2024-12-03 22:00:55
A version of this post previously appeared in War on the Rocks. This version has been updated with suggestions from leaders across the Department of Defense and Venture Capital community.
BLUF: In WW II, the U.S. outsourced advanced weapons systems development to civilians. The weapons they developed won the war. It’s time to do that again. This new administration can make it happen.
“The coming war is going to be a technology war. The country’s top innovators feel that there is a huge disconnect between what the U.S. military ecosystem can produce and what’s possible if we engaged civilians to develop weapon systems for critical technologies. The U.S. military has little idea of what civilians could provide in the event of war, and civilians are wholly in the dark as to what the military needs. As a result, we believe the U.S. is woefully unprepared and ill-equipped for a war driven by advanced technology.
The only solution is to outsource advanced weapons systems development outside of the traditional services and government ecosystem and hand the development to civilians.”
Vannevar Bush to President Roosevelt in 1940
Insane?
President Roosevelt agreed, making a series of decisions that, without which, the Allies may have lost World War II.
The U.S. outsourced advanced weapons systems development and acquisition in 1941. Within three years this gave the U.S a stream of advanced weapons – radar, electronic warfare, proximity fuses, rockets, anti-submarine warfare, and nuclear weapons – all instrumental in our victory in World War II.
We need to do it again. The incoming Trump administration has a historic, once-in-a-century opportunity to do something similar today and give the United States a stream of advanced capabilities and weapons that will allow the United States to deter Russia and China or — failing that — defeat them in a war.
Here’s how.
Why Radical Change is Needed Now
It’s abundantly clear that the U.S. defense ecosystem is being challenged by the proliferation of commercial technology, hobbled by its legacy systems and prime contractors, and sabotaged by its own Acquisition system, rendering it unable to keep pace with threats to the nation.
Simultaneously, the rise of defense-oriented startups and venture capital firms have proven that a commercial ecosystem is more than capable of rapid delivery of most of the advanced weapons needed to deter or win a war. Companies like SpaceX, Anduril, Palantir, Saronic, Vannevar Labs, et al have proven they can deliver at speeds unmatched by existing contractors. Defense and dual-use venture capital firms like Shield Capital, General Catalyst, a16z, DCVC, 8VC, et al, have stepped up to fund this ecosystem, collectively investing tens of billions in new defense technologies.
But the Department of Defense is organized for a world it wishes it still had but no longer exists. Unfortunately our adversaries no longer allow us that freedom. While there have been innovative DoD experiments in innovation (Defense Innovation Unit and its Replicator initiative, Collaborative Combat Aircraft, and the Office of Strategic Capital, etc.), these new structures and initiatives do not yet have the scale required to meet the level of change required. Meanwhile, the overall glacial pace of acquisition and the capture of the status quo by the few prime contractors threatens our nation. In a perfect world, a bipartisan Congress would reorganize the Defense Department to integrate with this new wave of private companies and capital.
But that isn’t politically feasible in the time America has left to prepare for the possibility of major war, which may be as little as a few years. That’s where Vannevar Bush’s insights are critical for the present day.
We are out of time.
The U.S. needs to relearn the lessons that worked to win a World War and outsource advanced weapons systems development to private industry in areas that startups and scale-ups already lead or could move faster in: AI, drones, space, biotech, networking, cyber …
The Trump administration should create the Office of Rapid Development and Deployment (ORDD) modeled after the WW II’s Office of Science, Research and Development (OSRD.) This could build on the existing Defense Innovation Unit which is already taking many of the right steps, albeit with dramatically greater scale and autonomy as described below.
Goals of an Office of Rapid Development and Deployment (ORDD)
The success of the “Office of Rapid Development and Deployment (ORDD)” will depend on a combination of clear goals, unprecedented collaboration, resource commitment, and the effective integration of the commercial ecosystem to rapidly solve practical military challenges with speed and precision.
Who Should Lead this Office?
Appoint a head of this office who is – or could become – a trusted advisor of President Trump, deeply understands technology, can look across VC portfolios and select the best domain experts, has a problem-solving mindset and is a charismatic leader.
Who fits this description? Not many. The only candidates I can think of are Elon Musk, Trae Stephens, Stephen Feinberg, Raj Shah, Mike Brown and Doug Beck.
