3 ms·

> Citizens won't stand for a government that stays technologically frozen while everything else rapidly advances. I don't think that citizens care about how te

> Citizens won't stand for a government that stays technologically frozen while everything else rapidly advances. I don't think that citizens care about how technologically frozen the government may or may not be. I think they care about whether or not the government is operating as it should. Those are two different things. > Palantir represents the best path forward due to the relative imbalance between positive and negative potential outcomes. I envy you your optimism. I think Palantir represents a very serious threat to this nation. Certainly not the only one, but a serious threat nonetheless.

sublimepulse819 1y ago
> I don't think that citizens care about how technologically frozen the government may or may not be. I think they care about whether or not the government is operating as it should. Those are two different things. In theory yes. In practice, maybe you care to explain how a government can operate "as it should" where "should" is a target that seems to move with "not apparently dysfunctional as compared to private services I use every day?" > Palantir represents the best path forward... This got too washed by the LLM. I meant to say Palantir software is by far the best option for this. Palantir the company has worrying affiliations via Thiel. I think it would mitigate a lot of downside risk for the country for Thiel to be divested. My comment shouldn't be interpreted as optimism. It is a call for citizens to demand their rights be encoded into statute instead of de facto protected by dysfunction because the dysfunction is a liability of its own.