Palantir is extending its reach even further into government

I doubt anyone has the $$$ horsepower to maintain a coherent stack as big as Foundry. So in the makeOrBuy, you probably will go for a buy. And in that field, I still think SAP is way behind Palantir. Someone in the discussion mentionned IBM’s InformationServer, and I will spend some time to investigate its storage scalability strategy and the data model governance.

I definitely agree.

Two comments here:

- the real power of Foundry is that it is REALLY scalable. Palantir is selling all the knowledge management+data management that you mentionned BUT at a level of integration and scalability that I had never seen in any other product.

- someone in the discussions mentionned IBM InformationServer as an alternative. Functionnaly that sounds quite similar to Foundry. The question is whether the implementation choices are as clever as in Foundry. #toBeInvestigated

> The founding fathers were often in their (often early) 20s.

The youngest delegate to the Constitutional convention was Johnathan Dayton of New Jersey, who was 26, and there were three more under 30. There were more over 60 than than under 30.

The people that are frequently cited as being "Founding Fathers" in their "early 20s" (or "between 19 or 21, because we're not sure exactly when he was born", in Hamilton's case) are people who were that age in 1776 and ended up playing an important role. But the Constitution was drafted more than a decade later -- there was a war, plus time under the first system of government under the Articles of Confederation in between.

> Actually, one of the doctrines of the founding fathers was that the whole system should be reviewed, head to toe, every 10-20 years.,

No, that was not a "doctrine of the founding fathers", it was a belief of Thomas Jefferson expressed later in a letter to, as I recall, John Adams, specifically (the upper limit of the period at which he held any law or constitution needed to expire was actually 19 years, based on actuarial data and a set of assumptions he had about what was necessary and acceptable in terms of avoiding the living being ruled over by the dead.)

You can tell it was not a widely held "doctrine of the founding fathers" (or, more to the point, of the Framers, who are the ones actually relevant to the Constitution, though the two groups have considerable overlap) because instead of expiring by its own terms in 19 years or less, the Constitution was permanent, with a very difficult method of amendment, and that method of amendment was specifically barred from changing certain parts.

There weren't really very many widely shared "doctrines" of the Founders or the Framers. They weren't a hive mind or a cult or even a group as ideologically aligned as the coalition that makes up either of the US's current major political parties. The idea of shared doctrines or a single unifying vision behind the Constitution are mythologies created after, and requiring deliberate disregard of, the facts.

> Culture is a real thing that exists, and it’s okay to prefer your own!

Yes, it is. There is quite the leap from "preferring your own" to lying about a specific group are doing something morally objectionable, in order to reinforce your campaign's anti-immigration messaging, though.

And yes, it is racist to lie about a group of people you don't like to make them sound worse so that other people don't like them too.

Like it was racist when Nazis said that Jews control the world and ate children and whatever nonsense you can think of.

Targeting a specific group of people's immutable characteristics to slander them to paint them negatively fits your "original" definition of racism. The couch fucker treated them differently, by lying that they specifically are eating pets.

The Houthis somewhat inconveniencing global shipping in a protracted conflict defined by "our available missiles are too expensive to be using against the targets being sent against us" and the US defending Taiwan from a seaborne land invasion which would require the bulk transit of men, vehicles and supplies across a narrow body of water are in no way equivalent scenarios.

The Houthis aren't invading or occupying anything they didn't already own. No one is trying to take it from them. They are an insurance risk.

China trying to invade and occupy Taiwan is an existential threat for the people of Taiwan, and the volume and value of materials and men China would have to move across the Strait of Taiwan would vastly exceed the value of the missiles which would be targeted against them (and in fact would be targeted more aggressively since the US in part avoids expending missiles so as to retain reserves against more serious opponents - in a straight up fight with China though, you'd be much more liberal in your targeting priorities), which is what the US Navy is built to do. A platform being vulnerable to some new tactic does not make the platform useless, and if a minor upgrade would fix it then it just means you're in a transition point. If laser-equipped American destroyers with fleets of mixed capability interceptor UAVs in 2 years time are ensuring nothing touches a ship in the Red Sea, your theory would be in immense trouble - and that technology isn't theoretical, it's being deployed right now.

But perhaps if you really want to consider the problem, then just take a look at what China is building: missile destroyers, submarines, aircraft carriers and stealth fighters. If all these things are so worthless and could not fight and defeat China, then why is China spending so much money trying to exactly replicate those capabilities if the future is all drones all the time or whatever other internet sensation of the moment (i.e. a year back when "the end of the tank was nigh" according to the internet).