#DoD collaborations

[x--daughters-of-darkness--x]

"I held the power of a dying sun, I climb the altar and I claim my place as God, CIRCLE WITH ME"➥ SPIRITBOX feat. TATIANA SHMAYLUK

[postapocalyptic-cryptic]

More Than Meets the Eye: Transformers and the Justification of American Presence in the Middle East

Under the cut is an examination of the Bay Transformers movies as American military propaganda, specifically related to the War on Terror.

Tagging @canichangemyblogname because I think you'll find it interesting and @zipquips bc I know you liked it when I sent you the pdf

“ When we watch a movie, we consume sensory impressions. When we read an article in a magazine or see an advertisement, we consume. [...] What we consume can contain a lot of toxins. If we ingest these poisons, we are destroying this body, this consciousness, transmitted to us by our parents, our ancestors.”

-- Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, “Mindful Consumption”

“The Global War on Terror [was] an international, American-led military campaign launched following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks [in the United States]” (“Global War on Terror”). This is how the George W. Bush Presidential Library defines the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The site goes on to quote former President Bush as saying, “[The] oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. [...] The United States of America is a friend to the Afghan people, and we are the friends of almost a billion worldwide who practice the Islamic faith” (“Global War on Terror”). Over the next 20 years, the GWOT would cost at least 46,319 Afghan civilians their lives (Crawford 1). Across the so-called “Middle East,” (encompassing for the purpose of this paper the countries “around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea”), over 929,000 people lost their lives (“Middle East,” Crawford 1). 

On July 3, 2007, Transformers (T), the first live action Transformers film directed by Michael Bay, came out. It follows the story of Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Megan Fox) as they discover a race of alien robots (the Transformers) with whom Sam’s fate is coincidentally intertwined. The Autobots, a race of benevolent Transformers, have come to earth in search of the “Cube,” a source of great power that could help them in their war against the violent race called Decepticons. In their struggle to aid the Autobots with their mission and defeat the Decepticons, Sam and Mikaela face pushback from the United States military, which is attempting to hunt down and exterminate all Transformers following several violent interactions with Decepticons, who have also come to Earth seeking the Cube. Earth becomes the battleground for two great powers as the Autobots and Decepticons struggle to locate the Cube. Meanwhile, and most relevant to this essay, United States military officers fight the evil Decepticons both at home in the United States, in cyberspace (as the Decepticons search for information regarding the Cube), and abroad in Qatar, where United States military forces have been deployed in the GWOT. The existence of the GWOT in this fictional universe isn’t the only trace of reality to find its way into T. As I will demonstrate in the following essay, T is not only a product of its time, but a product of a collaborative effort between the film’s creators and the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to create a piece of military propaganda meant to legitimize United States military presence in the Middle East. First, I will conduct a review of two significant pieces of existing literature on the topic, contextualizing the movie within a political and economic framework. Then, I will dive deep into T itself, examining its overarching themes of American exceptionalism and interventionalism. 

In his essay “Transforming Transformers into Militainment: Interrogating the DoD-Hollywood Complex,” Tanner Mirrlees makes use of an interesting word: “militainment (military entertainment)” (Mirrlees 407). Militainment films serve a dual purpose, making money and painting the US military in a “positive light” on a global scale (407). As Mirrlees explains, this sort of film, often a product of direct collaboration between the DoD and Hollywood, is not new. “The formation of the DoD-Hollywood complex stretches back to the early 20th century,” and has brought us such hit films as Top Gun and Saving Private Ryan (409, 411). Militainment’s ubiquity lends it a certain invisibility in popular culture, but this does not make it harmless. In Mirrlees’s words, “Militainment short circuits democracy by turning the violence of the state into an object of pleasurable consumption as opposed to a subject of public deliberation” (408). Militainment works positive images of the US military deep into the public conscience of not just the United States, but of every country that consumes United States-produced militainment. That T is an example of militainment is no secret: Michael Bay states his cooperation with the DoD outright, going as far as to include members of the DoD in the credits of T (415). 

Though Mirrlees makes no mention of it in his essay, it’s worth taking a look at militainment through the lens of colonialism. The dictionary definition of colonialism focuses on the actual, physical occupation and subjugation of a place and its people, but others have defined it more broadly (“Colonialism”). In her book On Imagination, Mary Rueffle writes, “You can colonize a reader the way you can colonize a country” (Rueffle 23). Stretching the definition of “reader” to include consumers of militainment in all forms, film included, militainment can be seen as a cultural branch of the United States’s colonization of countries around the world, including in the Middle East. If militainment is colonialism and T is militainment, it becomes evident even without any analysis of the actual content of the film that T is a colonial text enacting an American colonial project on its viewers. However, we needn’t stop there. Looking deeply into the film itself, the pervasiveness of colonial themes becomes impossible to ignore. 

In his Master’s thesis American Socio-Politics in Fictional Context: Transformers and the Representation of the United States, David William Underwood makes a case for the Transformers franchise, and T in particular, as an advertisement for American interventionalism (the tendency of the United States to insert itself into foreign affairs as a paternalistic savior figure).  This interventionalism is usually in the name of peace and democratic progress, “with the United States as ‘the embodiment of freedom and liberty’ in the world” (Underwood 84). Fictional support for American interventionalism is common in Transformers media, which tends to perpetuate “this perception of American intervention overseas as humanitarian operations that are in the best interests of the people of those nations rather than activities that are in the United States’ interests” (84). T is no exception. Underwood picks out one particular aspect of T as embodying the spirit of benevolent interventionalism: the interaction between a Qatari child named Mahfouz and the United States soldiers occupying Qatar. “Mahfouz” translates to “‘the protected one’ in Arabic,” a name that “is somewhat indicative of his role amongst the US forces” (84). The occupying soldiers and the native inhabitants of Qatar are shown to interact peacefully, and 

From this, it is possible to extrapolate a certain view of how America believes - or hopes - itself to be perceived in the world. This perception is one of a friendly, ultimately benevolent nation that seeks to improve the quality of life and personal situations of people living in the countries in which they establish a presence. (84)

During one interaction between the United States soldiers and the Qatari citizens, an encounter with a Decepticon leading to a United States airstrike leaves a small Qatari town in ruins (00:40:00-00:50:00 Bay). Despite this, “there is nothing to suggest that there is any unhappiness with the US military presence” (84). Instead, the town is portrayed as helpless, in need of defense by the friendly United States military. Here and throughout the film, America’s presence in Qatar is never questioned. Do the families of the 929,000 victims of the GWOT feel that America was friendly to them (Crawford 1)? Do they feel as though they were protected from danger? 

