3 ms·
Relevant quote, for your own judgement: At the New York Times’ DealBook Summit on Wednesday, Karp was asked about the worries over the unconstitutionality of t
by kbelder 11mo ago
Relevant quote, for your own judgement:
At the New York Times’ DealBook Summit on Wednesday, Karp was asked about the worries over the unconstitutionality of the boat strikes.
“Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,” Karp said. His reasoning is that if it’s constitutional, you would have to make 100% sure of the exact conditions it’s happening in, and in order to do that, the military would have to use Palantir’s technology, for which it pays roughly $10 billion under its current contract.
- nhinck2 11mo agoYes, of course, famously no ambiguity in the constitution.
- potato3732842 11mo agoIf you're not being deceitful and seeking to violate people's rights for your own purposes (i.e. a politician or someone in that orbit) it's pretty clear. Like "papers and effect", "shall make no law", stuff like that's pretty hard to screw up if you're not trying.
- OkWing99 11mo agoYou missed the rest of it. > “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.
- AnimalMuppet 11mo agoWhich in context means, you keep pushing to make the military be sure they are operating within the bounds of the constitution.
- emodendroket 11mo agoWhen he says "push to make it constitutional" what he means is push to make them comply with complex rules.
- techblueberry 11mo agoYeah, I mean, I think Alex Karp is a bit of a creep, but the point he’s making is the opposite of what the headline is implying.
- cyanydeez 11mo agoYou could have the most precise surgical robot half way around the world, but you just put a dimentia riddled senior or drunken asshole, it don't matter the precision. GIGO
- JumpCrisscross 11mo agoThe Constitutionality of the attacks is orthogonal to their status as war crimes. (The Constitution doesn't concern itself with war crimes beyond the fact that they're crimes. Its writing almost predates the concept.) What Trump can do without Congressional approval is a constitutional question. Whether it's a war crime is a legal one. I'm not sure how much Palantir can help with the first. I'm fairly certain it would be useful with the latter; Helen Mirren starred in a film that was essentially about this [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film)