A Once-in-a-Century Opportunity
The stakes have never been higher, and the path ahead demands the audacity of visionaries who can break free from the inertia of the status quo. Just as Vannevar Bush once harnessed the ingenuity of America’s best minds to outpace the enemies of his time, we now face a moment of similar urgency and promise. If the United States can empower its boldest innovators to lead, not as bureaucrats but as pioneers of rapid technological dominance, we can secure not just victory in the wars of tomorrow but the preservation of the values that make our nation worth defending.
The future hinges on our ability to act decisively, to embrace radical change, and to once again make history — not by clinging to the comforts of tradition but by seizing the opportunities of transformation. This is not merely a call to action; it is a rallying cry for a nation that must once again trust its greatest minds to deliver when it matters most.
2024-10-22 21:00:16
In March 2022 I wrote a description of the Quantum Technology Ecosystem. I thought this would be a good time to check in on the progress of building a quantum computer and explain more of the basics.
Just as a reminder, Quantum technologies are used in three very different and distinct markets: 
Quantum Computing, Quantum Communications and Quantum Sensing and Metrology. If you don’t know the difference between a qubit and cueball, (I didn’t) read the tutorial here.
Summary –
We talk a lot about qubits in this post. As a reminder a qubit – is short for a quantum bit. It is a quantum computing element that leverages the principle of superposition (that quantum particles can exist in many possible states at the same time) to encode information via one of four methods: spin, trapped atoms and ions, photons, or superconducting circuits.
Incremental Technical Progress
As of 2024 there are seven different approaches being explored to build physical qubits for a quantum computer. The most mature currently are Superconducting, Photonics, Cold Atoms, Trapped Ions. Other approaches include Quantum Dots, Nitrogen Vacancy in Diamond Centers, and Topological. All these approaches have incrementally increased the number of physical qubits.
These multiple approaches are being tried, as there is no consensus to the best path to building logical qubits. Each company believes that their technology approach will lead them to a path to scale to a working quantum computer.
Every company currently hypes the number of physical qubits they have working. By itself this is a meaningless number to indicate progress to a working quantum computer. What matters is the number of logical qubits.
Reminder – Why Build a Quantum Computer?
One of the key misunderstandings about quantum computers is that they are faster than current classical computers on all applications. That’s wrong. They are not. They are faster on a small set of specialized algorithms. These special algorithms are what make quantum computers potentially valuable. For example, running Grover’s algorithm on a quantum computer can search unstructured data faster than a classical computer. Further, quantum computers are theoretically very good at minimization / optimizations /simulations…think optimizing complex supply chains, energy states to form complex molecules, financial models (looking at you hedge funds,) etc.
However, while all of these algorithms might have commercial potential one day, no one has yet to come up with a use for them that would radically transform any business or military application. Except for one – and that one keeps people awake at night. It’s Shor’s algorithm for integer factorization – an algorithm that underlies much of existing public cryptography systems.
The security of today’s public key cryptography systems rests on the assumption that breaking into those keys with a thousand or more digits is practically impossible. It requires factoring large prime numbers (e.g., RSA) or elliptic curve (e.g., ECDSA, ECDH) or finite fields (DSA) that can’t be done with any type of classic computer regardless of how large. Shor’s factorization algorithm can crack these codes if run on a Quantum Computer. This is why NIST has been encouraging the move to Post-Quantum / Quantum-Resistant Codes.
How many physical qubits do you need for one logical qubit?
Thousands of logical qubits are needed to create a quantum computer that can run these specialized applications. Each logical qubit is constructed out of many physical qubits. The question is, how many physical qubits are needed? Herein lies the problem.
Unlike traditional transistors in a microprocessor that once manufactured always work, qubits are unstable and fragile. They can pop out of a quantum state due to noise, decoherence (when a qubit interacts with the environment,) crosstalk (when a qubit interacts with a physically adjacent qubit,) and imperfections in the materials making up the quantum gates. When that happens errors will occur in quantum calculations. So to correct for those error you need lots of physical qubits to make one logical qubit.
So how do you figure out how many physical qubits you need?
You start with the algorithm you intend to run.
Different quantum algorithms require different numbers of qubits. Some algorithms (e.g., Shor’s prime factoring algorithm) may need >5,000 logical qubits (the number may turn out to be smaller as researchers think of how to use fewer logical qubits to implement the algorithm.)
