Palantir CEO Alex Karp gives $180k to ousted hermit River Dave(concordmonitor.com)
concordmonitor.com
Palantir CEO Alex Karp gives $180k to ousted hermit River Dave
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Billionaire-Palantir-CEO-donates-180k-River-Dave-42046438
92 comments
Thank you for providing the reasoning behind all this!
Okay, what’s the story behind this story?
How did Karp know of River Dave? What was the property dispute that resulted in the fire? Why does Lidstone have his own Facebook group of supporters?
Can’t put my finger on it, this story just seems strange.
How did Karp know of River Dave? What was the property dispute that resulted in the fire? Why does Lidstone have his own Facebook group of supporters?
Can’t put my finger on it, this story just seems strange.
Big news in New England. Local character resembling Santa Claus squatting on some rural land in New Hampshire for close to two decades. Out-of-state owner who inherited the land in the 1960s wasn't even was aware Dave was there. Estranged from family but friendly to local paddlers on the river, some who became his champions in the dispute.
Town officials said the structure he built was illegal, and told the landowner it had to be removed. River Dave said it was a hunting cabin and not subject to the same rules. Authorities cited him and he was summoned to court. He cursed all of the authorities who he said were persecuting him including the judge IIRC. He was unable or unwilling to move elsewhere.
The day the story broke in the Boston Globe (and from there to national media), the place burnt down.
Town officials said the structure he built was illegal, and told the landowner it had to be removed. River Dave said it was a hunting cabin and not subject to the same rules. Authorities cited him and he was summoned to court. He cursed all of the authorities who he said were persecuting him including the judge IIRC. He was unable or unwilling to move elsewhere.
The day the story broke in the Boston Globe (and from there to national media), the place burnt down.
He’s resided on the river for decades, living off the land and doing his thing. He’s a local legend just a few towns away from my own. Recently, he was forced to leave and then his cabin mysteriously burned down.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/After-decades-in-woods-New-Ha...
https://www.concordmonitor.com/After-decades-in-woods-New-Ha...
[deleted]
you were probably busier than the usual a few weeks ago when the story of river dave got mildly viral.
This. It was (near the) front page news of most local newspapers that all get their news from the same Reuters-like sources/each other - stories like this are always popular water-cooler topics and spread rapidly as easy smalltalk.
[deleted]
I'm excited for the Paul Graham post about "roses growing from concrete" or some equally ridiculous and juvenile claim that uses billionaires who make money off of creating dubious technology BUT WHO ALSO buy more girl scout cookies than their neighbors as some kind of proof of the value of their continued existence and deserved exaltation.
Please don't fulminate like this on HN, regardless of how you feel about "Paul Graham" or "billionaires". It degrades discussion, and we're trying for something different here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I disagree with this assessment I think, and am rather disappointed that this post was flagged. In the future (for me) it would be useful to understand exactly what is meant by "fulmination" in the site guidelines. The definition is broad and ranges from "vehement protest" to "exploding violently". I'm not trying to split hairs, but "vehement protest" is also quite vague. I think what I wrote is a pretty concise critique of the public writings of one of the site's founders and it's relevant to the way the HN set interprets articles like this (billionaire donates to soup kitchen). If you could provide some feedback on what specifically led to you flagging the post, I'd appreciate it. Thanks dang!
I didn't see a "concise critique", just internet snark and name-calling. Those things are tedious and degrade discussion, which is why the site guidelines ask commenters here to avoid them.
You even used quotes to make it look like you were quoting someone when you weren't, which is a trope of degraded discussion in its own right.
Thoughtful critique is welcome on HN. That requires substantive engagement with something somebody actually said. It also requires some meaningful relationship to the topic. I didn't see that here, nor any actual information.
By 'fulminating' I suppose I mean the high-indignation-low-information style of internet commenting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
One thing you might find helpful for understanding what's good vs. bad to post to HN—at least I have found it helpful—is the distinction between reflexive and reflective posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Your GP comment struck me as reflexive. It basically seems to hop along a chain of reflexes like this: rich person -> rage -> other rich person -> rage.
