RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People, not capital, should have rights, because rights are there to protect people from power.
Peter Thiel is almost wholly responsible for JD Vance being in the White House
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.
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".
Vance doesn't need to be bribed, he's in it for Thiel.
In what way do you feel Thiel is "behind" SpaceX?
Absolutely insane.
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.
> 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.
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.
Also, there's nothing unusual about the big guy thinking they don't have to learn lessons from others and so ignore their experience.
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.
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
"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...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
This misses the issue; no one is mad about improvements in process efficiency. People don’t like what the purchases will be used for.
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.