this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
606 points (99.3% liked)

Not The Onion

12562 readers
524 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] radix 133 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You didn't think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Came here to post this lol

You didn’t think they actually spent ten thousand dollars for a hammer and thirty thousand for a toilet seat, did you?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] kindernacht 58 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Independence Day (1996)

They just walked in to the underground lab beneath Area 51. The president was curious how it was paid for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What kindernacht said.

Judd Hirsch plays Jeff Goldblum's character's dad, who has low tolerance for bullshit lol

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm so fucking glad I'm not the only one who IMMEDIATELY thought of that guy saying that line

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

There's a bunch of us it seems 😂

[–] Yawweee877h444 8 points 1 month ago

I knew someone would post this fast and I was not dissapointed.

[–] P34C0CK 83 points 1 month ago
[–] solrize 62 points 1 month ago (2 children)

soap dispensers

Sounds like money laundering was going on.

[–] mlg 15 points 1 month ago

You ever see the video of the snap on socket being sold for 50k?

This is a regular occurrence in the MIC, it only comes up when you fail to deliver on something and the Pentagon actually decides to open an investigation.

[–] x00z 15 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Why? It's common knowledge you can easily ask 300% of your default price if it's the government. And soap dispensers are kind of needed. Nowadays companies often buy the non-touchy expensive ones. So it isn't really too weird.

[–] WhatAmLemmy 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So... what you're saying is too big to fail corporations are leaches and nationalizing them would be more efficient and cost effective than the current wealth transfer to shareholders?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

For its part, Boeing representatives announced they are “reviewing the report, which appears to be based on an inapt comparison of the prices paid for parts that meet aircraft and contract specifications and designs versus basic commercial items that would not be qualified or approved for use on the C-17,” the company said in a statement.

looks dubiously at dispenser

In what way is the right-hand soap dispenser not adequately qualified?

EDIT: It looks like the C-17 can fly pressurized, so I don't think that it can be undergoing pressure changes, which is the one thing that I could think of.

[–] Pyotr 42 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The COTS unit shown there is not tested and certified to the contract requirements Boeing was working to. Simple as. If the price ridiculous? Absolutely yes. But you cannot go to a home hardware store and slap one in a plane.

[–] SpaceNoodle 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I can slap it in a collapsible sub, I can slap it in an airplane!

Besides, it's not like it's supposed to be what's holding the door plug on.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everyone single part on a plane has to be certified and from a certified supplier that goes through a stupid process to be certified.

[–] SpaceNoodle 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, some of it ain't stupid.

Imagine the shortcuts Boeing would take if they were beholden to no certifications at all.

[–] Carighan 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Yeah we'd have planes falling out of the skies!

[–] SpaceNoodle 3 points 1 month ago

Or worse, unplanned.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hawke 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well ya can but you’re taking some risks if you do. Your soap dispenser might not work worth a shit if you haven’t tested it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm 90% sure these deals are a way to funnel money into defense contractors without having a suspicious paper trail.

Overcharge a bit here and there, and by sheer volume you get a nice shadow budget to build and operate things that aren't even supposed to exist.

[–] WhatAmLemmy 3 points 1 month ago

Welcome to the MIC. Have a gold star and a bunch of war crimes that would make Satan question his existence.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The cabin is usually pressurized to the equivalent of 8000 ft asl. So the dispenser does have to deal with pressure changes. A simple vent hole aught to take care of that though.

[–] mkwt 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Also, as the safety briefing says, "we do not anticipate a change in cabin pressure," but if a rapid decompression should occur, there was probably some provision made so that the soap dispenser doesn't just shatter or explode or something.

[–] y0din 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I would hate not to be able to use the dispenser if the plane lost cabin pressure.. how would I ever survive dying if I had dirty hands when it happened?..

[–] PaintedSnail 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Slippery soap all over the floor would complicate matters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pretty sure loss of cabin pressure doesn't equal death

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] riodoro1 44 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Isn’t that what the military is for? The rich need a public institution that simply pays them what they want.

[–] Bacano 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] AngryCommieKender 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Great quote. Better book. Written by "A True American Hero."

[–] antihumanitarian 37 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Stories like this are sometimes more complicated than they appear. The infamous examples of $500 hammers, for example, were anti sparking hammers for working around flammables or munitions, hence requiring special materials, certification, and low production runs.

