←back to thread

Reflections on Palantir

(nabeelqu.substack.com)
479 points freditup | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
austinjp ◴[] No.41867353[source]
The article reveals depressing reasons why someone might choose to work for the lines of Palantir: lots of talented people working on hard problems. That's pretty much it. No problem with the business model, just intellectual hunger. I'm sure the pay didn't hurt.

We need to teach our students that the employment they take doesn't exist in a vacuum. Your choice of employee can impact not only yourself but the wider world. There's more to life than intellectual satisfaction.

replies(13): >>41867539 #>>41868032 #>>41868044 #>>41868131 #>>41868249 #>>41868281 #>>41869268 #>>41869297 #>>41869514 #>>41869654 #>>41869665 #>>41869723 #>>41869727 #
yoaviram ◴[] No.41868281[source]
What a brilliant example of self-righteous post-rationalization. Maybe we all need to recalibrate our moral compasses. Yes, ethics is nuanced, but not in the case of Palantir, who directly enables the abuse of human rights on a massive scale. They are not in the grey, they are pitch black - arms dealers selling to the highest bidder[1][2]. Same as NSO but with better PR.

The minimal standard we should teach our students is to be part of the solution, not the problem, and that sitting on the fence counts as being on the side of the problem. Working for a "neutral" employer is just not good enough. There are plenty of worthwhile alternatives out there. We all should try to make the world a better place in some small way.

1. https://archive.ph/LwvMA 2. https://time.com/6293398/palantir-future-of-warfare-ukraine/

replies(2): >>41868778 #>>41869182 #
1. elefanten ◴[] No.41869182[source]
This is a pretty wild claim, you're gonna need better evidence than strident rhetorical posturing to back that one up.