Other algorithms (e.g., Grover’s algorithm) require fewer logical qubits for trivial demos but need 1000’s of logical qubits to see an advantage over linear search running on a classical computer. (See here, here and here for other quantum algorithms.)
Measure the physical qubit error rate.
Therefore, the number of physical qubits you need to make a single logical qubit starts by calculating the physical qubit error rate (gate error rates, coherence times, etc.) Different technical approaches (superconducting, photonics, cold atoms, etc.) have different error rates and causes of errors unique to the underlying technology.
Current state-of-the-art quantum qubits have error rates that are typically in the range of 1% to 0.1%. This means that on average one out of every 100 to one out of 1000 quantum gate operations will result in an error. System performance is limited by the worst 10% of the qubits.
Choose a quantum error correction code
To recover from the error prone physical qubits, quantum error correction encodes the quantum information into a larger set of physical qubits that are resilient to errors. Surface Codes is the most commonly proposed error correction code. A practical surface code uses hundreds of physical qubits to create a logical qubit. Quantum error correction codes get more efficient the lower the error rates of the physical qubits. When errors rise above a certain threshold, error correction fails, and the logical qubit becomes as error prone as the physical qubits.
The Math
To factor a 2048-bit number using Shor’s algorithm with a 10-2 (1% per physical qubit) error rate:
If you could reduce the error rate by a factor of 10 – to 10-3 (0.1% per physical qubit,)
In reality there another 10% or so of ancillary physical bits needed for overhead. And no one yet knows the error rate in wiring multiple logical bits together via optical links or other technologies.
(One caveat to the math above. It assumes that every technical approach (Superconducting, Photonics, Cold Atoms, Trapped Ions, et al) will require each physical qubit to have hundreds of bits of error correction to make a logical qubit. There is always a chance a breakthrough could create physical qubits that are inherently stable, and the number of error correction qubits needed drops substantially. If that happens, the math changes dramatically for the better and quantum computing becomes much closer.)
Today, the best anyone has done is to create 1,000 physical qubits.
We have a ways to go.
Advances in materials science will drive down error rates
As seen by the math above, regardless of the technology in creating physical qubits (Superconducting, Photonics, Cold Atoms, Trapped Ions, et al.) reducing errors in qubits can have a dramatic effect on how quickly a quantum computer can be built. The lower the physical qubit error rate, the fewer physical qubits needed in each logical qubit.
The key to this is materials engineering. To make a system of 100s of thousands of qubits work the qubits need to be uniform and reproducible. For example, decoherence errors are caused by defects in the materials used to make the qubits. For superconducting qubits that requires uniform thickness, controlled grain size, and roughness. Other technologies require low loss, and uniformity. All of the approaches to building a quantum computer require engineering exotic materials at the atomic level – resonators using tantalum on silicon, Josephson junctions built out of magnesium diboride, transition-edge sensors, Superconducting Nanowire Single Photon Detectors, etc.
Materials engineering is also critical in packaging these qubits (whether it’s superconducting or conventional packaging) and to interconnect 100s of thousands of qubits, potentially with optical links. Today, most of the qubits being made are on legacy 200mm or older technology in hand-crafted processes. To produce qubits at scale, modern 300mm semiconductor technology and equipment will be required to create better defined structures, clean interfaces, and well-defined materials. There is an opportunity to engineer and build better fidelity qubits with the most advanced semiconductor fabrication systems so the path from R&D to high volume manufacturing is fast and seamless.
There are likely only a handful of companies on the planet that can fabricate these qubits at scale.
Regional research consortiums
Two U.S. states; Illinois and Colorado are vying to be the center of advanced quantum research.
Illinois Quantum and Microelectronics Park (IQMP)
Illinois has announced the Illinois Quantum and Microelectronics Park initiative, in collaboration with DARPA’s Quantum Proving Ground (QPG) program, to establish a national hub for quantum technologies. The State approved $500M for a “Quantum Campus” and has received $140M+ from DARPA with the state of Illinois matching those dollars.
Elevate Quantum
Elevate Quantum is the quantum tech hub for Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The consortium was awarded $127m from the Federal and State Governments – $40.5 million from the Economic Development Administration (part of the Department of Commerce) and $77m from the State of Colorado and $10m from the State of New Mexico.
