4 ms·

Your point is well taken, though it's worth pointing out that literally yesterday Palantir was co-awarded a contract for building orbital weapons systems [0].

• remarkEon 7mo ago
  Have you considered that a weapons platform like that could be necessary? Or are you just opposed to Palantir being part of it.
  • twelve40 7mo ago
    well, there _is_ this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty "bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space" but 1. today's sentiment is: to hell with these treaties-schmeaties, and 2. what you mentioned is not yet a weapon of _mass_ destruction, so we're all good!
  • jazzyjackson 7mo ago
    Claiming a particular weapons system is “necessary” is war brained. There are other ways of survival besides bombing the shit out of each other.
    • remarkEon 7mo ago
      True, I am partial to battle drill 1A.
  • AlotOfReading 7mo ago
    This comment is written in an interesting way. If it's unnecessary, the OP's comment is fine. If the platform is "necessary" in some abstract sense, you've avoided articulating that argument by putting the burden back on OP to justify their position. That seems like an interesting discussion though. Why would it be necessary?
    • remarkEon 7mo ago
      There's ample evidence that medium range ballistic missile technology is proliferating, fired from land based systems. It is difficult to intercept these with ground-based launchers. But, if incepting from orbit the probability you score a hit is higher. The catch is that it is a) extremely complex, and b) very expensive to develop and implement a system like this. Enter Palantir and Anduril. The weight of this argument rests on how much you care about being in range of MRBMs, how likely you think it is that MRBMs will be a decisive factor in a future conflict, and whether or not you want the United States to be victorious in this potential conflict. Many people do not care about this threat, don't think MRBMs will matter, and/or want the United States to lose. I am not one of those people.
      • btown 7mo ago
        I think that three things can simultaneously be true: (1) missile defense systems based on deep data fusion with cutting-edge espionage systems for launch detection are becoming increasingly useful and necessary (2) we should be thoughtful that these types of espionage fusion systems could also be used for domestic surveillance, and advocate for close scrutiny and oversight of these systems (3) a healthcare administrator can make a rational argument that their patient information should not be handled by the same company building those espionage-advised data fusion systems... lest the close relationship with government quietly transform into unauthorized data sharing with other government actors, without clear paths towards legal recourse if this were to occur, and with potentially irrevocable consequences for patients
• Manuel_D 7mo ago
  > The broader point is Palantir's specific confluence of: > - access to granular, non-anonymized data across industry silos Do you have evidence that Palantir itself - not customers using Palantir software - has access to this data?
  • beepbooptheory 7mo ago
    I think you are maybe reading into the initial claim too much and not hearing the follow ups. There are two things here: 1. the overall character, broad charter, and people that compose the company, and 2. the theory that it is a specific agent in illegal or harmful data trafficking. And sure, I think we can take 2 away completely here if we simply must assume good faith from these guys and the contracts that they make, but that still kinda leaves 1 which is pretty big. Like 1 answers your follow up question of why everyone hates them either way, but you still are countering it by trying to ask what it has to do with 2. If that makes sense? And really, I don't think anyone wants to "oh sweet summer child" you in your doubts here, but it's really extremely hard to not want to just... gesture around the world right now and ask why you still believe in some kind of sanctity or infallibility of something like the legal contract or other various forms of de jure "accountability" when it comes to tech companies, especially one as big as this.
    • Manuel_D 7mo ago
      This pattern in which people make claims about Palantir having access to private information, then retreat back to something along the lines of "I don't like the character of the company" is exactly the kind of thing that leads me to believe people don't actually have tangible complaints with the company.
      • remarkEon 7mo ago
        This is true, but Palantir also describes what they do in a way that is going to cause skepticism and confusion. When they talk about the ontology acting as a "digital twin" of the customer environment one could be forgiven for thinking this does actually mean Palantir is exfiltrating customer data and cloning it, which is not what happens.