Another point I orient by is that HN threads get less interesting and valuable as they get more generic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and especially as they get more generic+indignant. To me your GP comment seemed like a sharp move in those directions, which is always a move towards threads getting worse and more predictable. Keep in mind that the issue is not just the value of a comment individually but the expected value of the subthread it is likely to lead to: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
I hope that helps explain things a bit and isn't too much of a downer. I appreciate the question and your intention to understand. I also agree that there are reasonable critiques to be made about "billionaire donates to soup kitchen" stories (if that's what this was). But not by fulminating, and especially not on classic flamewar topics.
You even used quotes to make it look like you were quoting someone when you weren't, which is a trope of degraded discussion in its own right.
Thoughtful critique is welcome on HN. That requires substantive engagement with something somebody actually said. It also requires some meaningful relationship to the topic. I didn't see that here, nor any actual information.
By 'fulminating' I suppose I mean the high-indignation-low-information style of internet commenting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
One thing you might find helpful for understanding what's good vs. bad to post to HN—at least I have found it helpful—is the distinction between reflexive and reflective posts: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Your GP comment struck me as reflexive. It basically seems to hop along a chain of reflexes like this: rich person -> rage -> other rich person -> rage.
Another point I orient by is that HN threads get less interesting and valuable as they get more generic (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and especially as they get more generic+indignant. To me your GP comment seemed like a sharp move in those directions, which is always a move towards threads getting worse and more predictable. Keep in mind that the issue is not just the value of a comment individually but the expected value of the subthread it is likely to lead to: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
I hope that helps explain things a bit and isn't too much of a downer. I appreciate the question and your intention to understand. I also agree that there are reasonable critiques to be made about "billionaire donates to soup kitchen" stories (if that's what this was). But not by fulminating, and especially not on classic flamewar topics.
Thanks for your feedback and thoughtful reply!
FWIW, I used quotes because the rose that grew from concrete is a poem, and a phrase that is not my own. My intention was to not pass it off as my own. What I should have done is quoted or referenced a particular essay of PG's to demonstrate that he has in fact written posts which use a similar logic. In any event, I'll be more careful on my quotes in the future.
Your links are helpful, and based on them, I think you were right to call me out. Thank you.
One suggestion: Perhaps the site guidelines page could reference a couple of these links? I recognize they're off-site, but when I popped open a dictionary and a thesaurus to figure out how I'd crossed the line on "fulmination", it was a bit unclear to me which definition I was dealing with. Granted, precision is not always the solution and moderation is always going to require a bit of feeling rather than some strict criteria by which one comment is allowed to slide and another isn't, but it's at least worth considering IMO.
Thanks for being a great mod, dang!
FWIW, I used quotes because the rose that grew from concrete is a poem, and a phrase that is not my own. My intention was to not pass it off as my own. What I should have done is quoted or referenced a particular essay of PG's to demonstrate that he has in fact written posts which use a similar logic. In any event, I'll be more careful on my quotes in the future.
Your links are helpful, and based on them, I think you were right to call me out. Thank you.
One suggestion: Perhaps the site guidelines page could reference a couple of these links? I recognize they're off-site, but when I popped open a dictionary and a thesaurus to figure out how I'd crossed the line on "fulmination", it was a bit unclear to me which definition I was dealing with. Granted, precision is not always the solution and moderation is always going to require a bit of feeling rather than some strict criteria by which one comment is allowed to slide and another isn't, but it's at least worth considering IMO.
Thanks for being a great mod, dang!
Thank you for the kind reply!
It's on my list to eventually compile those links and the principles they explain into some sort of commentary on the site guidelines. There's too much material to put into the guidelines themselves; if those get too long, no one will read them. They're probably already too long :)
It's on my list to eventually compile those links and the principles they explain into some sort of commentary on the site guidelines. There's too much material to put into the guidelines themselves; if those get too long, no one will read them. They're probably already too long :)
The best satire is hard to distinguish from reality, isn't it?
I actually read about River Dave recently. I don't think I posted the story. I don't recall why. I did think about posting it.
Anyway, if you don't care about the CEO angle, River Dave's story is interesting. Or was to me, fwiw.
Anyway, if you don't care about the CEO angle, River Dave's story is interesting. Or was to me, fwiw.
Got a link?
