Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

68% Positive

Analyzed from 2075 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#https#war#don#defense#need#more#both#things#money#palantir

Discussion (65 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

isodev•about 3 hours ago
And to think just a few days ago we got that photo from the Moon, putting in perspective just how tiny the Earth is in the grand scheme of things. We need more “for all of humanity” mindset instead of this “barbaric tribes beat each other over the head for sticky oil”
inetknght•about 3 hours ago
> just how tiny the Earth is in the grand scheme of things

In the grand scheme of things: humans are doing the granding, the scheming, and the things. Earth has a tiny bit of something to do with that.

SiempreViernes•about 3 hours ago
I think you'll find it's really hard to lord over a big map on a table if you don't have the Earth to put the table on.
strulovich•about 3 hours ago
Quick reminder, the only humans to ever make it to the moon did it due to “barbaric tribes showing who’s better”.

It wasn’t bankrolled with billions for the good of society.

Being naive is fun, but being realistic about the species we are is better. And it seems we can leverage that to land on the moon. So it’s working as intended.

magicalist•about 2 hours ago
> Quick reminder, the only humans to ever make it to the moon did it due to “barbaric tribes showing who’s better”.

Weird to quote that when that's not what the GP said and appears to be a paraphrase that loses quite a bit of specificity and so misses the point:

> We need more “for all of humanity” mindset instead of this “barbaric tribes beat each other over the head for sticky oil”

Being realistic about the species is useful, but let's not be disingenuous for imaginary rhetorical points.

strulovich•about 1 hour ago
I slightly corrected it not to trick op. But to clarify their position was naive. Sorry about that.

It still is naive no matter the quote though.

It’s also naive to dump down the conflict to being over oil. Oil is being used as leverage. But it is not the cause of it.

wateralien•about 3 hours ago
Are they also changing the way America puts a new (wholly-owned) president in the white house in 2028 in order to approve these contracts?
beloch•about 3 hours ago
This is what happens when you allow money to influence power without check.

What can be done to curtail it? Ban corporate donations to political parties and PACs. Limit personal contributions. Implement campaign spending limits so parties can't spend hundreds of millions on an election if they somehow manage to get that much money.

Other nations (e.g. Canada) do this. It's not perfect. Money is always looking for a way, and politicians are always looking for the kind of power that money buys. It's an eternal game of whack-a-mole, but it's a game worth playing.

American politicians aren't going to propose this. Americans need to demand it.

JohnMakin•about 3 hours ago
> Ban corporate donations to political parties and PACs

Doubtful - the SC determined this was a 1st amendment right for corporations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

But it almost doesn't matter anymore - the bribing is being done so much in plain sight anymore, that these mechanisms are hardly needed anyway. It is a cultural rot that won't be fixed by "just make some rule," the people making the rules are the ones benefiting the most from the corruption.

beloch•about 2 hours ago
If every employee at a corporation has the right to free speech and to make political donations, why should the corporation itself have need of such rights? Just because big money won in 2010 doesn't mean the ruling should go unchallenged for all time.

People, not capital, should have rights, because rights are there to protect people from power.

micromacrofoot•about 3 hours ago
they've got one in there right now, and have a successor lined up

Peter Thiel is almost wholly responsible for JD Vance being in the White House

smallmancontrov•about 3 hours ago
People underestimate how radical JD Vance is. He wrote an endorsement for the skull book, and not a "my buddy wrote a book that I totally read and you should too" endorsement, but one that restated the core argument: Democrats are secretly communists who want to communist genocide you and we should invoke the Iron Law of Reciprocity to preemptively ... them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans

During the election I thought this was mostly rhetoric, but now that the administration has turned ICE fully paramilitary and tried to get its base excited about murdering their political opposition, I'm not so sure.

AnthonyMouse•about 3 hours ago
> Democrats are secretly communists who want to communist genocide you

Isn't this just how politics looks now? The Republicans say that, the Democrats say the Republicans are secretly nazis who want to nazi genocide you, both parties contain millions of people so both can point to some extremists on the other side saying something shocking and then they both go back to trying to get 51% of the votes so they can be the ones picking your pocket this year.

edit: It's beautiful how the two immediate replies to this post are, respectively, "it's not both sides because only the Democrats are actually Marxists" and "it's not both sides because only the Republicans are actually Fascists".

nancyminusone•about 3 hours ago
Trump is in it for himself, but can be bribed.