(The U.S. has a National Quantum Initiative (NQI) to coordinate quantum activities across the entire government see here.)
Venture capital investment, FOMO, and financial engineering
Venture capital has poured billions of dollars into quantum computing, quantum sensors, quantum networking and quantum tools companies.
However, regardless of the amount of money raised, corporate hype, pr spin, press releases, public offerings, no company is remotely close to having a quantum computer or even being close to run any commercial application substantively faster than on a classical computer.
So why all the investment in this area?
Often, companies in a “hot space” (like quantum) can go public and sell shares to retail investors who have almost no knowledge of the space other than the buzzword. If the stock price can stay high for 6 months the investors can sell their shares and make a pile of money regardless of what happens to the company.
The track record so far of quantum companies who have gone public is pretty dismal. Two of them are on the verge of being delisted.
Here are some simple questions to ask companies building quantum computers:
Lessons Learned
- Lots of companies
- Lots of investment
- Great engineering occurring
- Improvements in quantum algorithms may add as much (or more) to quantum computing performance as hardware improvements
- The winners will be the one who master material engineering and interconnects
- Jury is still out on all bets
Update: the kind folks at Applied Materials pointed me to the original 2012 Surface Codes paper. They pointed out that the math should look more like:
Still pretty far away from the 1,000 qubits we currently can achieve.
For those so inclined…
The logical qubit error rate P_L is P_L = 0.03 (p/p_th)^((d+1)/2), where p_th ~ 0.6% is the error rate threshold for surface codes, p the physical qubit error rate, and d is the size of the code, which is related to the number of the physical qubits: N = (2d – 1)^2.
See the plot below for P_L versus N for different physical qubit error rate for reference.
2024-10-08 22:25:00
This article first appeared in First Round Review.
“Only the Paranoid Survive”
Andy Grove – Intel CEO 1987-1998
I just had an urgent “can we meet today?” coffee with Rohan, an ex-student. His three-year-old startup had been slapped with a notice of patent infringement from a Fortune 500 company. “My lawyers said defending this suit could cost $500,000 just for discovery, and potentially millions of dollars if it goes to trial. Do you have any ideas?”
The same day, I got a text from Jared, a friend who’s running a disruptive innovation organization inside the Department of Defense. He just learned that their incumbent R&D organization has convinced leadership they don’t need any outside help from startups or scaleups.
Sigh….
Rohan and Jared have learned three valuable lessons:
It’s a reminder that innovators need to be better prepared about all the possible ways incumbents sabotage innovation.
Innovators often assume that their organizations and industry will welcome new ideas, operating concepts and new companies. Unfortunately, the world does not unfold like business school textbooks.
Whether you’re a new entrant taking on an established competitor or you’re trying to stay scrappy while operating within a bigger company here’s what you need to know about how incumbents will try to stand in your way – and what you can do about it.
Entrepreneurs versus Saboteurs
Startups and scaleups outside of companies or government agencies want to take share of an existing market, or displace existing vendors. Or if they have a disruptive technology or business model, they want to create a new capability or operating concept – even creating a new market.
As my student Rohan just painfully learned, the incumbent suppliers and existing contractors want to kill these new entrants. They have no intention of giving up revenue, profits and jobs. (In the government, additional saboteurs can include Congressional staffers, Congressman and lobbyists, as these new entrants threaten campaign contributions and jobs in local districts.)
Intrapreneurs versus Saboteurs
Innovators inside of companies or government agencies want to make their existing organization better, faster, more effective, more profitable, more responsive to competitive threats or to adversaries. They might be creating or advocating for a better version of something that exists. Or perhaps they are trying to create something disruptive that never existed before.
Inside these commercial or government organizations there are people who want to kill innovation (as my friend Jared just discovered). These can be managers of existing programs, or heads of engineering or R&D organizations who are feeling threatened by potential loss of budget and authority. Most often, budgets and headcount are zero-sum games so new initiatives threaten the status quo.
Leaders of existing organizations often focus on the success of their department or program rather than the overall good of the organization. And at times there are perverse incentives as some individuals are aligned with the interests of incumbent vendors rather than the overall good of the company or government agency.
How Do incumbents Kill Innovation?