This relationship, the relationship between colonizer and colonized, is depicted in a positive light not only in the real-world example of the United States’ presence in the Middle East, but also through a fictionalized version of the same dynamic. In T, Earth becomes a battleground between two great powers seeking a source of energy hidden somewhere inaccessible. The similarities between this arrangement and that of the colonization of the Middle East, a region often fought over due to its supply of oil, cannot be overlooked, especially when the Autobots are so strongly associated with the United States. Optimus Prime is painted red and blue, the colors of the American flag. Furthermore, Optimus describes the Cybertron of the past, a Cybertron ruled by Autobots, as “a powerful empire, peaceful and just” (Bay 01:04:30). This language is shockingly similar to the language Underwood uses to describe America’s self-perception, “a friendly, ultimately benevolent nation” which imposes its will on other nations as it sees fit (Underwood 84). Even the relationship between Sam Witwicky and the Autobots mirrors that of the relationship between the American soldiers and Mahfouz. Just as Mahfouz assists the American soldiers in the scene beginning at 00:19:00, in which he leads the soldiers to his village to use his father’s phone, Sam assists the Autobots in finding a pair of glasses that can be used to locate the Cube (Bay). Sam feels protective of the Autobots despite the harm they have caused on Earth, even risking his life and facing down armed soldiers to protect Bumblebee (Bay 01:44:00). 

Though Underwood only touches briefly on T in his discussion of Transformers and American international relations, there is much more to be said on the subject. Having discussed American interventionalism, it’s time to discuss American exceptionalism, the insidious justification for colonialism that haunts the national story of the United States. Mirrlees defines American exceptionalism as “the idea that the United States has a unique role to play in the world, to lead and shape it, to protect the world from threats to it” (Mirrlees 420). This theme plays a large role in T, as the reader may have gathered during the discussion on interventionalism. It is because America feels it has something to offer the world that it feels justified in enforcing its will on other “less developed” nations, often without their consent, often by force. That this ideology played a role in the GWOT is evident in American descriptions of the GWOT. Former president George Bush is quoted as saying, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (Bush qtd. in “Global War on Terror”). The United States feels (or at least felt, during the GWOT), that it has a responsibility to keep the entire world safe from any threat, real or imagined. That the United States plays this “unique role” as the imagined head of the world is not a universally accepted point of view. It is, as Underwood puts it, “contentious outside of America,” and has, at times, been contentious inside the country as well (Underwood 83). Perhaps this is why the DoD was so keen on supporting a film that portrays American exceptionalism and interventionalism as absolute truths and universal goods, never questioned by the characters or the narrative. In fact, the narrative is built on the idea that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, both the obvious target of a hypothetical alien invasion and the obvious best defense against that invasion. 

At 00:07:30, the Decepticons begin their attack on the United States and, more specifically, on the American military intelligence network (Bay). Why the United States is the first and only target of this cyberattack is never considered. This plotline, which is integral to the film as it gives a reason for United States military engagement with the Transformers, reinforces and normalizes the idea that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, the one that aliens would notice first should they invade. Furthermore, when they invade, that the United States would take immediate violent action across international borders is also never questioned. At 00:17:50, the DoD dispatches troops internationally to fight the rising Decepticon threat mere minutes after the threat arises (Bay). There is no discussion of possible nonviolent solutions, no concern for the legality of international intervention, and no concern for the damage military action could (and does, as evidenced by the aforementioned bombing of the Qatari town) do to civilians. The United States responds to threats with immediate force, regardless of whether or not the threat is in America. 

As in reality, in the film, American exceptionalism is propped up on racist stereotypes. At 00:29:00, a character says technology capable of hacking an American military network is “way too advanced for Iranian scientists” (Bay). In fact, according to the character Maggie Madsen, a computer scientist, even a “super computer” would take “twenty years” to infiltrate American networks (Bay 00:37:00). American technology, then, is superior not only to that of Middle Eastern countries, but paradoxically, to technology itself. 

It is important to remember while considering the above information that T was not merely a creative project. It was designed with the intent to function as military propaganda in collaboration with the DoD. Not every film about the United States military receives DoD support. In fact, there are specific guidelines films must follow in order to gain DoD support. These requirements are outlined in the DoD’s Instruction 5410.16. They are extensive, but three stand out to me. First, the film must benefit the DoD and be in the “best interest of the Nation” (U.S. Department of Defense qtd. in Mirrlees 412). Second, the film must somehow aid in recruitment efforts for the United States military (Mirrlees 412). Third, the film must involve real military personnel and use real DoD equipment (412). Evidently, then, it benefits the DoD to portray American occupation of the Middle East as benevolent. Furthermore, the DoD at best does not mind and at worst benefits from racist remarks such as the aforementioned Iran comment. 

T, then, is not just an entertaining movie about giant space robots. It is a carefully and deliberately crafted attempt to work DoD-sponsored propaganda into the public consciousness via pop culture. Projects like this one, which are by their nature colonial (see pages 3-4), are perhaps the most insidious form of propaganda. Though an individual may be on guard against propaganda in expected places like military advertisements and presidential speeches, they may not be prepared to encounter it in the movie theater. Unless the viewer pays close, careful attention to what they are consuming, they could find themself swallowing the bitter pill of colonial justification without even knowing they were exposed to it. Perhaps just one film won’t make much of a difference in the collective consciousness of a nation, but this is merely an example of a trend. In his essay, Mirrlees mentions over twenty films by name, and there is evidence that thousands of films may share similar origin stories with T (Mirrlees 413, 410). How has the DoD influenced your thoughts on America and its colonization of the Middle East? Art is never just art, especially when it’s funded by the DoD. Every piece of media contains a message, so next time you sit down to watch a movie, ask yourself: is there more to your entertainment than meets the eye?

Works Cited

Bay, Michael, director. Transformers. DreamWorks Pictures, 2007. 

Crawford, Neta C. and Catherine Lutz. “Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones, Afghanistan & Pakistan (Oct. 2001-Aug. 2021); Iraq (March 2003-Aug. 2021); Syria (Sept. 2014-May 2021); Yemen (Oct. 2002-Aug. 2021) and Other Post-9/11 War Zones.” Costs of War. 2021. 

“Global War on Terror.” George W. Bush Presidential Library, https://www. georgewbushlibrary.gov/research/topic-guides/global-war-on-terror. Accessed 25 Nov. 2023. 

Hanh, Thich Nhat. “Mindful Consumption.” Parallax Press, Parallax Press, 22 Nov. 2022, www.parallax.org/mindfulnessbell/article/mindful-consumption/. 

