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

Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 756 posts

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#661

Post by nashashmi »

throw0101d wrote: post #657
nashashmi wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Japan did not take part in the Holocaust. Not the goal of Germany nor Italy was the holocaust. Their objective was not to conquer the world. They were empire builders, plain and simple, and they were trying to expand their trade networks, like Britain had done and monopolized. They took over each European state and replaced its leadership with one that benefitted themselves. Their objective was policy frameworks for…

> Japan did not take part in the Holocaust. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women (Japan still ignores complaints to this day) The Japanese viewed non-Japanese as sub-human. It is no different than Nazis viewing Jews, Slavs, etc , as sub-human. > The holocaust was a late…

No one calls the japanese persecution of the Chinese a holocaust.

For generalplan ost, “The plan, prepared in the years 1939–1942, was part of Adolf Hitler's and the Nazi movement's Lebensraum policy and a fulfilment of the Drang nach Osten” which still makes it a later development.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#662

Post by smag »

When your mortgage, everything you eat, the clothes your wife and children wear all come from one company, it is not hard to convince yourself that "this company might not be moral, but if I weren't here, someone else would be." And most people never even consider the ethics and morals of their workplace.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#663

Post by the_af »

BobbyJo wrote: post #392
cogman10 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US did not retreat. We fought multiple wars to maintain our power and influence. We toppled multiple regimes to maintain puppet governments. Very much the same as the USSR and China have done. Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, etc. US conquest was quiet similar to British conquest. They didn't make their conquered people citizens (that'd make things tricky for exploitation) so instead they make…

Vietnam and Korea were technically wars to stop conquest, no?

> Vietnam and Korea were technically wars to stop conquest, no?

No.

For example, the US got involved in Vietnam to help the colonizer (France) stop an independence movement. Yes, because they feared the resulting Vietnam may become communist and USSR aligned (something they helped happen, since Ho Chi Minh quite admired the US and expected them to help him at first), but even if this was the case, it's still not about stopping an invasion, because commie Vietnamese are still Vietnamese.

Something along those lines for Korea, too.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#664

Post by nutjob2 »

HaloZero wrote: post #143

If you haven't listened/read it, I think the Ezra Klein interview with Alex Bores (who formerly worked at Palantir) and how he talks about how it was in 2014 vs now. It's also insane that a PAC campaigning against Bores is funded by current Palantir employee Lonsdale. Their critical ads literally criticize him for working for Palantir. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...

> It's also insane that a PAC campaigning against Bores is funded by current Palantir employee Lonsdale. Their critical ads literally criticize him for working for Palantir.

It's life imitating The Simpsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsCTpREM48M

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#665

Post by the_af »

throw0101d wrote: post #655
cogman10 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conquest from who? I generally take the word "conquest" to mean some outside force coming in and taking over. That didn't happen in either Vietnam or Korea. You could argue that the USSR used conquest to take over territories for the soviet union. However, that's not something really arguable about Vietnam or Korea. Vietnam, in particular, was the native population overthrowing their conquerors, the french, and then…

> Conquest from who? The Communists. Would you rather live in North or South Korea? Vietnam is interesting in that they're still politically authoritarian but willing to be more economically open; see also China. (Just don't say the wrong thing about the wrong people.)

"The Communist" were a faction in a civil war, that's not an invasion. And the split in both cases (Vietnam and Korea) was recent and artificial, in the sense of no tradition of there being two countries. It wasn't one country invading another country, but two halves engaged in a civil war.

Where one wants to live is irrelevant. It wasn't about stopping an invasion, which was the initial claim. The US was meddling.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#666

Post by satvikpendem »

aziaziazi wrote: post #645
alterom wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The comparaison of chicken and tomatoes is a strawman. It's a direct answer to the question asked by the parent. The answer is: no, vegetables are not cheaper than meat in the US. It is perverse. Which is my point: what enables the low, low price of chicken isn't merely the laws of supply and demand. >First off: people don’t swap them in their diet, a better exemple would be wheat or soy Those are not vegetables . T…

Ah I might be confused by my low english skills but it seems grains and legumes are vegetable. I was curious and a quick search returned several sources confirming that however I'd be pleased to learn other usages. > a plant or part of a plant that is eaten as food. Potatoes, beans and onions are all vegetables. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... I'm don't want to argue on definitions tho…

They are vegetables technically speaking, the parent is being too literal and obtuse with their inference of what I was talking about.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#667

Post by DangitBobby »

kelipso wrote: post #595
DangitBobby wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find might is right to be a convincing moral argument. The only reason I was born a human instead of one of the 300 billion animals humanity consumes each year is the outcome of a lottery system, simple as that. Consider whether you'd feel the same way when applying a "veil of ignorance" test.