Rohan and Jared were each dealing with one form of innovation sabotage. Incumbents use a variety of ways to sabotage and kill innovative ideas inside of organizations and outside new companies. And most of the time innovators have no idea what just hit them. And those that do – like Rohan and Jared – have no game plan in place to respond.
Here are the most common methods of sabotage that I’ve seen, followed by a few suggestions on how to prepare and defend against them.
Founders and Innovators should expect that existing organizations and companies will defend their turf – ferociously.
There is no magic bullet I could have offered Rohan or Jared to defend against every possible move an incumbent might make. However, if they had realized that incumbents wouldn’t welcome them, they (and you) might have considered the suggestions below on how to prepare for innovation saboteurs.
In both government and commercial markets:
Jared is still trying to get senior leadership to understand that the clock is ticking, and internal R&D efforts and current budget allocation won’t be sufficient or timely. He’s building a larger coalition for change, but the inertia for the status quo is overwhelming.
Rohan’s company was lucky. After months of scrambling (and tens of thousands of dollars), they ended up buying a patent portfolio from a defunct startup and were able to use it to convince the Fortune 500 company to drop their lawsuit.
I hope they both succeed.
What have you found to be effective in taking on incumbents?
2024-10-06 02:44:35
I got a call from an ex-student asking me “how do you know when you found product market fit?”
There’s been lots of words written about it, but no actual recordings of the moment.
I remembered I had saved this 90 second, 26 year-old audio file because this is when I knew we had found it at Epiphany.
The speaker was the the Chief Financial Officer of a company called Visio, subsequently acquired by Microsoft
I played it for her and I think it provided some clarity.
It’s worth a listen.
If you can’t hear the audio click here
2024-09-17 21:00:59
Finding a customer for your product in the Department of Defense is hard: Who should you talk to? How do you get their attention?
Looking for DoD customers
How do you know if they have money to spend on your product?
It almost always starts with a Program Executive Office.
The Department of Defense (DoD) no longer owns all the technologies, products and services to deter or win a war – e.g. AI, autonomy, drones, biotech, access to space, cyber, semiconductors, new materials, etc.
Today, a new class of startups are attempting to sell these products to the Defense Department. Amazingly, there is no single DoD-wide phone book available to startups of who to call in the Defense Department.
So I wrote one.
Think of the PEO Directory linked below as a “Who buys in the government?” phone book.
The DoD buys hundreds of billions of dollars of products and services per year, and nearly all of these purchases are managed by Program Executive Offices. A Program Executive Office may be responsible for a specific program (e.g., the Joint Strike Fighter) or for an entire portfolio of similar programs (e.g., the Navy Program Executive Office for Digital and Enterprise Services). PEOs define requirements and their Contracting Officers buy things (handling the formal purchasing, issuing requests for proposals (RFPs), and signing contracts with vendors.) Program Managers (PMs) work with the PEO and manage subsets of the larger program.
Existing defense contractors know who these organizations are and have teams of people tracking budgets and contracts. But startups? Most startups don’t have a clue where to start.
This is a classic case of information asymmetry and it’s not healthy for the Department of Defense or the nascent startup defense ecosystem.
That’s why I put this PEO Directory together.
This first version of the directory lists 75 Program Executive Offices and their Program Executive Officers and Program/Project Managers.
Each Program Executive Office is headed by a Program Executive Officer who is a high ranking official – either a member of the military or a high ranking civilian – responsible for the cost, schedule, and performance of a major system, or portfolio of systems, some worth billions of dollars.
Below is a summary of 75 Program Executive Offices in the Department of Defense.
You can download the full 64-page document of Program Executive Offices and Officers with all 602 names here.
Caveats
Do not depend on this document for accuracy or completeness.
It is likely incomplete and contains errors.
Military officers typically change jobs every few years.
Program Offices get closed and new ones opened as needed.
This means this document was out of date the day it was written. Still it represents an invaluable starting point for startups looking to work with DoD.
How to Use The PEO Directory As Part of A Go-To-Market Strategy
While it’s helpful to know what Program Executive Offices exist and who staffs them, it’s even better to know where the money is, what it’s being spent on, and whether the budget is increasing, decreasing, or remaining the same.
The best place to start is by looking through an overview of the entire defense budget here. Then search for those programs in the linked PEO Directory. You can get an idea whether that program has $ Billions, or $ Millions.
