No, I'm saying is that you fundamentally don't understand what "Luddism" even is or was at any point. Let me be clear. The the term "Luddite" is completely made up. The group it was supposedly based on were simply people whop opposed exploitation at the time of early industrialization. The state at the time came up with this trope of "they are against technology!" as a way to undercut that movement and impose harsh punitive measures like capital punishment for machine breaking. They weren't just self-interested / conservative people who simply went out to conserve status, employment and lifestyle by opposing technology, that's a label/strawman put on them by the British government at the time.
Just like there was no real luddism historically, there's no group of people who are just selfish people fighting against technology out of pure self-interest. This is just a strawman setup by people who don't wish to receive criticism for their own use of technology as a means of exploitation.
What about this is unique to Palantir at all? As far as I'm aware, there are many, many more companies deeply embedded with the US intelligence community and law enforcement and Palantir isn't all that special here. Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, etc. all have massive contracts directly supporting the same thing. I don't understand what makes Palantir special here.
"Neo-luddite" is thrown around by people who don't actually know history and just eat up terminology that was spoonfed to them for a purpose. FYI, the luddite movement wasn't some stupid movement against technology for the sake of being against technology like the eventual term evolved into. Historically, they were skilled artisans who were protesting exploitative working conditions and practices that came about as a result of automation. When some of them started destroying machines, the British government subsequently made it a capital crime to do machine-breaking and violently suppressed these protests and controlled the narrative that the reason luddites were breaking machines was because they were ignorant people who hated progress.
Not ironically, you're eating up the same propaganda brought to you by the likes of Thiel and co. that the people protesting legitimate grievances just simply "hate technology".
Pretending the ADL is some neutral apolitical research body of experts on antisemitism is absolutely ridiculous in 2026. Come on. They aren't any more a useful source on this then saying "the Republican Party cleared it" or "the CPAC secretariat cleared it".
This is the same org that defined antisemitism as being equivalent to criticising the State of Israel. They have zero credibility on the subject.
Also, it wasn't "the ADLs research wing did a comprehensive study and concluded it was not a Nazi salute". It was a tweet made solely by the CEO of the ADL, who has himself been criticised for turning away from civil rights and antisemitism and focusing on Israeli interests.
Re-read the beginning of the First Amendment, because it's such a common mistake that I'm surprised people still make it:
"Congress shall make no laws ... "
The first amendment bars the *government* from infringing on your free speech. It has zero standing or bearing on private citizens or corporations.
Which is why people crowing about it on social media or universities are completely oblivious to the fact that these organizations have absolutely zero responsibility to enable your free speech.
Yeah you've completely misread this. The phrase "not being a team player" is a euphemism for someone not willing to do dubiously unethical or illegal (or things that go against internal company policy) things in support of a low level supervisor or manager's wishes. Or more favourably, someone who's unwilling to do things outside of what he's actually paid for or to do things unpaid (or outside working hours etc.). Also known as wage theft.
The guy saying that he has been accused of "not being a team player" isn't literally quoting his management here. He's summarizing that his immediate supervisors don't like him because he's unwilling to enter in some patronage like relationship with them.
The fact that you gave the benefit of the doubt to some faceless employer here instead of an actual person recounting his experiences is really sad and maybe ought to be reason for you to rethink your biases to jump to the conclusion that this guy is a toxic loner. Sounds like you're projecting hard here from some other experience.
Why are you withholding the name of the webmail provider?
Literally the only thing even remotely pressuring these firms to implement better security is bad PR (and it barely does that), so by not being explicit you are bypassing this
Im confused by the supposed poor definitions of the bill that people keep pointing out. Doesn't the escape-hatch provided in the "systemic vulnerabilities" definition clearly signal that companies could absolutely refuse to implement backdoor encryption?
>(5) A core provider is not required to comply with a provision of a regulation >made under subsection (2), with respect to an electronic service, if compliance >with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic >vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying >such a vulnerability
The definition to me reads to me as very obviously blocking the government from demanding an encryption backdoor, especially since the Act allows for the company to challenge such an order in court.
>"systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of >an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information >could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do >so. "
So what exactly is the problem with this definition?
What a completely asinine post. I'm sick of seemingly smart people in the technical world think they are being so clever by trying to literally rehash the continuum fallacy. You hear this literally everytime anyone even so much as suggests a standard, norm or god forbid a regulation. It seems especially common among libertarian types who think governance of any kind of simply impossible because of it.
Just because there is a gradual spectrum between two states doesn't mean we can't draw distinctions. For example, just because we cannot define the exact, precise color when blue turns into green, it does not mean that blue and green are the same color for any normal person discussing an issue publicly in good faith.
When someone says "X and Y are on a spectrum, X is good and Y is bad", the point is to highlight the differences. Pointing out that the spectrum or continuum might not have a precise boundary has literally zero weight towards the validity of the ultimate conclusion a person is making here and really is just a complete derail done by people who have no substantive points to make.