“Colonialism.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonialism. Accessed 25 Nov. 2023.

“Middle East.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 30 Nov. 2023, www.britannica.com/place/Middle-East. 

Mirrlees, Tanner. “Transforming Transformers into Militainment: Interrogating the DoD-Hollywood Complex.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 405-434. 

Ruefle, Mary. On Imagination. Sarabande Books, 2017. 

Underwood, David Williams. American Socio-Politics in Fictional Context: Transformers and the Representation of the United States. 2013. University of East Anglia, Masters of Arts by Research dissertation. 

[mythos321]

Any silly updates or new info on the wof actors au you'd like to share with the class.... /nf

mayhaps

since you asked me, I’ll think up something for The False DoD off the top of my head!

Squids actor was originally gonna have a bigger role, but due to heavy scheduling conflicts, his character had to be written out quicker than planned with some key scenes being cut. He actually almost regrets it, mainly cause the thing he had to leave arc 1 for won multiple dragon razzies(He actually was a standout performer for it however). He’s a very charismatic guy outside the show despite his shorter stature. He was more than happy to come back for Book 7, even if only briefly

Ochres actor auditioned as a joke, and was shocked to land the role. He actually finds his character interesting and thinks there’s some potential to him. He doesn’t do much if any acting outside of his Ochre role, and mainly just uses it as trivia to tell people at a party. He’s way less selfish than his character

Vipers actress was actually pretty established in the business, with many being shocked at her character being the one killed off because of it. She also was asked to play the role instead of auditioning.

Flames actor is who came up with the idea of Flames mother, feeling it could add some much needed depth to Flame, particularly since he ends up being the second most prominent of the false DoD, though he’s disappointed it’s not brought up much afterwards. He thinks Flame being a student is a little dumb considering he’s the same age as most of his teachers, but is also happy his characters even there.

Fatespeakers actress is named Midnight, and she LOVED the story of the dragonets as a kid, and was so excited to play the role of Fatespeaker. She eats up every scene she’s in due to how much she loves it, and considers it a great time whenever she comes back. She’s very sad as how some people treat her character though, but she doesn’t let it get to her too much, especially when she knows Fatespeaker has great fans in spite of that, such as Starflights actor Goodsight!

(actor au made in collaboration with @g12-3 )

[mariacallous]

Addressing a single executive order from Donald Trump’s voluminous first-day edicts is like singling out one bullet in a burst from an AK-47. But one of them hit me in the gut. That is “Establishing and Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency.’’ The acronym for that name is DOGE (named after a memecoin), and it’s the Elon Musk–led effort to cut government spending by a trillion bucks or two. Though DOGE was, until this week, pitched as an outside body, this move makes it an official part of government—by embedding it in an existing agency that was formerly part of the Office of Management and Budget called the United States Digital Service. The latter will now be known as the US DOGE Service, and its new head will be more tightly connected to the president, reporting to his chief of staff.

The new USDS will apparently shift its former laser focus on building cost-efficient and well-designed software for various agencies to a hardcore implementation of the Musk vision. It’s kind of like a government version of a SPAC, the dodgy financial maneuver that launched Truth Social in the public market without ever having to reveal a coherent business plan to underwriters.

The order is surprising in a sense because, on its face, DOGE seems more limited than its original super ambitious pitch. This iteration seems more tightly centered on saving money through streamlining and modernizing the government’s massive and messy IT infrastructure. There are big savings to be had, but a handful of zeros short of trillions. As of yet, it’s uncertain whether Musk will become the DOGE administrator. It doesn’t seem big enough for him. (The first USDS director, Mikey Dickerson, jokingly posted on LinkedIn, “I’d like to congratulate Elon Musk on being promoted to my old job.”) But reportedly Musk pushed for this structure as a way to embed DOGE in the White House. I hear that inside the Executive Office Building, there are numerous pink Post-it notes claiming space even beyond USDS’s turf, including one such note on the former chief information officers’ enviable office. So maybe this could be a launch pad for a more sweeping effort that will eliminate whole agencies and change policies. (I was unable to get a White House representative to answer questions, which isn’t surprising considering that there are dozens of other orders that equally beg for explanation.)

One thing is clear—this ends United States Digital Service as it previously existed, and marks a new, and maybe perilous era for the USDS, which I have been enthusiastically covering since its inception. The 11-year-old agency sprang out of the high-tech rescue squad salvaging the mess that was Healthcare.gov, the hellish failure of a website that almost tanked the Affordable Care Act. That intrepid team of volunteers set the template for the agency: a small group of coders and designers who used internet-style techniques (cloud not mainframe; the nimble “agile” programming style instead of the outdated “waterfall” technique) to make government tech as nifty as the apps people use on their phones. Its soldiers, often leaving lucrative Silicon Valley jobs, were lured by the prospect of public service. They worked out of the agency’s funky brownstone headquarters on Jackson Place, just north of the White House. The USDS typically took on projects that were mired in centi-million contracts and never completed—delivering superior results within weeks. It would embed its employees in agencies that requested help, being careful to work collaboratively with the lifers in the IT departments. A typical project involved making DOD military medical records interoperable with the different systems used by the VA. The USDS became a darling of the Obama administration, a symbol of its affiliation with cool nerddom.

During the first Trump administration, deft maneuvering kept the USDS afloat—it was the rare Obama initiative that survived. Its second-in-command, Haley Van Dyck, cleverly got buy-in from Trump’s in-house fixer, Jared Kushner. When I went to meet Kushner for an off-the-record talk early in 2017, I ran into Van Dyck in the West Wing; she gave me a conspiratorial nod that things were looking up, at least for the moment. Nonetheless, the four Trump years became a balancing act in sharing the agency’s achievements while somehow staying under the radar. “At Disney amusement parks, they paint things that they want to be invisible with this certain color of green so that people don't notice it in passing,” one USDSer told me. “We specialized in painting ourselves that color of green.” When Covid hit, that became a feat in itself, as USDS worked closely with White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx on gathering statistics—some of which the administration wasn’t eager to publicize.

By the end of Trump’s term, the green paint was wearing thin. A source tells me that at one point a Trump political appointee noticed—not happily—that USDS was recruiting at tech conferences for lesbians and minorities, and asked why. The answer was that it was an effective way to find great product managers and designers. The appointee accepted that but asked if, instead of putting “Lesbians Who Tech” on the reimbursement line, could they just say LWT?

Under Biden no subterfuge was needed—the USDS thrived. But despite many months of effort, it could not convince Congress to give it permanent funding. With the return of Trump, and his promises to cut government spending, there was reason to think that USDS would evaporate. That’s why the DOGE move is kind of bittersweet—at least it now has more formal recognition and ostensibly will get a reliable budget line.

