, attacked, ad hominemed, dismissed, marked as a crazy person or xyz? Please enlighten me. Help me understand how someone could "prove" to you what you are looking for.

Then again we accept the evidence that conforms to our beliefs. Are you being open minded? I think If you'd be open to hearing it or finding evidence for it, would you have found evidence for it already?

But please treat me with good faith and friendliness, you don't know me so you can't make these claims about me. Unless you looked through my comment history, in which case you'd see I have spine enough. Maybe someone motivated can go through my history, look at specific posts which are very obviously discussing this topic and my experience around it, have the AI go go and vibe code and do the investigation and make some dossiers.

And I'm incredibly vulnerable here. I don't even hide my real identity, I have risked a lot.

john_strinlai 1 hour ago|||
>Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me.

none of what i said is an "attack", nor ad hominem, nor questions your credibility.

im not asking you to prove anything either.

just don't post vague, non-actionable, generic, "be careful of the deepstate" style comments. that's it. there's many other places for you to do that. hn is not it.

Forgeties79 34 minutes ago|||
>Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me.

And you sound like another sea lion engaging in bad faith and wasting everybody’s time. We all know what’s going on here, just drop the act and move on.

kersplody 4 hours ago||||
And for people that know their history, the DoD basically built Silicon Valley as we know, funding research and buying essentially 100% of the output of valley fabs for several years for Radars, then ICBMs, and then flight computers (F14 was arguably the first modern microcomputer) from about 1962-1972. Only when silicon companies scaled beyond this demand did the consumer computer revolution begin to take flight.
shwaj 3 hours ago|||
Your tone implies that the same people who freak out about reasonable gov intervention, are also (hypocritically) okay with the shenanigans being discussed.

Who are these straw men you refer to?

potus_kushner 3 hours ago||
that's why they're called "the company" in insider circles. they still do, openly and probably also covertly. their investment arm is called in-q-tel https://www.iqt.org/portfolio , funding things like gitlab and docker. they probably run half of silicon valley. the dead giveaway is a funding story about 2 guys in a garage or dorm.
coliveira 21 minutes ago||
The garage or dorm story is the biggest myth they keep repeating, it's basically nonsense.
newsoftheday 5 hours ago||
I worked at a federal contractor in the mid-1990's with one customer. They bought a ton of NeXT machines.
comrade1234 3 hours ago||
I vaguely remember going to a presentation by a NeXT engineer about an enterprise objects/webobjects project they did for the USPS where they photograph every letter passing by on a high-speed conveyor, use realtime processing to get the zip code and then sort it onto the correct belt
WillAdams 3 hours ago|
Yeah, Rob Blessin of Black Hole Computing bought the Cubes and Slabs (sans hard drives) when the CIA moved on to white hardware. At the time, I didn't have the need/funds for a spare, but did grab a NeXT-branded Canon inkjet printer.
rsamtravis 1 hour ago||
If "buying the products they made" constitutes funding the company then I guess.
ok123456 1 hour ago|
Ross Perot used his connections, arranged that, and also personally invested in NeXT.

Then Steve Jobs just decided to flake out on them because it wasn't the direction he wanted to take the company.

More comments...