It's not hard to google, but I probably read something relatively local with an ugly interface (which might be the reason I didn't post) and a quick scan makes me think it was roughly a story like this one:
https://sentinelcolorado.com/uncategorized/river-dave-doesnt...
https://sentinelcolorado.com/uncategorized/river-dave-doesnt...
Here's an unpaywalled article about what happened:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/river-dave-grateful-fire...
Still unclear to me why Karp gave him the money but seems like its helpful to "River Dave".
Still unclear to me why Karp gave him the money but seems like its helpful to "River Dave".
Good for River Dale but Alex Karp should be in prison and Palantir should be shut down. An enemy of the free world. Hopefully we'll see Palantir employees face prosecution if they ever dare to leave the USA.
Curious, I did a search sorted by popularity on HN. Palantir appears to be an impressively evil company:
Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired
Palantir is using War on Terror tools to track American citizens
NYPD is canceling its Palantir contract
Leaked Palantir Doc Reveals Uses, Specific Functions and Key Clients
U.S. regulators accuse Palantir of bias against Asians
How Peter Thiel’s Palantir helped expand the NSA’s global spy network
Britain gave Palantir access to sensitive COVID-19 patient records in £1 dealI mean everything Peter Thiel funds is basically a technology out of Minority Report combined with a name from Lord of the Rings on it
At this point you can probably reverse engineer that process. Invent something that persecutes minorities in some form, go to the lotr wiki, hit the random button and apply for a loan
At this point you can probably reverse engineer that process. Invent something that persecutes minorities in some form, go to the lotr wiki, hit the random button and apply for a loan
Careful, there is a lot of propaganda against Palantir because they stand against big tech, Silicon Valley, and its political agenda - which controls the majority of the media.
For example: The first story, it was later confirmed Palantir declined it, even the whistleblower admitted that they were just talking but never amounted to anything https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/palantir-worked-with-cambrid...
I also encourage you to read in detail MiJente's report on ICE, I had to stop midway due to personal attacks on Thiel, nothing related to the business, it seemed like propaganda whitepaper.
There is no question how far big tech will go to brainwash the population with ads, as they profit from that business model and squash every opposition against them. Be very careful of what you read online, even in HN.
For example: The first story, it was later confirmed Palantir declined it, even the whistleblower admitted that they were just talking but never amounted to anything https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/palantir-worked-with-cambrid...
I also encourage you to read in detail MiJente's report on ICE, I had to stop midway due to personal attacks on Thiel, nothing related to the business, it seemed like propaganda whitepaper.
There is no question how far big tech will go to brainwash the population with ads, as they profit from that business model and squash every opposition against them. Be very careful of what you read online, even in HN.
From your own link:
> “That was not an official contract between Palantir and Cambridge Analytica, but there were Palantir staff that would come into the office and work on that data,” Wylie told lawmakers. He added that Palantir staff “helped build the models we were working on.”
> “That was not an official contract between Palantir and Cambridge Analytica, but there were Palantir staff that would come into the office and work on that data,” Wylie told lawmakers. He added that Palantir staff “helped build the models we were working on.”
[deleted]
Also they help ICE deport uncodumented immigrants.
Is assisting in the enforcement of immigration law really “evil”?
Here's how meaningless this smear campaign is:
> Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired
Google, PG&E, DoorDash, Edible Arrangements, worked with Cambridge Analytica...
> Palantir is using War on Terror tools to track American citizens
The government does using some of Palantir's tools. Does Palatir itself do that?
> NYPD is canceling its Palantir contract
So?
> Leaked Palantir Doc Reveals Uses, Specific Functions and Key Clients
So?
> U.S. regulators accuse Palantir of bias against Asians
Accuse being the key word.
> How Peter Thiel’s Palantir helped expand the NSA’s global spy network
How Google, PG&E, DoorDash and Edible Arrangements helped expand the NSA's global spy network. Maybe the NSA is the problem here, not service providers?
> Britain gave Palantir access to sensitive COVID-19 patient records in £1 deal
Why did Britain give them access to that?
> Palantir worked with Cambridge Analytica on the Facebook data it acquired
Google, PG&E, DoorDash, Edible Arrangements, worked with Cambridge Analytica...
> Palantir is using War on Terror tools to track American citizens
The government does using some of Palantir's tools. Does Palatir itself do that?
