You're out of your mind -- and politically radicalized -- if you think that Palantir is on part with the Nazis. And this kind of facile comparison is offensively trivializing those who died in the holocaust.
One of the things we need to learn from the Nazis is the banality of evil. They were not some unique video game bad guys. They were ordinary people doing mostly ordinary things that added up to an atrocity. Mostly they just had some bad opinions. The individual concentration camp guard had a vague bad feeling about the project but apart from that they felt the same as a security guard at a prison feels today.
And the Nazis were already around for 10 years before the holocaust began. And for all that time they were still the Nazis, but nobody considered them that badly, because they just seemed like a political party with some bad opinions. And we should think about that. Was it possible to stop them in the first 10 years of existence, before they did the holocaust, thereby preventing the holocaust?
Yes palantir is fascist organization. They did not done the murders only because they dont have power yet. That is claim of CEO, I am just listening to what he says and writes.
Jews complained about nazi long before holocaust, btw. So did opposition.
“offensively trivializing those who died in the Holocaust” - calling someone nazi or fascist is not trivializing Holocaust. These are clear terms and both Palantir and Karp often publish texts with fascist ideological elements and views. Read something they published like Technological republic. They are not hiding it.
You're moving the goalposts. The original poster wrote that Palantir is on par with the Nazis. (Typos notwithstanding.) That's what I'm responding to.
And yes, it is offensive and trivializing to the millions that were murdered to suggest that that their murderers were on the same moral footing as a modern government software consultancy. (The views that you read into some of their executives are, in fact, not equivalent to actions such as exterminating millions of people.)
The ceo of the company supports mass termination of people. It's pretty obvious to me. This is the type of company that build ways to achieve evil ideology
So you are saying that using term nazi or fascist can be used only for people that do holocaust and more. Okay so I guess we shall just wait and see?
What the CEO says and writes in their book to promote the company suddenly doesn't matter? Palantir is suddenly just some run of the mill software consultancy? Their founders/CEO meddling in politics I assume also doesn't count?
And no, you're moving the goalposts again. My comment is strictly about Nazis, not "nazi or fascist". If you can't even keep this straight, then my time is wasted on you.
That's the problem? I thought that Nazism and Fascism are often used interchangeably because Nazism = Fascism+ (racism,antisemitism).
Ok this might be a misunderstanding then. What you are saying is that Palantir are not Nazis because they are just Fascists and calling them Nazis is hollowing out the term and is disrespectful to holocaust survivors? I don't know i guess i could be convinced. Palantir still seems to have quite a bit of that racial sprinkle "Western Supremacy" in their manifestos.
Downvoted. Stripe Atlas is a massively successful service that handles 100K+ incorporations annually. It's a key piece of Stripe's ecosystem support. You writing that you're "not sure who it's for" suggests to me that maybe you're out of your depth here as a general matter.
This is totally false, sorry. Delaware entities are the standard. Delaware corporate law is better understood than any other by a long shot. Dealing with a random non-Delaware LLC is usually a hint that your counterparty is a rube.
Huh? You got any sources on that? I’ve never heard anyone say a non-Delaware LLC is a bad idea. And most sources seem to say incorporating in your home state is usually the right call.
I guess you didn't read my comment. I said unless you have a very very good reason one of which could very well be if you plan on immediately raising VC money. Most companies don't do that and will just end up wasting a lot of time by having a foreign LLC and tons of additional tax issues they have to deal with by having a corporation.
I wrote an article a few months ago about how I expect open-source development to shift toward people no longer contributing code, but just contributing money, for the maintainers to purchase tokens to have AI ship a given feature request.
I worry that this ends up, like other EU consumer-protection regulation, as an own goal.
- The cheapest phones available in the EU (and purchasable online) all have glued-in batteries, not swappable ones. Forcing consumers to use phones with swappable batteries may just mean that the bottom of the market disappears, and consumers will be left paying more for their phones. And would they rather pay less or have swappable batteries?
- This will cause some cascade of engineering changes, which will make phones thicker or less waterproof. Again, it's not clear to me that the tradeoff is being fairly reflected here.