How will the integration work? The executive order mandates that in addition to normal duties the USDS director will also head a temporary organization “dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda.” That agenda is not clearly defined, but elsewhere the order speaks of improving the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, systems, and infrastructure. More specific is the mandate to embed four-person teams inside every agency to help realize the DOGE agenda. The order is very explicit that the agency must provide “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.” Apparently Musk is obsessed with an unprecedented centralization of the data that makes the government go—or not. This somewhat adversarial stance is a dramatic shift from the old USDS MO of working collegially with the lifers inside the agencies.

Demanding all that data might be a good thing. Clare Martorana, who until last week was the nation’s chief information officer, says that while she saw many victories during her eight years in government tech, making big changes has been tough, in large part because of the difficulty of getting such vital data. “We have budget data that is incomprehensible,” she says. “The agency understands it, but they hide money in all kinds of places, so no one can really get a 100,000-foot view. How many open positions do they have? What are the skill sets? What are their top contracts? When are they renegotiating their most important contracts? How much do they spend on operations and maintenance versus R&D or innovation? You should know all these things.” If DOGE gets that information and uses it well, it could be transformational. “Through self-reporting, we spend $120 billion on IT,” she says “If we found all the hidden money and shadow IT, it's $200, $300, maybe $500 billion. We lose a lot of money on technology we buy stupidly, and we don't deliver services to the American public that they deserve.” So this Trump effort could be a great thing? “I’m trying very hard to be optimistic about it,” says Martorana. The USDS’s outgoing director, Mina Hsiang, is also trying to be upbeat. “I think there's a tremendous opportunity,” she says. “ I don't know what [DOGE] will do with it, but I hope that they listen to a lot of great folks who are there.”

On the other hand, those four-person teams could be a blueprint for mayhem. Up until now, USDS would send only engineers and designers into agencies, and their focus was to build things and hopefully set an example for the full-timers to do work like they do at Google or Amazon. The EO dictates only one engineer in a typical four-person team, joined by a lawyer (not known for building stuff), an HR person (known for firing people), and a “team lead” whose job description sounds like a political enforcer: “implementing the president’s DOGE Agenda.” I know that’s a dark view, but Elon Musk —and his new boss—are no strangers to clearing out a workplace. Maybe they’ll figure AI can do things better.

Whichever way it goes, the original Obama-era vibes of the USDS may forever be stilled—to be superseded by a different kind of idealist in MAGA garb. As one insider told me, “USDS leadership is pretty ill equipped to navigate the onslaught of these DOGE guys, and they are going to get the shit kicked out of them.” Though not perfect, the USDS has by dint of hard work, mad skills, and corny idealism, made a difference. Was there really a need to embed the DOGE experiment into an agency that was doing good? And what are the odds that on July 4, 2026, when the “temporary” DOGE experiment is due to end, the USDS will sunset as well? At best, the new initiative might help unravel the near intractable train wreck that is government IT. But at worst, the integration will be like a greedy brain worm wreaking havoc on its host.

[savagry]

# 𝚂𝙰𝚅𝙰𝙶𝚁𝚈 .       𝚃𝙷𝙸𝚂   𝚂𝙸𝙻𝙴𝙽𝙲𝙴   𝙸𝚂   𝙼𝙸𝙽𝙴   .    a private and selective roleplay blog for the intoner zero from 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝟯 ／ 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗴-𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗻 𝟯, written by lili. writing with mutuals only, 18+ only. dark and triggering themes abound, crossover ／ au friendly. please read rules below before proceeding.

mun: lili, 26 years old, she ／ her. likes coffee a little too much. abysmal sleeping schedule. chronically ill. please have no expectations of me being consistently active. og drakengard 3 ／ nier rpc writer, formerly wrote two under the url hatestragedies !

i don’t own drakengard ／ dod or nier, i don’t own zero, how i write her is how i write her.

i won’t interact with writers who are minors.

you don't need to be familiar with nier or drakengard, i can fit zero into almost any canon and i love making au's to fit her into your muse's world or to meet in the middle somewhere.

i’m down to write a lot of stuff and explore fleshing out all sorts of different types of bonds + relationships for zero, whether that be decided from the start of plotting or by feeling stuff out through threads. duplicates of a character will always be handled differently from one another.

stuff that’s ought to be tagged will be tagged. if you need me to tag something for you, gimme a ping. i’ll never write rape, incest, pedophilia, etc. i have no desire to write any smut. sexual themes are likely to be mentioned considering zero’s sexual libido from her condition as an intoner and her former occupation as an enslaved sex worker. the world of drakengard is extremely dark, even more dark than nier (which it precedes), so please bear in mind that a lot of disturbing themes regarding death, (mass) murder, religion, and a bunch of other triggering themes are within the realm of dod. a google search will make it obvious what else dod entails.

please understand that in-character actions, thoughts, and feelings do not reflect my own thoughts or feelings, and please do not project your feelings about zero towards me (the writer), use your muse to enact your own desires towards my muse, or cross any boundaries with me beyond platonic. no weirdness, please. even if we’re okay with shipping our muses, i have a serious line between what’s in-character and what’s out-of-character, and i will never place my personal investment to that degree. shipping our muses is only between the characters. this may sound just like common sense, and i’m sure plenty of you decent folk are just here for the enjoyment of collaborative imaginary writing as i am, but personal experiences make it necessary for me to explicitly state this.

i do not  base my characterization for zero off of how zero is portrayed through the official western localization of the game, and instead on how uchida maaya portrays her. i’m in the camp that the eng localization made tweaks to her that don’t translate well to the source, like making her vulgar and spewing curses in every sentence. i understand and respect if that’s how people enjoy her, but i disagree with the liberties taken in framing her differently, though i am certainly a fan of tara platt!

zero is very problematic, i don’t intend to sanitize it. however, that doesn’t make it impossible for her to be soft or have good things. she is not familiar with it, in giving or receiving, and her affections are often hidden after a life of being taken advantage of and exploited, and in turn, doing wrong against others for what she considers best for her survival. she has the self-awareness to do better but generally has the lack of care to change. given her mission in the story, it’s understandable since by no means is zero a good person or a hero, but she is most definitely not in any realm of black and white “evil”. do with that what you will.

don't steal my shit. everything i've made on my blog thus far is all made by me, gift edits from a friend, or commissioned for this blog, as referenced at the very bottom of my page.

i’m super crossover friendly, i’m down for oc’s, and i love writing with castmates. i will not be interacting with duplicates.

i do use icons and a lil bit of fancy formatting in my writing but you don’t have to, i don’t really care. i’ll turn replies to an ask into a separate post though.

due to chronic illness, work, and other life circumstances, my well-being takes precedence over my hobby. please understand that as i extend the same courtesy to you! i will be putting up announcements if i'll be on low activity, so as to not raise expectations too high of fast replies. i'm always happy to chat in im or dm, or to plot, but writing takes more spoons. never hesitate to ping me for inquiries, plot discussions, dynamic stuffs.

