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

Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#31

Post by AndrewKemendo »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #14
jMyles wrote: post #6

Wow, I thought this was satire for a second. This is a level of shamelessness that I'm really surprised Stanford (or anyone involved) can tolerate being associated with. > Department of War Directory – This year the students had access to a Department of War Directory – essentially a phonebook of ~5,700 names of “Who buys in the Dept of War?” The directory includes a tutorial on how the DoW buys and the various acqui…

I believe the quip associated with this is "don't hate the player, hate the game." War is where the money is. The government of this country has decided that you make money by going to war and you don't make money by not going to war. It's also decided that having money is mandatory. So if you want to succeed you'll go to war.

This is extremely well put and precisely accurate

you may not even appreciate how accurate this is because it seems so simple but it’s exactly true

The moment you say “I’m not going to spend my time doing war” (in my case anymore) you are persona non grata to capitalism

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#32

Post by awongh »

People surprised by this don’t know that the expertise that incubated silicon chips at Stanford and around the valley was based on electrical engineering work done for world war II / cold war radar technology, among other things.

Stanford and SV have always had deep defense ties. Palmer Luckey and Palantir etc are just the latest iteration of this.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#33

Post by eigencoder »

jMyles wrote: post #20
graphime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this program appears to just treat war like it's some perfectly normal thing, rather than the most undesirable aspect of humanity which we're hoping to finally bring to an end so can we enjoy an age of peace amidst the internet. War has existed for all of human history. Why do you think humans today are special and will eliminate war? The only acceptable answer is: you want hope.

> Why do you think humans today are special and will eliminate war? Isn't this _the entire point_ of the internet? To evolve beyond states and boundaries and warfare as a way of making decisions about resource allocation? It strikes me as very short-sighted to decline to act as a generation on this matter. Humans today (or lets say, in these next few centuries) _are_ special; we have arrived at an evolutionary milest…

I don't see how we could remove states and boundaries and warfare. Boundaries aren't bad things, they're a natural consequence of living in a natural world

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#34

Post by leoqa »

jMyles wrote: post #9
graphime wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> You must be new to tech. Feel free to peruse my profile and websites to get a sense of my contributions and career trajectory over the past few decades, in software and in bluegrass music, if you for whatever reason seriously think that's germane to the discussion.

He’s calling you naive, not asking for your resume.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#35

Post by mhb »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #31
chadgpt3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the quip associated with this is "don't hate the player, hate the game." War is where the money is. The government of this country has decided that you make money by going to war and you don't make money by not going to war. It's also decided that having money is mandatory. So if you want to succeed you'll go to war.

This is extremely well put and precisely accurate you may not even appreciate how accurate this is because it seems so simple but it’s exactly true The moment you say “I’m not going to spend my time doing war” (in my case anymore) you are persona non grata to capitalism

> “I’m not going to spend my time doing war” (in my case anymore)

It's less convenient to indulge that opinion without the protection of the most powerful military in the world.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#36

Post by mhb »

jMyles wrote: post #20
graphime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this program appears to just treat war like it's some perfectly normal thing, rather than the most undesirable aspect of humanity which we're hoping to finally bring to an end so can we enjoy an age of peace amidst the internet. War has existed for all of human history. Why do you think humans today are special and will eliminate war? The only acceptable answer is: you want hope.

> Why do you think humans today are special and will eliminate war? Isn't this _the entire point_ of the internet? To evolve beyond states and boundaries and warfare as a way of making decisions about resource allocation? It strikes me as very short-sighted to decline to act as a generation on this matter. Humans today (or lets say, in these next few centuries) _are_ special; we have arrived at an evolutionary milest…

If you think suicidal fanatics or megalomaniacal dictators are motivated by sub-optimal resource allocation, you haven't been paying attention.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#37

Post by rockskon »

awongh wrote: post #32

People surprised by this don’t know that the expertise that incubated silicon chips at Stanford and around the valley was based on electrical engineering work done for world war II / cold war radar technology, among other things. Stanford and SV have always had deep defense ties. Palmer Luckey and Palantir etc are just the latest iteration of this.

That's about as culturally relevant to Stanford as talking of people who lived through the great depression.

The DoD doesn't get to neglect relationships with a community for decades and then talk of how much in common they have with each other. It's nonsense and transparently manipulative.

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#38

Post by nradov »

rockskon wrote: post #37
awongh wrote: post #32

People surprised by this don’t know that the expertise that incubated silicon chips at Stanford and around the valley was based on electrical engineering work done for world war II / cold war radar technology, among other things. Stanford and SV have always had deep defense ties. Palmer Luckey and Palantir etc are just the latest iteration of this.

That's about as culturally relevant to Stanford as talking of people who lived through the great depression. The DoD doesn't get to neglect relationships with a community for decades and then talk of how much in common they have with each other. It's nonsense and transparently manipulative.

Huh? The DoD has maintained relationships with many area startups and tech companies for decades. Have you not been paying attention?

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#39

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mhb wrote: post #35
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is extremely well put and precisely accurate you may not even appreciate how accurate this is because it seems so simple but it’s exactly true The moment you say “I’m not going to spend my time doing war” (in my case anymore) you are persona non grata to capitalism

> “I’m not going to spend my time doing war” (in my case anymore) It's less convenient to indulge that opinion without the protection of the most powerful military in the world.

Ah yes this old chestnut

Come back to me after you serve in combat. The dod doesn’t protect anything but investors’ returns.

I’ll have two time Medal of Honor winner explain it to you:

https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

Re: Hacking for Defense Stanford 2026 – Lessons Learned Presentations

#40

Post by rockskon »

nradov wrote: post #38
rockskon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about as culturally relevant to Stanford as talking of people who lived through the great depression. The DoD doesn't get to neglect relationships with a community for decades and then talk of how much in common they have with each other. It's nonsense and transparently manipulative.

Huh? The DoD has maintained relationships with many area startups and tech companies for decades. Have you not been paying attention?

I question what specifically you're referring to.

Yes, Hack for Defense is a decade old now. But the DoD famously had not done much business with area startups for many decades outside of very specific success stories like the CIA's In-Q-Tel.

Turns out that start-ups can't wait several years for a contract award. They tend to die in that time if they have no funding.

Additionally - talk of electrical engineering work done for world war II / cold war radar technology has been a oft-repeated tagline by members of military leadership as well as Palantir representatives when talking amongst themselves about Silicon Valley or in their appeals to SV itself.

"We have so much in common! Here, why don't you open your history book and I'll show you!" - that's what the appeal comes off like.

I maintain that primarily relying on those examples is a poor choice in trying to establish cultural similarities.

Post reply on HN