Vance doesn't need to be bribed, he's in it for Thiel.

ed_balls•about 3 hours ago
Palantir must be destroyed.
inetknght•about 3 hours ago
Why stop there?
Zigurd•about 3 hours ago
Great results so far!
margalabargala•about 3 hours ago
For real. Never before has so much money been made off stock market manipulation by the family of a sitting president.
BoredPositron•about 3 hours ago
It really just rhymes. Happy New guilded age America.
Zigurd•about 3 hours ago
I know it's not a good look to be the grammar Nazi, but an actual guilded age in the form of collective bargaining for labor might be preferable to this new gilded age.
BoredPositron•about 2 hours ago
Funny enough it stays lol
moralestapia•about 3 hours ago
And Thiel is behind all of them.
andsoitis•about 3 hours ago
> And Thiel is behind all of them.

In what way do you feel Thiel is "behind" SpaceX?

moralestapia•about 3 hours ago
andsoitis•about 3 hours ago
investment != operational our architectural influence, unlike Anduril, for example.
sosomoxie•about 3 hours ago
Palantir just ran a full page add in the NYT saying that they "stand with Israel", they also just released a techno-fascist manifesto. We've already seen people shooting at Sam Altman's house, I feel like Palantir is openly inviting citizens to practice self-defense against their executives.
isoprophlex•about 3 hours ago
They stand with making shitloads of money off a horrible humanitarian clusterfuck that's atm rippled out into destabilizing the global economy.

Absolutely insane.

Teever•about 3 hours ago
I've been wondering for a while now what sort of air defense if any the US military has around SpaceX launch sites.

After watching videos of Russian and now gulf state oil & gas infrastructure being blown up by small drones for the past while I've come to realize the obvious reality that a SpaceX rocket -- particularly Starship is an extremely vulnerable and expensive target.

It seems totally feasible for a nation state or even an individual to short SpaceX stock after it goes public and then blow up a rocket or two on the launch pad.

redeux•about 3 hours ago
Paywall so I can’t read the whole thing, but …

> THE IRAN war may end up teaching America many lessons. One that it has learned the hard way is the woeful economics of using traditional weaponry against cheap Iranian drones. “The dynamics of the world have changed,” says Emil Michael, a former Silicon Valley executive who is now a senior official in the Pentagon. “You don’t want to spend a $1m missile to take out a $50,000 drone.”

This would have been obvious to anyone following the war in Ukraine. The implication that we learned this from our attacks on Iran are absurd.

vjvjvjvjghv•about 3 hours ago
“ You don’t want to spend a $1m missile to take out a $50,000 drone”

I think the defense contractors disagree with this. I often wondered how these shiny super high tech, crazy expensive US weapons would do in an all out war. They are good at bullying countries with not limited military capacity (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya come to mind) but probably won’t do well against an enemy that can build huge numbers of drones.

SiempreViernes•about 3 hours ago
Careful, three months ago the claim that the US doesn't have a plan for what to do if Iran attacked shipping in the strait of Hormuz would be considered absurd.

Also, there's nothing unusual about the big guy thinking they don't have to learn lessons from others and so ignore their experience.

mft_•about 3 hours ago
One would think, but some folks seem to struggle to learn from others' experiences, and need to experience things for themselves first.

For example, the UK defense review that was published during the Ukraine War (in which the UK is closely supporting Ukraine) focused on traditional defense approaches (tanks, big boats, that sort of thing) and mostly ignored the need to upskill quickly in building, iterating, and deploying disposable cheap drones.

Or, more generally, there are people who voted for the current US administration who are upset that the things that were promised in Project 2025 have actually been implemented and have now affected them personally and negatively.

kevmo•about 3 hours ago
This would have been obvious to anyone following the war in Vietnam, even.

The Iranians have explicitly tweeted:

"For years, we've been awaiting the Americans' entry into the designated points, and for over two decades, we've been training with the asymmetric warfare strategy for this very moment. Now, we have just one message for the American soldiers: Come closer."

Also the war games from a quarter century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

isoprophlex•about 3 hours ago
Why collectively learn a lesson, if you can get filthy rich as a bunch of individuals?
johnbarron•about 3 hours ago
Palantir CEO is a Psychopath:

"CEO of Palantir, described people killed in the Gaza Genocide as “useful idiots”"

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1sp4rpd/ale...

"12% of corporate leaders are psychopaths. It’s time to take this problem seriously"

https://fortune.com/2021/06/06/corporate-psychopaths-busines...

