NixOS just dropped Anduril as a NixCon sponsor
twitter.com
twitter.com
* This started out because NixOS mastodon account posted on chaos.social local timeline which is rather German Mastodon instance with a strict no-military-content-without-content-warnings moderation policy. People got angry for NixOS posting about the sponsor there and started complaining en masse to drop it. I think most people complaining aren't affiliated with NixOS at all but I'm sure there were also attendees of the conference complaining on Mastodon.
* NixCon is a (compared to other open source conferences like kubecon) extremely small community conference, organised by volunteers who have been under immense pressure this week to pull off all the organisation whilst also having to handle this drama on Mastodon.
* We as a community should definitely discuss during the conference this weekend what we're gonna have as policies for sponsorship going forward. Because as far as I know we haven't had any real formal policies regarding NixCon organisation at all. It has always been kind of community-driven.
* This year the role of the NixOS foundation has been made way more clear in the NixOS community. Before it really was just an entity for receiving donations but it did not actively do anything community building. I'm happy that we have an active Foundation board now that isn't just an administrative formality but an actual voice that can make statements.
* NixOS foundation is having a board meeting today and will have a more clear statement later from what I understand
* I am looking forward to Nixcon this weekend despite this hiccup. And I'm sure we'll figure it out.
Edit:
Also for context a statement from the founder of Anduril: https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1699590452847272044
This is what I tried to communicate to Anduril via email but it must have been lost in translation.
as said by a friend this morning:
> i, personally, would not accept money from the company actively militarizing the southern US border but that's just me
> > i, personally, would not accept money from the company actively militarizing the southern US border but that's just me
Anduril is not "militarizing" the southern border. They're adding observation stations (funded by the Biden administration mind you) so that who is crossing the border illegally is known. There's no weapons on these things or something.
The same tech is deeply wrapped up in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
It's absolutely absurd to pretend that the whole business of border enforcement tech is not stained with blood.
If you're interested in the relevant US history and why it's characterized as militarization and violence by those opposed to it, I recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7861.No_One_Is_Illegal
(The book has a point of view and makes no apologies for that. But if you want to see why people who disagree with you see the US border and its enforcement the way they do, it will provide that for you.)
What do you mean by "having to"? It is unreasonable to set a standard where every single complaint on social media deserves a reply. Either the sponsor is dropped or it is not -- where is the handling?
I've edited to soften; I intentionally omitted interpretation. It's just context (that you may or may not see as meaningful).
This is completely unrelated, but if you like weapons with cool names (or are looking for names for your next defense-industry startup) the Tolkien legendarium has many!
Angrist - the dagger that cut a Silmaril from Morgoth's iron crown. Means "Iron Cleaver" in Sindarin
Dagmor - "dark-slayer", Beren's short blade
Aranruth - The terrible sword of Thingol, King of Doriath. Means "King's Ire"
The twin bastard swords "Anglachel" and "Anguirel" -- Forged by Eol the Dark Elf from a meteor, these swords were both sort of malevolent and I think were probably inspired by the Norse Tyrfing. Probably also influenced Stormbringer and Mournblade in those terrible Moorcock books.
Celeg Aithorn - A legendary sword from the First Age. Reference to a Valar (God's) blade "lightning", and said to be the blade that will one day cleave the world.
Edit: Ack! I forgot my favorite. "Dramborleg" -- the axe that the man Tuor found during the Fall of Gondolin. He slew three balrogs (!) and many orc champions with it. Means "thudder-sharp", because it both smashes and cuts at the same time. ("smote both a heavy dint as of a club and cleft as a sword")
... that's enough. I know the posted tweet is a serious topic and what I have posted is not, but that's where I'm at today.
So they hijacked a name from Tolkien's works and the Tolkien estate did nothing about it?
They threatened to sue TSR for using "hobbit" in D&D in the 70s [0], which prompted D&D authors to change the name to "halfling" and later on change their lore a bit.
[0] https://www.museumofplay.org/blog/cease-and-desist-dont-mess...
"Hobbit" is rather central to the Tolkien brand; Palantir and Anduril are essentially props, so it could be that these were seen as less important instances of name-theivery.
