For an extravagant fee, you give them your data, they clean it for you, and then those same FDEs can tell you interesting things that you should have known, had you actually done proper data architecture in the first place.
For an extravagant fee, you give them your data, they clean it for you, and then those same FDEs can tell you interesting things that you should have known, had you actually done proper data architecture in the first place.
They're supposedly very aggressive on that point, so once you integrate their solution to your pipeline you're pretty much stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
Many safety/mission critical companies can get really bogged in by this, with too many administrative hoops to detach. which is probably why they're focusing on that industry.
My coworker liked to describe them as a parasite that creates a symbiotic relationship with their host.
I once interviewed at Palantir and at the same they gave a demo of their software to every candidate.
Worked for a similar company with similar clients at the time. Making the data usefull in innovative ways was a big part of it so in a way sure part of it data science related. At the same time I’d say it’s broader than that.
AFAIK, this is the most succinct description of Palantir I've read. A looser-fitting analogy is they come in, replace whatever the hell you were trying to use SAP for with actually competent software. Most "FDEs" can't explain what the company does because what they did was work at $CLIENT for 18 months ripping apart all their internal software with Palantir building blocks.
I will not allow Palantir to extend their reality distortion field to me. They are consultants. They are also engineers. Other places call them FEs. But they didn't invent some new class of engineering, they just rebranded one.
It would still only be software as a service, but I would just brand it in a way to make it more appealing to certain buyer personas without any actual investment or commitment on my part.
Good lord the egos must be massive.
so beautiful.
That’s the thing with government: They always believe you can drown out problems with taxpayer money. They don’t get that what solves problems is never money, but competence, hard work, and having skin in the game.
It is not that they believe more money will solve the problem. It is often cost cutting which makes things this expensive.
Government has of course done, and continues to do, many vital things well for its citizens in many countries around the world (universal healthcare, for ex.).
There has also, of course, been a push for generations by capital to privatize its various functions, and one of the most common approaches is to defund and degrade an aspect of the government (see current admin) and then afterwards point to the degraded entity as an example of ineffective government that must be replaced by private enterprise.
If government were to infiltrate Apple, fire 80% of its staff at random, cut budgets across the board by 50-80%, put in place a CEO that has spent their entire career campaigning to rid society of the scourge of electronics, and refuse to fill necessary vacant positions for years, would it then be an intelligent assessment to say "man, private corporations like Apple really suck at making phones, they should be nationalized"?
And how could it be otherwise? If your job is safe, and you have a fixed salary, the only way to increase your effective hourly wage is to do less work.
Again, there are people trying to work against the system. A former colleague of mine is a judge at a district court. When he started his position, he made an effort to apply himself fully to each case. For example, in a neighbourhood dispute, he actually went to the place with both parties and personally cut the branch from the tree that had given rise to the dispute. But the pressure is there to get files off the desk. So it’s a race to the bottom.
There are some idealists. But they are fighting an uphill battle, and they are paying a hefty price for not doing what the system wants them to do.
And of course, you could now argue that this is only a problem because government is being starved of the means to do its job properly. But let’s not forget: There was no income tax before the 1910s. And you Americans sank British ships because of what would’ve been an effective total tax burden of less than 5%.
I don’t know what percentage of your work goes to the government in the United States today. Here in Germany it is around 50%. And still, the government feels “starved“. And still it needs the Palantirs of this world to clean up its mess.
And, by the way, this is not just a thing with government. It’s a thing with all monopolies.
You have to have a need to be strong – otherwise you won’t be.
They know they can’t drown out the problems, nor do most of them want to. The privatization of government work is just a dog and pony show that lets rich assholes give taxpayer money to other rich assholes.
Not to say the left doesn’t do this too (assuming the US political speak, “left” referring to democrats is really just barely right of center), but part of the conservative playbook has always been to rip apart the federal government (or the parts that they don’t like, such as providing social services). The easiest way is to tank a group by hiring a private company to do a shit job and then saying “see how bad they did? We should just axe food stamps.”