CREDIT TO @poetryrph for my header banner and pinned banner, @remgfx for post dividers, blog icon, and head banner, @floragfx for my blog theme, icon psd, pinned divider, post dividers, and promo.

[random2908]

We're going through the absolute dumbest drama at work lately with a funding agency. It was looking like it was all going to turn out in our favor (through, like, the stupidest means possible). But today they just threw a curveball at us that is so insane. So insane for a funding agency to meddle in that. That even though we're probably going to win in the end, they might drag our reputation through the mud in the middle.

So. Ok. This guy pretty high up in the DoD got Congress to put a pretty big earmark for our tech in the 2024 budget. (And by big, I mean, if we asked an investor for help they'd laugh and give us twice as much just for us, rather than having to split this government money between us and our competitors; maybe they'd introduce us to their investor friends and it would be 10 times as much. But we're an employee-owned company, and most of us employees are afraid of investors, so that's not happening.)

The catch ended up being that a specific agency within the DoD got the rights to distribute most of it. And that agency decided to make a rule that they were mainly going to consider small-business/giant-corporation partnerships. Well. That's not great for us, a small business who was hoping to just, like, get some of this money. But luckily we already had existing partnerships with two giant corps. The agency split the money into three pots, and two of them were for projects we thought we could do. So we told our favorite company we'd apply for the easy one with them, and our not-favorite company we'd apply for the hard one with them. (Not-favorite because we think they're semi-secretly trying to steal our IP and then use their fleet of literally thousands of engineers, compared to our 35 total employees, to run us out of business.) Favorite company said, great, let's do it. Most-detested company said, wait, we could do both these projects, shouldn't we apply for both? We (and by we I mean my bosses) told company-we-don't-like that we'd apply for one section with them but we didn't think it was a good idea to apply for both because we might look greedy; but they could do whatever the hell they wanted with the other section, if they didn't mind looking greedy.

Both our applications got rejected three months ago. For the harder project, we suspect it went to a completely different technological approach, so, ok I guess. For the easier project, though.... Evil-corp's application won... in which they said they'd hire us to do it under their supervision.

Which means they'd have all the IP. But also, stupid stupid them, they'd have none of the physicists, just the engineers. What the fuck do they expect to be able to do, hiring physicists as simple artisans rather than collaborating with us as thinking physicists, and having no physicists of their own who understand how the tech actually works.

And, here's their hubris, here's the first step from over a year ago when we realized they were trying to steal our own project out from under us: even in the existing partnership, they originally purchased a quantum device and a control box from us. And then collaborated with us on a new device design, but said they'd make their own control boxes from here on out. But they seem not to understand what's actually in the control box, and how tailored it is to the quantum device.

So, ok, we thought: they'd hire us to make the quantum device that they design (oh, cue tangent about how the current iteration--from our existing partnership--that they've designed with their fleet of engineers is unmachineable, i.e. we can't get a vendor who is willing to make the chassis for us; their design skills are hopeless). We'd do our level best to build it very well for them. I'd use one of my spare control boxes (I build/supervise the control boxes) and test it out for them (I'm one of the two testers), and do whatever I needed to to get it working. We'd send them those results, and the device. Then they'd hook it up to the legacy control box they bought from us last year (that doesn't have my newest upgrades), and one of their untrained just-out-of-college techs would try it out, and wouldn't get anything out of it. But we'd have proof that it's just user error, and so they'd lose (can't finish the project) and we'd win (reputation intact, plus the bit of money they'd give us for building it--not much, but something anyway).

This is the scenario that my coworker (the other tester, and supervisor for building the devices) and I have daydreamed about to each other frequently over the past month, to console ourselves about having lost the contest to actually get the grant money.

Meanwhile, our CEO went to talk to the government agency like, we're the leaders in this field, why did you reject all our applications?? And he was like, we didn't reject all of them! We accepted the one with dumbass-corporate-thieves! Our CEO was like, that wasn't our application, we're just a subcontractor on it, it wouldn't involve any of our IP or physics knowledge. And the government official was like... Oh fuck. But I hate Nice-company, you know that right? You know I couldn't let that application through because I hate them? Why did you even write an application with them? (If you knew the name of nice-company, you'd immediately be like, "oh that makes sense." Even though the department collaborating with us on quantum devices has nothing to do with the department making, oh, let's say, airplane doors.) So the government official was like, well, the contract with the smug-idiots isn't finalized yet, I can try to steer it so that you're less subcontractors and more partners in this. And of course, our CEO couldn't say, well, we don't want to be partners with them, because they're thieves and also stupid and mean. But he also knew they wouldn't agree to it in any real way and it was moot. So he just said ok. It's at least comforting to know... I guess... that the government did intend to fund us, in particular, they just didn't read the applications very carefully.

Ok, so that's the first fork, that's been playing out over the last couple months since the applications were due.

But meanwhile, in addition to our partnerships with those two large corps, we also had project funding from a certain branch of the military, and from an unnamed government agency (even I'm not supposed to know who it is, I think). The latter project is sunsetting--it's six years old, a full year past the end of the contract. But the director of that project told us, we should go quietly asking around in Washington DC to see who's disgruntled that the one agency got to distribute all these funds, and see if anyone wants to compete with them by directly sponsoring us (without asshole-corp tagging along). The other project, the military-branch project, is right in the middle right now: we're approximately half done and have about a year left to finish. And it transpired that right after this agency, the one with all the money, announced who the money was going to at the end of September, they then announced who their liaisons would be in each military branch. And they picked some random dude that they're personally friends with in this particular branch, rather than anyone out of the relevant department for this type of tech. So now, the actual department is like "we can't trust whatever end product comes out of this other agency's project." So suddenly, someone who is already funding us--already feels personally invested in our success--has become exactly who the secret-person told us to look for: someone in the government who resents the contest judges and wants to hold a separate competition against them. So, two months ago, they were like "next year we'll end your project, because the future of the technology is this big grant from this other agency." And now suddenly they're looking for more money to throw at us, longer term and in larger amounts. (Not as much as if we'd won the grant competition, but still. Like I always say, we're academia-adjacent; even a million dollars is a lot to us.)

