81–90 of 326 posts
Why do the worst companies have the best names.
They're never able to live it down. It always comes up. And it makes them seem, in a way, careless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This discounts the value of user experience, which people will pay a premium for. A good design is valuable, and this applies to business processes as well. How would you design the user experience of constructing a submarine? Good design IS technological superiority.
> This discounts the value of user experience, which people will pay a premium for. The people making purchasing decisions at this level aren't the ones using it and don't care one whit about UX. That isn't to say that it isn't valuable, but it's basically a non-factor. The technology itself is a non-factor. Everything is about connections, buzz words and pretty slide decks.
Randos don't become general managers.
Can anyone familiar with the technology help disillusion naive people like me as to why on earth palantir needs to exist? It feels like a big pile of nothing. But tbf that's how I feel about Salesforce and Jira too. Big fat database schemas with big fat CRUD atop and layers of snazzy sparklines to make PMs and clients feel nurtured and fuzzy that they've done something material.
The software exists because it's now convenient and easier to build their own than depend on a contractor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like how Tableau is a great UI for grammar of graphics, Palantir is a great UI for ontological expert systems. Technically you could do everything without it but organizations and especially government typically don’t cultivate that level of expertise in their staff. In my view expert systems typically failed because the organizations would degrade bureaucratically faster than any expert system could accommodate. Wit…
> Similar to how other large military purchases are less about the military hardware and more of a client state subscription to ‘align interests’ such that the US is more likely to act in the donor countries interest. I have a feeling this is no longer a viable model. If "subscribers" get threatened every other day, they will be looking for alternatives.
Who do "they" as in Europe go to?
China also views the EU as a junior partner [0], is running an ongoing disinfo campaign against the industrial exports of an EU member state [1], and has doubled down on it's support for Russia [2] in Ukraine in return for Russia backing China's claim on Taiwan [3].
And the EU is uninterested in building domestic capacity for most critical technologies.
Heck, last week [4] the EU excluded AI, Quantum, Semiconductors, and other technologies from the Industrial Accelerator Act (aka the "Made in EU" act) in order to concentrate on automotive and "net-zero" technologies.
Given that Chinese technology imports are already under the radar in the EU due to the Ukraine war, this is basically the EU creating a carveout for the US.
Even the major European Telecom and Space companies like Eutelsat, Deutsche Telekom, and Telefónica bluntly stated that they view the EU's digital sovereignity strategy as dead in the water [5] in it's current form.
Edit: can't reply
> They/we will go to domestic producers as much as possible, then China, then US, then rest of the world in that order. At least that would make a rational approach since (for now) unique things like f-35 can become an expensive paperweight on a whim of a lonely sick man. You can't build any sort of defense strategy on that, can you
But as I clearly showed, the EU is doing otherwise.
And the EU cannot work with China as long as China backs Russia and undermines European industrial exports.
All the rhetoric about digital sovereignity and domestic capacity has been just that - rhetoric.
[0] - https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.ht...
[1] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...
[2] - https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2025-01-...
[3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russias-shoigu-chinas-wa...
[4] - https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/eu-axes-ai-chips-and-quantum...
[5] - https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/europes-digital-sovereignty-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Could it be people dislike him because he enables anti-democratic capabilities like mass domestic surveillance, and enthusiastically supports an administration with little regard for the law?
Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason... They might provide "anti-democratic capabilities", but by that definition any defence company or AI company wouldn't be liable for security clearance because they also provide capabilities which could be used in anti-democratic ways.
Can someone explain why Palantir are seen as such a threat? My understanding is their product is a PowerBI++ and they don't host any user data themselves. Are people scared of backdoors?
Two Reasons: 1) It holds deeply sensitive data and does so in the US. In times of increased mistrust of the US, many (including myself) see that as a risky choice. 2) Speaking of mistrust in America and American corporations, have you heard their execs talk? It's absolute cuckoo-town: > If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come…
Of course I agree that quote is insane and you can dislike them for political reasons, but I want to understand the technological fears and see if any are unfounded.
Related meeting launching today about Palantir and the NHS - https://www.medact.org/event/briefing-launch-the-risks-of-pa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could it be people dislike him because he enables anti-democratic capabilities like mass domestic surveillance, and enthusiastically supports an administration with little regard for the law?
What's the argument though, no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics? Also, Palantir only works with democratic countries for a reason... They might provide "anti-democratic capabilities", but by that definition any defence company or AI company wouldn't be liable for security clearance because they also provide capabilities which could be used in anti-democratic ways.
Irrelevant when the administrations of these countries have zero regard for constitutional rights.
> no security clearance for people who have the wrong politics?
Yup, seems to be Karp's and the government's own opinion re Anthropic.
Can anyone familiar with the technology help disillusion naive people like me as to why on earth palantir needs to exist? It feels like a big pile of nothing. But tbf that's how I feel about Salesforce and Jira too. Big fat database schemas with big fat CRUD atop and layers of snazzy sparklines to make PMs and clients feel nurtured and fuzzy that they've done something material.
Palantir’s product is light years ahead of anything any government IT project has ever, and in my opinion can ever, deliver. They’re not even in the same league.
But specifically in terms of what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like how Tableau is a great UI for grammar of graphics, Palantir is a great UI for ontological expert systems. Technically you could do everything without it but organizations and especially government typically don’t cultivate that level of expertise in their staff. In my view expert systems typically failed because the organizations would degrade bureaucratically faster than any expert system could accommodate. Wit…
> Similar to how other large military purchases are less about the military hardware and more of a client state subscription to ‘align interests’ such that the US is more likely to act in the donor countries interest. I have a feeling this is no longer a viable model. If "subscribers" get threatened every other day, they will be looking for alternatives.
It’s interesting to read of the ineffectiveness of influence the gulf states thought they had, though I think that speaks more to the relative cost effectiveness of tributes versus blackmail. These states don’t have the security apparatus to both blackmail US politicians and prevent others from blackmailing those same politicians. This second part is essential as it is what maintains the relative advantage.
I do think they will be less enthusiastic subscribers in the future, and perhaps even shop around for more cost effective approaches. Modi in India is intentionally creating an Indian diaspora as one example and I believe he is bribing politicians to help make this happen.