They then end up paying more by buying five awful low-range phones that each last a year instead of one mid-range that will last more. No, I would rather everyone paid more for a phone. I find it hard to believe that the difference in price will make it impossible for them to buy it, if so, that's a separate problem. This + mandated software support may finally make it viable to just buy a used phone, too.
- efficient vaccuums
- efficient bulbs
- no roaming costs if somebody leaves a message on your voicemail
- insurance companies and banks can't charge you as they see fit
- toxic free food
- toxic free meat
- farming without killing the rest of the living things
- Best of all: China and USA can't dictate the rules everytime
Like the experience of opening any website for the last decade and being greeted with a cookie popup is more the direction the parent comment was intending I'm assuming.
Some regulations are good, some are bad, all have second and third order effects that need to be weighed against benefits.
and you comfortably ignore all the adds that get in your face when opening any news or commerce site. you would not need these popups with agree and list of third party data aggregators if you were not selling all that visitor information to anyone. alas eu requires you to notify visitors about it. its not like eu says "you must show annoying popups" its page authors choose to do so to be able to sell the data. even knowing that this will annoy the visitors. and then blame EU
Unified charging cable: what if the standard had been set much earlier? For example, in 2008? We'd all be on Micro-USB, far inferior to USB-C. Right now USB-C feels great, but do you really think this is the end-all, be-all? I think the cost of this mandatory standardization will become apparent a few years from now.
It's because we went from the Desktop environment, where rules were well-documented and standardized, to the Web/Mobile environment, where rules had to be reinvented and, for the most part, were not.
Over the past year I've started thinking a lot more about design and UI work, and I think it's basically impossible to design things, or create design systems, that appeal broadly to different types of users in a cross-platform way.
I personally love dense UIs and have no expectation of doing certain kinds of work on a phone or low-powered device like a chromebook, phone, or bottom-barrel laptop. But if you're a company trying to sell products to a broad user base, you want to try to design in a way that works for those kinds of users because they still might be end-users of your product. And there's a good chance that those platforms may be where someone first evaluates your product (eg from a link shared and accessed on a mobile device) even for the users who do plan on using more powerful desktop devices to do their work.
So instead we get these information poor, incoherent (because it turns out proper cross-platform, cross-user design is much more difficult than just getting something that works cross-platform for all users on its surface) interfaces. I guess I'm writing this just to add, web/mobile have complicated things partially because more than just requiring their own distinct patterns, they each represent a distinct medium that products try to target with the same kind of design. But because they're different mediums, it's like trying to square a circle.
It is absurd that there is no standardized UI toolkit, or rather that the web browser _is_ the standard with is characteristic _lack_ of user interaction idioms.
The fact that there are multiple platforms for UIs* is a huge failure of the industry as a whole. Apple, Microsoft and Google could have had a sit down together at any point in the last 20+ years to push some kind of standard, but they decided not to in order to protect their gardens.
*: a standardized UI platform doesn't necessarily mean a standardized platform. Just standardization of UI-related APIs and drawing.
My guess 10 or so years ago was that Google would be the first to bake Material UI into browser with web components, and then any browser would essentially reuse that to extend out whatever style they wanted. It really seemed like the way the web (and Google was heading). Instead we got bad Material UI knock-offs in about 45 different UI frameworks.
I'm not convinced that it's possible to create a UI toolkit that works on both desktop and mobile without one compromising the other. It's a bit like trying to design a vehicle that can serve both as a 2-ton pickup truck and as a golf cart; the needs of the two are just too different.
Another reason is that in 2000 if you wanted pointless UI wank you had to implement it yourself from scratch. Today with bloated frameworks where the developers ran out of ideas 15-20 years ago and have filled the intervening time adding wank that no-one asked for and no-one needs, everything you build with it gets to include every brain fart someone had at 4am back in 2017 that they thought looked cool at the time.
I previously tried buying Apple for Business and it was an endless runaround with terrible signup nterfaces and having to call dumb flunkies. The whole process sucked and was disrespectful to their business customers, who do not have the time to deal with such nonsense.
This stuff strikes me as misguided. Britain's Ofcom is sending censorship/deanonymization requests around the world, Germany prosecutes thousands of its citizens every year for "offensive" things said online... and you think Europe is a bastion of free speech or privacy? You might find that you have greater rights on US soil.