And Musk well its a whole classification on its own...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk_salute_controversy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-sued-by-british-dive...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/these-federal-employee...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/musk-endorses-tweet-claiming-j...

hparadiz•about 3 hours ago
Without being drawn too much into politics I can't imagine anything more unamerican than universal civil service. Of course a dweeb like Karp would push this bullshit. I dare anyone to explain to me how, exactly, it's any different from communism.
Advertisement
Svip•about 3 hours ago
As an aside, it really irks me how Tolkien's names are used in this manner.
mplanchard•about 3 hours ago
He would be horrified. I’m a little surprised his estate hasn’t attempted to prevent it.
kibwen•about 3 hours ago
At my new startup, Ungoliant, we intend use AI-powered space-based mirrors to at long last achieve humanity's dream of plunging Arda into endless night. We're excited to have you join us in this exciting venture!
MengerSponge•about 3 hours ago
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
randallsquared•about 3 hours ago
I guess we can believe they are Tolkien fans, then.
AnthonyMouse•about 3 hours ago
This is honestly a meaningless cliche. There is a bottled water company called Liquid Death, is that a reason to expect their product to be more hazardous than competitors? A lot of free software has traditionally used self-deprecating names, should we expect them to be bad as a result? How about when something is called Truth Social?
exogeny•about 3 hours ago
I have a lot of deep ambivalence here. On one hand, I would rather Americans be safe. I don't want anyone in harm's way; if I absolutely had to choose, I'd rather we have superiority.

On the other hand, the "the ends justifies the means" justification of the near constant erosion of civil liberties and due process is really, really concerning. And I do not trust, at all, the Rand-lite tech bro sociopaths or anyone in the Trump administration to do the right thing.

Zigurd•about 3 hours ago
Our country is less safe because the people behind these technology companies have brought us to a place where NATO allies do not trust us, and we are implicated in war crimes facilitated by these technology companies.
SiempreViernes•about 3 hours ago
Be careful with dreams of superiority, those tend to make the other guy convinced you'll attack as soon as the gap gets wide enough and make them spend even more to "catch up".

A few rounds of this and eventually both sides have worked themselves into a frenzy to motivate buying excessive amounts of weapons, and then finally something trivial makes someone important "that's it, that was the thing we got the guns for" and a few billion dollars in weapons go up in smoke along with some hundreds of human lives (if everything goes well).

plastic-enjoyer•about 3 hours ago
> On one hand, I would rather Americans be safe. I don't want anyone in harm's way; if I absolutely had to choose, I'd rather we have superiority.

To what extent does waging war contribute to increasing the safety of Americans? Every war the United States has started since WWII against another country has not been a defensive war, but an invasion by the U.S. itself. The United States has enjoyed global military dominance for decades. It has also become clear that even the world’s best military is no match for a large-scale psychological operation.

vjvjvjvjghv•about 3 hours ago
The question on is whether what’s happening right now is actually keeping Americans safe. I feel we are moving more and more towards accepting normalizing using military power by powerful nations. I am sure China is watching closely what’s going on and may feel encouraged to move on Taiwan. Once that happens, things will get really interesting.
stonogo•about 3 hours ago
Interesting claims in this article that direcly conflict with Palantir publicly calling for universal conscription. If AI and robotics are going to keep people off the front lines, why would we need the draft?
david_shaw•about 3 hours ago
I don't have a subscription to The Economist, but I was interested in the concept of these organizations as "neo-primes."

I found an article on The Cipher Brief describing them: https://www.thecipherbrief.com/defense-neoprime-innovation

Specifically, the idea here is that companies like Anduril, Palantir, and SpaceX are rapidly delivering cutting-edge technology (including software) as opposed to the traditional defense contractor process of long, drawn out, super expensive projects mostly focused on hardware (such as building a new type of jet).

It makes sense: this is basically what happened in civilian tech, too. Delivering high-tech solutions quickly -- dare I say with agility -- is usually the superior approach.

alephnerd•about 3 hours ago
Basically it's a return to the pre-1990s model of defense iteration - dual use components constantly iterated on by newer challengers in direct competition or partnership with larger players.

This is a model most countries are working on now - from China to France to Russia to Ukraine to India to South Korea to ...

Also, for all of HN's moaning, this has bipartisan support in both parties. Based on my network, NatSec and Defense Policy roles haven't seen significant turnover irrespective of admin and those of us in the space are aligned with America irrespective of who's in the White House.

It's the same way how at SF Climate Week right now where plenty of founders in the space are taking conversations with VCs irrespective of political opinions. Climate and GreenTech is dual use, and even a couple European trade commissions have been working on introducing their startups here and helping them expand IP and R&D headcount IN the US. Clearly the overlap between pissy HNer and people doing s#it doesn't overlap as much anymore.

mcmcmc•about 3 hours ago
> Also, for all of HN's moaning, this has bipartisan support in both parties.

This misses the issue; no one is mad about improvements in process efficiency. People don’t like what the purchases will be used for.

alephnerd•about 3 hours ago
It's DefenseTech.

It's used to threaten opponents that we can efficiently kill them while minizming our casualties. That's the point. And has always been the primary driver for most tech development.

You may hate it but you don't matter. We all do it no matter what.

A large portion of the commenters here only heard of Thiel because of Trump, and think the industry begins and ends with him. It does not.