And the third fork: nice-corp is pissed that there's so much prejudice against them for the doors thing, so they want to renew their partnership with us, just to show up that government agency that held the contest.

So we lost the contest, but we might be getting two new projects out of it.

And then today's wrench, back to the first fork. The government agency just told the idiot-assholes that they were going to require the quantum tech be made of a different quantum material than originally planned. (I suspect because it's the material that JPL/NASA really likes.) There is absolutely no reason for this requirement, no reason for them micromanage something like material choice. What's really, deeply hilarious about this weird bit of meddling is that for us physicists, this barely matters; you can make some arguments one way or the other in terms of how well it works for the tech, but we can work with either material. My whole previous job was with the material we're currently using--between that job and this job, I've been using it for 8 years. But my whole PhD and postdoc was with the material that the government agency wants dumb-corp to switch over to. I know both these materials equally well, and so do all the other physicists here. Mainly the difference this makes is... You need to change all the components in the control box to match the material it's controlling! The one part of the project that now-seriously-screwed-corp contractually doesn't want our input on! And changing that many components all at once is never a risk-free undertaking, from a simple engineering perspective; except that we suspect they don't even know how to build a control box in the first place, so "risk" doesn't even cover it.

When my boss broke the news to me this afternoon, I was like, wait, are you telling me I have to build a control box just to test this thing, for free because me building a control box is outside the scope of the project? My boss was like, no. They'll build a control box and send it to us, so we can test the quantum device that we're going to build for them, out of the new material, based on their designs that we have very little input on, even though we're the physicists and they're not.

I was like ...but their control box isn't going to work. My boss was like, nope! I was like, so then the project isn't going to work. My boss, no :) it isn't :). I was like, ok, I know this won't be for another two years, but... how hard should I try to make it work? Because I can try really hard and probably do something. My boss was like no, don't do that. Absolutely do not try to fix their box. If it doesn't work, just tell them it doesn't work. Tell them what doesn't work about it, but not why, don't give them hints. Maybe you won't even know why! You don't know what they're putting in the box, how can you diagnose it for them!

So, yeah, this project isn't going to work, and we're going to look bad for it. But hopefully we'll be getting two additional projects out of it, thanks to spite! And if two of our three projects work then who cares, I guess.

[mylittlesecrethaven]

I Read Project 2025, So Here's A Rundown I Guess: Part 3.1

Idk if this counts as political, but I'm just reading the stupid book online and putting down what it basically says and some other stuff i Guess. (it could get political I guess? Idk. Just kinda wanted to make these posts since I'm reading the book and I kept getting annoyed with people just saying what the book says instead of writing down exactly what it says and what page to find it on)

(That's not saying I won't do the same thing, but for some things I'll rewrite what it says unless it just needs to be summarized. I will have page numbers though)

(also, if this stuff does go into effect, I will be fearing for my life and the lives of many others for the effects this could have on people. for lgbtq, minorities in religion, race, and ethnicity, and those who are poor. this will effect everyone and a lot of people should be afraid of it. that is not be getting political, that is me saying that this is a scary plan meant to give powerful people even more power)

(also, if you want a faster rundown than waiting for me to give shitty interpretations of this, go to the wiki here. it sums it up pretty well, but it doesn't state everything.)

Department of Defense Reforms -

Policy:

Focus most military efforts on keeping China from taking over Taiwan (Pages 93-94)

Encourage foreign allies to take up better arms against world enemies such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (Page 94)

Expand the U.S. nuclear arsenal to compete with China and Russia (Pages 94-95)

Help increase ally capabilities to fight against terrorism (Page 95)

Aquisition and Sustainment:

Improve the PPBE Process (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution), basically making the process through which stuff gets done in the DoD easier and more efficient (Pages 95-96)

Increase production of military weapons and ammunitions and allow for smaller businesses to help with the productions of such things (Pages 96-97) (and there was also something about how defense companies are required to use 100% American made weapons and ammunitions and that we should use weapons and ammunitions produced overseas by allies to speed up production)

Make it easier for military projects to get the go ahead and allow them to bypass "unnecessary departmental regulations that are not in the best interest of the government" within the laws range and also make it easier for people to work for the DoD in general (Pages 97-98)

Research, Test, and Evaluation:

Increase collaboration between DoD and scientists to make stronger, more powerful weapons and futuristic weapons faster to combat enemies (Page 99)

Increase speed of weapon deployment to the battlefield, and make the process of making final weapons out of prototypes easier, as well as make the prototype creation and testing process faster (Pages 99-100)

Create a better framework to protect the "technological leadership" that the U.S. holds over its enemies (Page 100)

[kushblazer666]

biden/harris on gaza right now is that that they keep leaking to the press that brandon is totally fed up with netanyahu on this one, he’s pissed, it’s totally a red line and this is where it’s gotta stop, meanwhile the blob and everyone else and their mother are devoted wholeheartedly to the zionist war effort and keeping arms flowing no matter what notwithstanding the collaboration of actual DoD units. meanwhile trump’s opinion is that bibi should be able to “finish this quickly.” so fundamentally we get the same outcome either way but one side has some shiny fancy window dressing you can use to still convince yourself you’re a good person for voting democrat if youre stupid enough to believe in fairy tales

[hasufin]

Arc’teryx’s new powered pants could make hikers feel 30 pounds lighter - The Verge

These were, I guarantee, developed for, and in collaboration with, the DoD. Assistive exoskeletons have been a DARPA target for 40 years that I know of.

[x--daughters-of-darkness--x]

SPIRITBOX feat. POPPY ➥ Live at Louder Than Life 2024

[vabroapp]

Is Your Agile User Story Truly "Done"? The Power of a Definition of Done (DoD)