Sidenote: the foundation of current computing is built on DoD money.
I think you'll find they'll loose goodwill from some other non-paying folks. There are many people who code and use this technology who are pro-military. They may not speak up in the same circles as those who are against this but they exist. I'm only pointing this out to showcase the market is more diverse than people often realize.
But are they pro-US military or they might be pro-other countries military?
It's been a while since the US was in a war that we looked at afterward (or during, frankly) and said "yeah it was a good and smart thing we did that, worth the costs."
H&K, Anduril, Boston Dynamics, are just a few examples of companies who have entire product lines inaccessible to me, a private citizen who is not military, LEO, or a contractor of either.
Anduril, in particular, rubs me the wrong way because Palmer Luckey talks a big game about being pro-liberty, but his company will only sell to the pigs.
I'm not American, and to me it just seems like a very vocal minority is doing a lot of the talking on behalf of everyone else.
US Tech in the past: "we dislike the military, the government, the military-industrial complex (and generally all authority) because we skew hippy and/or libertarian. Let us be creative and free!"
US Tech today: "we dislike the military, the government, and the military-industrial complex because our particular flavour of cultural identity politics doesn't like it. Let us conform to the moral outrage of the day."
Meanwhile, the best reason IMO -- "we dislike the military, the government, the military-industrial complex because it serves the interests of the wealthy first and foremost (at the expense of the poor)" -- seems to get less discussion.
But all of these are reasons why tech can dislike the military or at least be uncomfortable with it, even while DARPA funding has helped progress tech and many innovations have come out of military-first applications.
Growing up in republican midwest and living in CA later I haven't met someone who just goes "military bad bc political party and moral outrage". I think that is just a twitter thing
"... politics based on a particular identity, such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, social class."
Which is not my association for Hippie politics or classic libertarian politics.
Hippies in my head were known for proposing anti-materialistic lifestyle, less moral looking down on promiscuity, open to drug usage and anti war. None of those target a specific identity group.
Libertarians are a political group who support freedom. Normally that means opposing state intervention, taxes, social nets, restrictions to what you can buy/sell. I don't see this as politics for a special identity group either. (ok maybe for the identity group in the upper social class)
PS: somehow I feel like in the US libertarians seem to be seen as left wing which might be the case, but is not inherent to libertarian politics. You can have right wing libertarian politics like some libertarian parties in other countries show
Maybe this is part of the issue? You're comparing a contemporary social phenomenon through to one you've (probably) only learned about through history books, media and cultural osmosis.
> somehow I feel like in the US libertarians seem to be seen as left wing
That is the polar opposite of my "feeling", which is that US libertarians overwhelmingly skew right. Just look at the most prominent figures who self identify as such : The Pauls [Ron, Rand], Gary Johnson, Thomas Massie - all either current or former Republicans.
Culture war / identity politics -> oppose/support war because that's the current thing
Palmer Luckey and Peter Thiel themselves are also quite controversial political actors.
He is welcome to apologize or publicly state that he no longer believes this, and he has done that for other past controversial statements. Since he has not done so, we should conclude that he still holds this belief and acts accordingly.
They, along with others still in line feel cheated by the people entering illegally / abusing the asylum claim systems. If you're escaping a bad situation in a central or southern American country, and then pass through 4-5 countries to get here, you're not seeking asylum, you're an economic migrant no different from immigrants from India, China, etc all seeking a better life.
No other developed country would or should allow people to illegally enter and skip the legal process.
The minute you announce some kind of concession for people already here (which would most definitely be part of a broader immigration reform bill) then the floodgates will open with people trying to make it in before the effective date.
[1] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-enc...
Either way, I can’t see any progress on immigration reform. It’s not happening, unless the flow at the border stops or reduces significantly.
The idea that immigrants are a net cost in terms of social services is nonsense.
Perhaps the situation in the UE since 2015 did not reach you. Google "Wir scaffen das!"
Do you know how many people die attempting to cross that border? Hundreds every year.
Maybe when the temperature is extreme, you want to have an idea of where people are.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/us-border-pa...