For this case, we have liquid hand soap dispensed by a pump. Pumps require a sealed vessel. Unlike commercial planes, military planes are required to anticipate prolonged operation with an unpressurized cabin. At max altitude of a C17, atmospheric pressure is only 20% of sea level. Off the shelf dispensers are unlikely to be designed to withstand that pressure difference, let alone function normally. In a high demand environment like aerospace, even apparently minor failures like an exploding soap container needs to be taken seriously due to the possibility of unexpected cascading failures. Why not use bar soap, then? Unfortunately this too has complications, like not being able to be securely mounted, liquid soaps having superior hygiene and cross contamination characteristics, and necessity for military standardized soap, sometimes designed for heavy metal, eg lead, which is likely if the cargo were munitions.

This unusual set of requirements unlikely to be seen outside the military context, so whether designed by Boeing or off the shelf the unit would likely have low quantity manufacturing runs, significantly increasing per unit costs. Combine that with the necessary certifications and the per unit costs balloon even further.

While a soap dispenser having an 80x markup seems absurd, it might be more reasonable than it seems at first glance. To be clear, there absolutely is military contractor graft. I just don't expect even a $10,000 soap dispenser would be a substantial proportion if it even within the C17.

[–] SkyezOpen 7 points 1 month ago

You take all those factors THEN double the cost. Government contracting in a nutshell.

[–] T156 6 points 1 month ago

Your standard one-way-valve/flexible-tube dispenser, for example, would leak quite horribly at altitude (or burst), neither of which is desirable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Chocrates 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Boeing keeps stepping on the rake.

[–] seaQueue 24 points 1 month ago

I mean, wouldn't you if the rake handle had huge bags of cash tied to it? They'll always step on the rake but they're practiced enough that they only get hit in the face occasionally.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alwaysnownevernotme 22 points 1 month ago

Soap dispensers in general are a fucking racket. They're like 50$ a refill

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Cool I'm so glad I got wildly overpriced soap dispensers on planes I'll never board for the fucking huge chunk of cash our useless fucking government takes from me instead of healthcare, or roads that aren't full of potholes, or properly functioning public transit, I love this country and my life

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

And why exactly did they pay it?

[–] Pantsofmagic 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's often the military's own flowed down certification requirements that result in significantly higher costs

[–] mkwt 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah. The expensive soap dispenser probably had to pass shock and vibration testing, thermal stress testing, and explosive atmosphere testing... Because that was in the requirements.

[–] Mog_fanatic 11 points 1 month ago

I work in this space. There's a wide variety of reasons, a company being dumb and greedy is definitely among them but typically just a tiny part of the equation. The biggest thing is certified vendors. The military/government is incredibly strict with who they'll contract with. Which means the supply is incredibly limited on many things, which in turn means that companies will ratchet up prices a crazy amount in part to deal with the goofy standards that the government requires on their goods but also because they know the demand far outweighs the supply.

There is also the burden of time. The US government drags their feet an INSANE amount on projects. It scales with size as well. The larger the project the slower things move almost every time. It very frequently gets to a point where they need stuff done right now because they waited too long and will pay pretty much any price to do it.

There is also the fact that the military is operating with a budget chalk full of "fuck you money." In short, money is immaterial. Half the time they don't even look at the price, whatever it costs doesn't matter, just get it done and get it done right.

My company marks up shit an insane amount and I know for a fact pretty much every other certified vendor is as well. I dunno about 8k% (lol) markup but honestly that doesn't shock me. The prices I've seen are jaw dropping. And they pretty much never get negotiated or rejected.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ronflex 7 points 1 month ago

I would say kinda based if it wasn't my tax dollars going toward that crap. Starts to put the massively over-inflated military budget into perspective.

[–] reddig33 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This isn’t oniony. It happens all the time. The ongoing theory is that it’s done to cover top secret expenditures.

[–] LavenderDay3544 8 points 1 month ago

It's much more likely to be corporate kickbacks for political donations.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago
[–] skizzles 6 points 1 month ago

This is exactly what happens when the system is based on lowest bid contracts.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

I know “everybody does it” isn’t a valid excuse, but… everybody does it.

load more comments
view more: next ›