Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephen_g | Hacker News Reader

If anything though, all the civilians that they accidentally targeted probably played a part in radicalising a lot more people on the ground, so if anything the tools probably made things worse.

I'm sure it was very shiny looking software though, but that doesn't mean it's good.

View on HN

You’d have to define “good” and your understanding of fires targeting chains before I feel I could make a useful response!

You’d be mistaken to think of me as a fan. But, I understand, I think you miss, what Palantir did as a net positive for defense acquisitions and the very legitimate impact on warfigter safety. And, how huge of an achievement it was, given what vendor impact on basic military’ing in the 2000-2010’s was like.

Also, good or bad, all this modern defense innovation new American Century VC stuff, which good or bad is part of the tech industry and it’s continued stability, in my mind sources from this break through.

Also, maybe the software tracked down an IED network or two. And that means there are some limbs on Americans that aren’t robotic. Pretty great too.

My biggest takeaway is surprise at how much the old sw must have sucked. Without knowing anything about it, I've always assumed military tech was cutting edge.

There are bits and pieces that are quite sophisticated but a lot of DoD software is impressively awful.

That should be the takeaway, paired with if you ever make a startup avoid “military grade” marketing as you’ll eventually sell to a vet who thinks it’s quite humorous.

The other takeaway is tech used to target insurgents is now getting American citizen data.

That last part I understood already (and have never been a fan of Palantir for that reason, well, that and that I don't very much like companies that profit from making products that kill people). So maybe I should have said "new takeaway".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com