Is Your Agile User Story Truly "Done"? The Power of a Definition of Done (DoD) User stories are a cornerstone of Agile, capturing user needs in a concise format. However, simply completing the core functionality of a user story is not enough. We need a clear definition of what "done" actually means. This is where the Definition of Done (DoD) comes in. What is Definition of Done (DoD)? The Definition of Done is an agreed-upon set of items that must be completed before a project or user story can be considered complete. Why do we need DoD? It outlines the specific criteria a user story must meet before being considered truly "done." The DoD is a collaborative effort. Ideally, the entire Agile team (developers, scrum masters, product owners) should be involved in crafting it. This ensures everyone has a stake in meeting the defined criteria. Here are 10 essential validation points for a sample DoD, with room for customization as per project needs: ✅ Have key stakeholders reviewed and approved the completed user story, including sign-off from the Product Owner?. ✅ Are all functionalities within the user story confirmed through successful unit acceptance testing?. ✅ Have dedicated Quality Assurance (QA) tests been completed and passed, ensuring the user story meets quality standards?. ✅ Is all user story documentation, such as user guides and API references, complete, accurate, and up-to-date?. ✅ Are all open issues related to the user story fixed and verified as closed? ✅ For functionalities involving APIs, are all API references validated and documented for future reference?. ✅ Have clear steps been defined and validated to ensure seamless deployment of the user story to the intended environment(s)?. ✅ Have all smoke tests, designed to verify core functionalities, been successfully run and approved?. ✅ Were any non-functional requirements, such as performance, security, or accessibility, included in the scope of the user story? If so, have these aspects been reviewed and approved? ✅ Have all key stakeholders with a vested interest in the project provided their final sign-off on the completed user story? By incorporating these validation points into your DoD checklist, you can ensure a more comprehensive and robust definition of "done" for your Agile user stories. Please share your suggestions, and inputs in the comments below.

🔗 Visit www.vabro.com to know more.

[usafphantom2]

Exercise Bushido Guardian brings together Japan and Australia

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 09/08/2023 - 12:00 in Military

Three of the six F-35A fighters of the Royal Australian Air Force en route to Japan, where they will participate in the joint exercise Bushido Guardian. (Photo: Australian DoD)

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) sent six F-35A Lightning II aircraft to Japan for the first time as part of Exercise Bushido Guardian 23.

The exercise takes place at Komatsu Air Base until September 15 and includes bilateral air combat training between the RAAF and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).

PLEASE TAP RELOAD TO VIEW👇

The F-35As of the FAAF will conduct training along with the air capabilities of the fourth and fifth generation JASDF, including the Japanese F-35As.

Air Marshal Rob Chipman, Head of the FAAF, said the exercise showed strength in Australia and Japan's commitment to a strong bilateral strategic partnership.

“The Bushido Guardian 23 exercise will increase our interoperability with JASDF, on the ground and in the air,” said Air Marshal Chipman. “Developing a mutual understanding of how each of us operates the F-35A is essential to how Australia and Japan contribute to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific.

"Our aviators will develop their skills abroad, 5,800 kilometers from home, and establish professional relationships with their Japanese colleagues."

The first Bushido Guardian Exercise was held in Japan in 2019, and this year's exercise is based on the success of the recent cooperation in the Pitch Black and Cope North exercises.

“The Bushido Guardian 2023 exercise follows a visit by the JASDF F-35As to the RAAF Tindal Base, which is the first time that the F-35As from Japan have embarked on an international visit,” said Air Marshal Chipman. "Collaboration in bilateral exercises throughout the Indo-Pacific provides both nations with valuable experiences in overcoming the challenges of distance in our common region."

In August 2023, the Australia-Japan Reciprocal Access Agreement entered into force, providing opportunities for more sophisticated cooperation between both nations.

Tags: Military AviationJoint ExercisesJASDF - Japan Air Self-Defense Force/Japan Air Self-Defense ForceRAAF - Royal Australian Air Force/Royal Australian Air Force

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Daytona Airshow and FIDAE. He has work published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. Uses Canon equipment during his photographic work throughout the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Boeing earns $474.5 million to provide EW systems for the Japanese F-15J

08/09/2023 - 11:00

MILITARY

The US should store nuclear weapons in Poland, says report

08/09/2023 - 08:35

MILITARY

IMAGES: Lockheed Martin presents the first F-16 Block 70 for Slovakia

07/09/2023 - 19:06

MILITARY

BOEING: F-15EX fighters for Poland

09/07/2023 - 12:10

MILITARY

Russian Shahed drones exploded in Romania, but Romanian president denies

06/09/2023 - 21:22

MILITARY

US plans to send more F-35 fighters to the UK amid tensions with Russia

09/06/2023 - 16:00

homeMain PageEditorialsINFORMATIONeventsCooperateSpecialitiesadvertiseabout

Cavok Brazil - Digital Tchê Web Creation

Commercial

Executive

Helicopters

HISTORY

Military

Brazilian Air Force

Space

Specialities

Cavok Brazil - Digital Tchê Web Creation

[mariacallous]

With the Ford’s departure, the USS Eisenhower is the lone US aircraft carrier in the region as tensions increase over Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

The Houthis have launched dozens of attacks on commercial vessels since October 7, saying they are acting in solidarity with Hamas amid the group’s war with Israel.

Over the weekend, US forces, including helicopters operating off the Eisenhower, had their first deadly confrontation with Houthi units, sinking three Houthi boats that had attacked a commercial ship and fired at the US copters that came to its aid.

“The US Navy helicopters returned fire in self-defense, sinking three of the four small boats, and killing the crews. The fourth boat fled the area,” a statement from US Central Command said.

US Sixth Fleet said even with the departure of the Ford, the US Navy retains “extensive capability both in the Mediterranean and across the Middle East.”

The Sixth Fleet statement said the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan, which can carry Marine Corps F-35 stealth fighters, as well as the dock landing ship USS Carter Hall and amphibious transport dock USS Mesa Verde were operating together in the eastern Mediterranean.

US guided-missile destroyers, including some of which have brought down Houthi drones and missiles in recent weeks, are also in the region, Sixth Fleet said.

In addition, the US has begun Operation Prosperity Guardian, a maritime coalition aimed at beefing up security in the southern Red Sea.

“We are collaborating with Allies and partners to bolster maritime security in the region. DoD will continue to leverage its collective force posture in the region to deter any state or non-state actor from escalating this crisis beyond Gaza,” the Sixth Fleet statement said.

[hallmark-movie-fanatics]

Hallmark Teams Up With U.S. Air Force for Upcoming Romance, Filmed Scenes on Nevada Base (Variety Exclusive)

Hallmark Movies and the United States Air Force Thunderbirds have collaborated to produce the upcoming romantic film “Come Fly With Me,” set to premiere on Sept. 15 at 9 p.m. ET. on Hallmark Moves & Mysteries.

Directed by Michael Robison, the film stars Heather Hemmens as Capt. Emma Fitzgerald, who receives a two year assignment at Nellis Air Force Base with the Thunderbirds team, the Air Force’s famed demonstration squadron. While there, her daughter Lucy (Pietra Castro) becomes friends with Alice (Georgia Acken), the daughter of a civilian widower named Paul (Niall Matter). The two girls hatch a plan to bring their single parents together, with Lucy hoping it will keep her mother from continuing to move around.