We should do everything possible to discourage this crossing. Adequate surveillance is a large part of that.
If you are legitimately seeking asylum you can just walk up to any border crossing station and not risk your life.
Edit: As far as the condition that we keep captured criminals in, I would wager a good bet that they're comparably better than the appallingly horrific conditions of South American jails.
Also, would people pay 50% more, double or triple for fruit picked by Americans, meat packed by , those huge gardens and front yards maintained by, houses built by Americans. I think Florida and Texas after storms start to hint at what night be to come.
I don't see anyone arguing against immigration here. We are arguing against illegal immigration / obvious abuse of the asylum system.
If we can close the obvious holes in our border that are letting 200k people through a month, I'm very much in favor of granting more work visas to immigrants and starting the naturalization process.
Owners would have to do more themselves (thus spend time) or more money (that they can't spend consuming other things) if labor costs increased.
I'm also not arguing for limitless immigration. What I'm trying to say is that there will probably not be zero illegal immigration despite what politicians promise, at this point it's baked into the (cost-)structure of society I suppose and not painlessly undone.
I know people with a tree farm business in Texas who only hire illegals because every single citizen they've tried to hire cut their pinky off the second week on the job and filed for disability.
I don't disagree with your argument one bit but illegal is illegal. If somebody is going to break our laws to come here what expectation should I have that they're going to respect our laws once they're here? Criminals should be treated like criminals in a functioning society.
If the economic benefits are worth it to you, change the law. Don't subvert its enforcement. You can't stand up shouting about Trump and a Jan 6th insurrection and also turn a blind eye to illegal immigration in the same breath.
I said that you would know that there are people there and they might be or about to be in serious danger. What you do with that information afterwards is an entirely separate conversation.
If it is in your power to have this information and you neglect to, that is highly immoral. If we're going to have this border policy then it is our responsibility to know the effects of that policy. Surveillance of this crossing where hundreds of people die every year is a moral imperative.
People are posting in this thread suggesting that having autonomous surveillance here is akin to pointing weapons at people. The suggestion is hyperbole and ridiculous.
What's really disheartening here is that the people that don't like our border policy would rather we turn a blind eye here guaranteeing that these deaths continue and in greater numbers.
I miss the early 2000's when hacker culture / defcon culture etc could exist on its on merits and wasn't coded by race, gender, politics or orientation...
I would never work at a company that designs and builds missiles or fighter jets, but I would work at a cloud provider that provides infrastructure that is used to design missiles or fighter jets, in the same way that I would work at a telecoms company that provides the phone systems to a defence contractor.
Being one level removed, and providing "neutral" services, is a substantial difference for me, and I suspect for most people.
I'd be overjoyed to help create the tools to drive the invaders out of Ukraine for example, but not so much to try to finally kill the rest of the browser market or to serve shady ads.
Yes, while I am not exaggerating I am probably a bit one sided here - I know there are parts of Google that I have nothing against like GCP - but I am serious: Much rather work for the military than Google.
Actually there was a big uproar about exactly this several years ago https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/07/google-ai...
Project Maven? Dragonfly?
Claiming you want "peace" without accounting for how you will defeat the bullies, abusers, and autocrats only helps them, not you. It brings war, not peace. Bullies, abusers, and autocrats do not give a fork about scolding and condemnation; if they succeed in taking what they want, regardless of any talk, they WILL take more — failure to stop them is literally seen as permission to do more.
So, this is the action of absolute fools and cowards. Specifically, Useful Idiots in the Vladmir Lenin sense. Or worse yet, the actions of active supporters of genocidal autocracies.
(And, do not even try to do whataboutism about the failings of the Democratic nations. Even their worst historical failings do not begin to compare vs the active genocide and war crimes being systematically committed today by the autocracies today, Russia in Ukraine, China on Tibet and Uighurs, Myanmar, etc..).
This kind of bullshirt move by sniveling cowards and poseur fauxgressives is a move in the direction of literally getting us all killed.
edit: Also possible that they are just thoughtlessly responding to some clueless complaints, but the failed to even call out even who made the complaints. Nevertheless, this still literally carries water for Xi and Putin.