Which also means that he wasn't doing his job (management) and instead micromanaging his staff by doing their job.
This is such a common problem with highly technical managers because they can't seem to understand how to change focus or scope and do their jobs better. Instead they fall back on trying to ship features thinking that this is productive and to pat themselves on the back for staying technical.
Jesus christ this is pedantic. You do understand that not all statements can be universally distilled to true or false right? That there's nuance and opinion here right?
Yeah except you're completely misunderstanding their criticism of this entire thing. This has nothing to do with "lack of knowledge" and everything to do with criticising the premises and framing of the law in Western societies.
Talk about a complete non-issue. The amount that this actually happens beyond the anecdotes of a few reactionary people listening to to many JRE podcasts is near zero.
Besides, most places are dog-free. However, the ADA and other supporting legislation accommodates people with disabilities so this means that sometimes there's a balancing act between you enjoying a dog free experience (99% of the time) and then 1% of the time someone might have a dog with them that can detect low blood sugar for diabetes or stroke. Frankly, even if this is abused, just enabling people to have this accommodation without demanding it or disclosing medical information to strangers is worth it.
Now I'm guessing you're one of these savant medical geniuses with super powers because you can "just tell by looking at em" to determine if they're faking it. With such powers I'd recommend medical school because those powers of diagnoses are being wasted for being a pathetic reactionary who can't stand anyone different than them.
and in fairness to the mobile devices thing of abstracting file systems, when it comes to discoverability and organizing files or documents, a rigid hierarchy of nested sub-folders is far inferior to a single directory with tagging or other metadata properties you can use to filter and essentially build custom directories on the fly with.
Given this is a UI-focused repo, you really should be including some videos/gifs or at least some static images in your readme without having to run the demo. Like, I just dont get why you wouldnt? Its baffling to be quite honest. Especially given the advertisement of it being cyberpunk inspired. It's also actually quite good-looking having just loaded the demo, so you're doing it a disservice for not actively bragging or communicating how good it looks.
I'd also recommend more docs / tutorials on how to use the platform. Readme is great but when you click Documentation link you're just redirected to the readme which isnt useful and makes it seem like there is actual docs available.
It's because acompany promise is useless without actual enforced regulation which is harsh enough to actually add trust in such a contractual agreement being honoured.
This is how we have a free-market to begin with. You need enforcement and structures in place so people will actually trust any of this crap. Instead, we have the nutjob early 90's cyber libertarians thinking this will all be magically fixed with just magical freedom and the invisible hand fixing everything.
People "don't care" because they do not understand the implications or the technology, not because they genuinely have no interest in privacy. Of course its easy to dupe people without technical literacy by characterizing it as some benign "targeted advertising" as if its a service being provided for you (when clearly it's not) rather than the actual answer which is "we want to follow your every movement and pattern of behaviour as if we had someone following you in an unmarked car and then sell that data to anyone willing to cough up the cash without any of your consent".
This narrative is incredibly toxic and honestly a very antisocial viewpoint of people as if they are all just stupid sheep who deserve to be exploited.
There's zero reason why its unfair for a person to both object to advertising because of the annoyance (because it is annoying) AND for a person to not want to be digitally surveilled endlessly without their consent.
Yeah this is where I think government-regulation would actually be a solid-fit to try and govern some of this manipulative and unfair practices.
There just needs to be a blanket-law where your data is considered every-bit as intellectual property as a piece of copyrighted media and for there to be consent established to sell or give your data to a third-party there needs to be an active exchange of payment, credit or services that is opt-in only, not opt-out from an intentionally obfuscated EULA update email.
Require active opt-in and consent along with a clear set of goods/services/payment, and active simple on-demand revocation with strict timelines, and you could have companies actually properly incentivizing users to sell them their own personal data instead of it just being harvested.
Unfortunately too many libertarian nutjobs out here think that the market here will magically fix all issues.
Please look up the difference between private property and personal property. When people decry "property is theft", they're not talking about personal property, they're talking about private property.
Also, socialist states with advanced economies built airplanes, hydroelectric dams and all kinds of complex things. This is a joke of an argument. Say what you will about the living conditions, fairness, corruption or other issues with socialist states, but to pretend they "didn't build complex things" is ridiculous when you look up the number of scientific achievements made first by the USSR.
i dont get this blindspot by lots of developers parroting this uber technocratic nonsense.
There's no such thing as some apolitical, objectively best approach to a technical problem. Instead of arguing about specific merits about specific issues people throw out this big wide handwave about how "idea X is simply technically the wrong choice", as if this is a legit position to have.
Take a philosophy course for god's sake before you engineer us all to death.
Just like there was no real luddism historically, there's no group of people who are just selfish people fighting against technology out of pure self-interest. This is just a strawman setup by people who don't wish to receive criticism for their own use of technology as a means of exploitation.