“Emma and Paul are drawn to each other and a spark develops, but Emma is overwhelmed by the demands of her Thunderbirds training and tells him she needs to focus on her flying,” the official description reads.”But when Alice’s health suddenly worsens, the thing keeping Emma and Paul apart could be what ultimately brings them all together.”

“Through this beautiful story, Hallmark Media is honored to celebrate and thank the commitment made by members of the military – and their families – as they serve our country,” says Elizabeth Yost, senior vice president of development, programming at Hallmark Media. “It is a long-standing priority for us to create movies set in this world, which resonate strongly with our viewers. We’re so proud to partner with the United States Air Force and DoD to bring this special, heartfelt story to life.”

To read the full article at Variety just click this LINK.

[govindhtech]

At Intel Foundry Event, Secures Government Microelectronics

Event Intel Foundry

Intel is committed to defending the domestic chip supply chain and reclaiming semiconductor dominance as the sole American semiconductor developer and manufacturer. Working with the U.S. government, Intel seeks to boost U.S. technological systems with creative, secure solutions.

The State-of-the-Art Heterogeneous Integration Prototype (SHIP) and Rapid Assured Microelectronics Prototypes-Commercial (RAMP-C) with the U.S. Department of Defence (DoD) have accelerated the development of advanced semiconductor technologies and demonstrate how public and commercial interests can collaborate to innovate and improve national security.

Intel's devotion and Intel Foundry's vital role have led to amazing advancements.

Industry-leading Intel 18A process technology enters risk production

The cutting-edge Intel 18A process node from Intel Foundry has transformed defence. For the first time in decades, USG and DIB clients may use cutting-edge technology alongside commercial customers. DIB clients adopting Intel 18A technology for their latest microelectronics and mission platforms will enhance military SWaP-C requirements.

According to Intel Foundry SVP and GM Kevin O'Buckley, the final Intel 18A PDK 1.0.1GA was released in Q4 2024, and Intel 18A technology is in risk production.

Building Intel 18A ITAR-compliant test chip support

One of the more intriguing IPSS announcements was allowing ITAR access to Intel 18A test chips. This ensures DIB clients may employ cutting-edge technology while meeting program requirements. For early 2026 tape-outs, the Intel 18A ITAR test chip shuttle is accepting reservations.

Adding 12nm to Foundry's roadmap

For clients who need onshore access to established technologies, Intel Foundry will provide 12nm process technology in 2026. This FinFET-based technology will be built in Arizona. DIB clients can create tape-outs in late 2026.

Onshore advanced packaging scaling

In order to address mission system requirements, Intel Foundry offers its cutting-edge heterogeneous packaging technologies, including as Foveros 3D, EMIB 3.5D, and EMIB, onshore. Chiplet libraries and advanced semiconductor packaging help customers quickly conceive, develop, build, test, and integrate cutting-edge devices into field equipment. For autonomous systems and secure communications, Intel cutting-edge packaging technologies provide the performance and security needed for mission-critical operations and enable the latest military technology to be available in sophisticated system-level packaging for SHIP.

Adding Secure Enclave and DIB customers to USG cooperation

Intel won the Secure Enclave (SE) program last year, building on its programmatic engagement in SHIP and RAMP-C. SE aims to boost the U.S. government's dependable manufacture of cutting-edge semiconductors.

Intel Foundry added Reliable MicroSystems and Trusted Semiconductor Solutions to its DIB client list earlier this year as part of RAMP-C's third phase. Intel Foundry's cutting-edge Intel 18A process technology and advanced packaging for high-volume manufacture and prototypes will benefit more DIB clients with their integration.

Ready to Serve: Intel Foundry

The Intel Foundry can meet government application needs. Due to its cutting-edge Intel 18A process technology, advanced packaging choices, and safe manufacturing, Intel Foundry can deliver high-performance, reliable, and secure semiconductor products. Intel Foundry may be a trusted partner in developing microelectronics for critical government applications using SOTA technology and close collaboration with the USG and DoD.

Intel Foundry Direct Connect

Attend Intel Foundry Direct Connect, the premier annual event in San Jose, California, on April 29, 2025, to network with government, defence, and aerospace experts. Connect with clients, defence industry experts, and USMAG alliance ecosystem partners to learn how process technology, cutting-edge packaging, and testing may support your ideas. At 9 a.m. PDT, CEO Lip-Bu Tan will start the event. Join today to learn about future systems foundry design and production.

Intel technology may need hardware, software, or service activation. No part or product is absolutely safe. Your costs and results vary.

[sideblogbutautismedition]

It’s genuinely so fascinating to me how the relationship between the DoD and CIA functions. Like, you have both arms of American imperialist-fascism and yet… they’re constantly at odds with one another.

While the branches of the military (and the military in general) had been established long before, following WWII Truman issued the National Security Act (1947), which officially established a centralised system of the military, otherwise known as the Department of Defence [DoD]

what the National Security Act ALSO did was establish an independent, civilian intelligence agency: the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA].

from the get go, the two were at odds. For one, despite the DoD being established the same day, the military and the Pentagon had already been functioning parts of the government for decades. American intelligence had only recently been introduced, with the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] being established in 1942 and dissolved in 1945. The thing is, the OSS was a wartime intelligence agency, and therefore under the command of the Pentagon. The CIA, however, being both an independent and civilian agency, was not.

Because the Pentagon had no control over the CIA, their next best idea was to fuck up literally anything and everything they could. Whether that came in the form of taking over tasks assigned to the CIA, refusing collaboration, denying the CIA’s authority over intelligence, and shit like that, it pretty quickly established that the CIA was very much unprepared for the US government.

once the CIA did actually manage to establish itself as a semi-functioning part of the government, the issues with the DoD did not end. This time they came in the issues of who would lead the paramilitary operations (technically speaking the CIA was supposed to operate all of them; alone during peacetime and in collaboration with the DoD during war, but that only somewhat worked) and the fight over budgets.

The CIA’s budget (and staff) was far larger than it is now (nowadays being only about 1/300th of it’s original size) and that heavily conflicted with the DoD’s massive fucking budget. Even today, the DoD makes up the majority of the US’s budget. It’s a ludicrous amount of money. But that’s a completely different topic.

another issue arose in later years with the establishment of the National Reconnaissance Office [NRO]. Officially speaking, the NRO is a child agency of the DoD. Its job is to produce and maintain satellites, mostly used for imaging and data collection. Its two largest customers are, unsurprisingly, the CIA and DoD. Yippie. Another competition relating to money.

and there’s probably more I could cover, but this is already eight paragraphs long. Soooooo