He’s not making a might is right argument.

Yes he is. "Nothing more natural than one animal eating another" is might makes right. It's also an appeal to nature, but in this case it's both.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#668

Post by satvikpendem »

alterom wrote: post #634
aziaziazi wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparaison of chicken and tomatoes is a strawman. First off: people don’t swap them in their diet, a better exemple would be wheat or soy - which are what the 0.99/p chicken eat [edit: and it's closer in term of nutrients]. Second: the shelf price you mention includes gouvernement subsidies and economy of scale. The grains price should be the one paid by the fermer, adjusted for smaller packaging. Your comparais…

>The comparaison of chicken and tomatoes is a strawman. It's a direct answer to the question asked by the parent. The answer is: no, vegetables are not cheaper than meat in the US. It is perverse. Which is my point: what enables the low, low price of chicken isn't merely the laws of supply and demand. >First off: people don’t swap them in their diet, a better exemple would be wheat or soy Those are not vegetables . T…

If you are going to be that literal then I'm not sure what to say. By vegetables yes I meant a plant based diet (including legumes and grains which are vegetables technically speaking) vs one with meat, not literally tomatoes versus chicken. You might have given a direct answer but it's not what was implied in the context of the thread. I do agree that there is a big problem with the current regulations and subsidies artificially pushing down the price of meat, yet even still it is cheaper to not eat meat. And I say this as someone who does eat meat.

Aside, I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive in your comments, it doesn't make for good discourse when one says things like "you've completely missed the point" or "no shit" or the oft seen pattern of quoting and rebutting each line. If I were to speak to my friends that way I'd quickly lose friends.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#669

Post by the_af »

sofixa wrote: post #619
spwa4 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that the Axis (Nazi Germany, Japan) were attacking everyone with the explicitly stated goal of conquering the world (and subjecting it to the holocaust, we might add), and US stopped them, conquered Europe, North Africa, half the Pacific, and nothing has been able to stop the US military since. And the US ... retreated. We might add, the Soviets, the other axis, did not retreat. China did not retreat.…

> and US stopped them The Allies stopped them. The US was one of the major contributors, but they were far from alone. The Soviets, Britain, Canada, India, Poland, France, Netherlands, Kenya, etc etc all contributed to various extents. The Indian army was one of the biggest by number of men. The Poles and French were crucial in setting the ground work for the British decrypting Enigma, alongside their purely military…

Arguably the Soviets were on par (or more) than the US in defeating Nazi Germany. (Yes, lend lease, etc, this is not downplaying US contributions).

The Eastern Front was the real battlefield were Nazi Germany was doomed.

Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, etc.

Re: Palantir employees are starting to wonder if they're the bad guys

#670

Post by DangitBobby »

computably wrote: post #618
DangitBobby wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's easier to change your morals than your behavior, or contort your thinking around your own behavior until you can imagine it fits into the shape that you've decided your morals are, reality notwithstanding. I think that explains a lot of it, for unabashed meat-eaters. The other thing I see is casting every human as sacred and every non-human living thing as without value, or, at least less value than a s…

First off, I believe veganism is, probably, morally correct. However, I lead a morally imperfect lifestyle. I get around by driving or being driven in a car, even when it would only be moderately less convenient to walk or bike or take transit. A few dollars could feed children in poverty for weeks, and I spend on lot more than "a few" dollars on luxuries like travel. By my measure, knowingly choosing not to prevent…

I didn't say it any of it was unusual. Your observation that humans place themselves at the center of the moral universe and have the agency to enforce it is in line with my thoughts.

> Many if not most people view morality as rooted in the golden rule, and non-human animals are incapable of making moral considerations the way humans are.

Ironically making us the only animals capable of moral evil.

> Even just considering gut feelings - let's say we presented a trolley problem, on one side one's close friends and family members, on the other side some number of chickens. I would be very surprised at genuine responses opting to save the chickens. Personally, I would sacrifice literally any number of chickens.

Is this due to a internally consistent moral value system apart from a view of humans as sacred? If on the other side of the trolley were some of a race of aliens, smarter, better, faster, younger, and more emblematic of the human ideals by way of virtue than the humans on the other side, would you save the aliens? Probably not. Your preference to preserve other people is very natural and probably hard-wired into your brain. That doesn't mean it isn't human chauvinism.

Post reply on HN