Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#11

Post by bell-cot »

bix6 wrote: post #4

“My most effective and moral friends are now working for Palantir,” Ganesan says. This statement is so absurd to me I don’t even know where to begin. Effective, sure. Moral? Hmmmm. I’m not sure building tech to snipe people from on high is moral?

Stanford is packed with extremely bright, ambitious students. Who can easily optimize their "beliefs and values", for getting ahead.

What's the big downside, from their PoV? Being regarded as "immoral" by a few mostly-impotent-and-irrelevant idealists is probably an upside, due to the cred boost in their new in-group.

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#12

Post by johncoltrane »

bix6 wrote: post #4

“My most effective and moral friends are now working for Palantir,” Ganesan says. This statement is so absurd to me I don’t even know where to begin. Effective, sure. Moral? Hmmmm. I’m not sure building tech to snipe people from on high is moral?

Morality is not absolute.

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#15

Post by _aavaa_ »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #10
DrillShopper wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll never cut defense spending. That's where the most grift and corruption are, and that's the bread and butter for any politician to horse-trade for what they want.

>> They'll never cut defense spending Military expenditure (% of GDP) - United States: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... . They often cut defense spending.

If we switch from % to absolute terms you can see it is almost always up and to the right.

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#16

Post by financetechbro »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #10
DrillShopper wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll never cut defense spending. That's where the most grift and corruption are, and that's the bread and butter for any politician to horse-trade for what they want.

>> They'll never cut defense spending Military expenditure (% of GDP) - United States: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... . They often cut defense spending.

As per the other commenter. How do you rationalize this?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.CD?location...

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#17

Post by rufus_foreman »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #15
rufus_foreman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They'll never cut defense spending Military expenditure (% of GDP) - United States: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat... . They often cut defense spending.

If we switch from % to absolute terms you can see it is almost always up and to the right.

If the US never cuts defense spending, how did it go from 752 billion in 2011 to 633 billion in 2015?

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#18

Post by threatofrain »

bix6 wrote: post #4

“My most effective and moral friends are now working for Palantir,” Ganesan says. This statement is so absurd to me I don’t even know where to begin. Effective, sure. Moral? Hmmmm. I’m not sure building tech to snipe people from on high is moral?

Do you think war is just inherently immoral? What should a country do to not be Ukraine?

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#19

Post by flashgordon »

gorpy7 wrote: post #9
bix6 wrote: post #4

“My most effective and moral friends are now working for Palantir,” Ganesan says. This statement is so absurd to me I don’t even know where to begin. Effective, sure. Moral? Hmmmm. I’m not sure building tech to snipe people from on high is moral?

Is it possible to be moral and dead?

Quite possible. But is it preferable though?

Re: Stanford students want in on the military tech gold rush

#20

Post by _aavaa_ »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #17
_aavaa_ wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we switch from % to absolute terms you can see it is almost always up and to the right.

If the US never cuts defense spending, how did it go from 752 billion in 2011 to 633 billion in 2015?

I did say “almost always” goes up and the to right.

Look at the graph. Sometimes there may be year over year decreases, but the trend is very firmly up and to the right.

Post reply on HN