Next, take a look at the budget documents released by the DoD Comptroller –
particularly the P-1 (Procurement) and R-1 (R&D) budget documents.
Combining the budget document with this PEO directory helps you narrow down which of the 75 Program Executive Offices and 500+ program managers to call on.
With some practice you can translate the topline, account, or Program Element (PE) Line changes into a sales Go-To-Market strategy, or at least a hypothesis of who to call on.
Armed with the program description (it’s full of jargon and 9-12 months out of date) and the Excel download here and the Appendix here –– you can identify targets for sales calls with DoD where your product has the best chance of fitting in.
The people and organizations in this list change more frequently than the money.
Knowing the people is helpful only after you understand their priorities — and money is the best proxy for that.
Future Work
Ultimately we want to give startups not only who to call on, and who has the money, but which Program Offices are receptive to new entrants. And which have converted to portfolio management, which have tried OTA contracts, as well as highlighting those who are doing something novel with metrics or outcomes.
Going forward this project will be kept updated by the Stanford Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation.
In the meantime send updates, corrections and comments to [email protected]
Credit Where Credit Is Due
Clearly, the U.S. government intends to communicate this information. They have published links to DoD organizations here, even listing DoD social media accounts. But the list is fragmented and irregularly updated. Consequently, this type of directory has not existed in a usable format – until now.
2024-08-13 21:00:40
Imagine you got a job offer from a company but weren’t allowed to start work – or get paid – for almost a year. And if you can’t pass a security clearance your offer is rescinded. Or you get offered an internship but can’t work on the most interesting part of the project. Sounds like a nonstarter. Well that’s the current process if you want to work for companies or government agencies that work on classified programs.
One Silicon Valley company, Palantir, is trying to change that and shorten the time between getting hired and doing productive work. Here’s why and how.
Over the last five years more of my students have understood that Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine and strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China mean that the world is no longer a stable and safe place. This has convinced many of them to work on national security problems in defense startups.
However, many of those companies and government agencies require you to work on projects with sensitive information the government wants to protect. These are called classified programs. To get hired, and to work on them, you need to first pass a government security clearance. (A security clearance is how the government learns whether you are trustworthy enough to keep secrets and not damage national security.)
For jobs at most defense startups/contractors or national security agencies, instead of starting work with your offer letter, you’d instead receive a “conditional” job offer – that’s a fancy way to say, “we want you to work here, but you need to wait 3 to 9 months without pay until you start, and if you can’t pass the security clearance we won’t hire you.” That’s a pretty high bar for students who have lots of other options for where to work.
Types of Security Clearances
The time it takes for the clearance process depends on the thoroughness and how deeply the government investigates your background. That’s directly related to how classified will be the work you will be doing. The three primary levels of classification (from least to greatest) are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. 
The type and depth of background investigations to get a security clearance depends on what level of classified information you will be working with. For example, if you just need access to Confidential or Secret material they would do a National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC). The government will look at the FBI’s criminal history repository, do a credit check, and a check with your local law enforcement agencies. This can take a relatively short time (~3 months).
On the other hand if you’re going to work on a Top Secret/SCI project, this requires a more extensive (and much longer ~6-9 months) background check called a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). Some types of clearances also require you to take a polygraph (lie-detector) test.
How Does the Government “Clear” you?
The National Background Investigation Services (NBIS) is the government agency that will investigate your background. They will ask about your:
Palantir’s Accelerated Student Clearance Plan
Palantir wants their interns and new hires to hit the ground running and work on the toughest and most interesting government problems from day one. However, these types of problems require having a security clearance. The problem is that today, all companies start an application for a security clearance the day you show up for work.
Palantir’s idea? If you get an internship or full-time offer from Palantir while you’re still in school, they will immediately employ you as a contractor. This will let them start your security clearance process while in school before you show up for work. That means you will be cleared ~9 months later in time for your first day on the job. Think of this like a college early admissions program. (If you’re interning, Palantir will hold your clearance for you if you come back to Palantir the following year.)
Why Do This?
Obviously this is a long-term strategic investment in Palantir’s college talent, but it also affects the entire defense ecosystem – to create a broader team of America’s best engineers who are able to support our country’s most critical missions. And they are encouraging other Defense Tech companies to implement a similar program.
I think it’s a great idea.
Now what are the other innovative ideas Silicon Valley can do to attract a national security workforce?