> NYPD is canceling its Palantir contract
So?
> Leaked Palantir Doc Reveals Uses, Specific Functions and Key Clients
So?
> U.S. regulators accuse Palantir of bias against Asians
Accuse being the key word.
> How Peter Thiel’s Palantir helped expand the NSA’s global spy network
How Google, PG&E, DoorDash and Edible Arrangements helped expand the NSA's global spy network. Maybe the NSA is the problem here, not service providers?
> Britain gave Palantir access to sensitive COVID-19 patient records in £1 deal
Why did Britain give them access to that?
The tech community seems to take their wealth and freedom for granted. There is a lot going in the background to keep us safe, living in our bubbles.
It is sad to see how Big Tech brainwashes people to be anti-gov when you are able to enjoy a stable country due to their unseen, underpaid and underappreciated work behind the scenes.
Good for you, keep on living in your paradise bubble: pump anti-gov ads & hype/gamble crypto while taking COVID subsidies. Complain about missing free lunches & perks remotely while the world starves and begs for opportunities.
Privileged and irresponsible as it gets. Take hard good look at yourself: your ancestors fought and died for your freedoms, it was not for you to abuse it.
It is sad to see how Big Tech brainwashes people to be anti-gov when you are able to enjoy a stable country due to their unseen, underpaid and underappreciated work behind the scenes.
Good for you, keep on living in your paradise bubble: pump anti-gov ads & hype/gamble crypto while taking COVID subsidies. Complain about missing free lunches & perks remotely while the world starves and begs for opportunities.
Privileged and irresponsible as it gets. Take hard good look at yourself: your ancestors fought and died for your freedoms, it was not for you to abuse it.
What did he do?
Hey! I do not think this comment contributes valuably to the conversation at all. Please refrain.
If anything, I'm interested in learning about why they should be in jail. I'm pretty uninformed on the subject.
Five imaginary bucks say Karp lists that as charitable giving on his tax returns
I'll take those five imaginary bucks because I don't believe a gift to an individual is considered charitable giving by the IRS, and would instead be subject to gift tax.
I don't think you can just give money to someone and call it charity. Otherwise you could just give money to your children, skip inheritance tax, and get a yummy write-off. Karp probably had to pay a hefty gift tax on top of the 180K, which for him would be a rounding error.
what else would you call it?
not sure if you're spectacularly missing the point, but if not: the point i'm making is, he wouldn't have to mention it, period. but will do so to reap the tax benefits.
yeah, i got it. and the point i’m making is i’m not getting outraged over it because it is a charitable contribution and he has an incentive to report it. does it feel a little gross and is this whole thing probably a PR stunt? sure. but i’ll settle for letting billionaires be charitable for the wrong reasons if it means they’re being charitable. i trust people to see this for what it is. i’m not sure why anybody feels obligated to leap into threads like this and strain to reframe neutral-to-positive events as profoundly negative. you don’t need to save us from possibly thinking a brief positive thought about a thing a billionaire did. we’re fine.
> i’m not sure why anybody feels obligated to leap into threads like this and strain to reframe neutral-to-positive events as profoundly negative.
Have you seen the insane money-making by the rich over the last, I dunno, 30-40 years? The kind of money-making that thoroughly fucks/fucked the rest of us?
Have you seen the insane money-making by the rich over the last, I dunno, 30-40 years? The kind of money-making that thoroughly fucks/fucked the rest of us?
it’s possible to think extreme wealth disparity is a bad thing without needing every single action taken by its beneficiaries to be a bad thing.
[deleted]
I'd really rather he pay another 180k in tax, and then we apply it better as a society.
Hopefully you realize that donating x doesn't mean that the donor pays x less in taxes.
Doesn't really matter in this case anyway: gifting money to an individual definitely does not count as a charitable contribution.
Doesn't really matter in this case anyway: gifting money to an individual definitely does not count as a charitable contribution.
I'm afraid the apply it better part needs to come either at the same time or first. The spending will reflect the priorities. You almost certainly will hate them.
I don't like stories like this, that are supposed to make us feel good towards the ultra rich. This is a raindrop in an ocean of people in need. Tax the rich and it wouldn't be necessary.
In this case, the guy was a squatter for 27 years and his cabin burned down while he was in jail. There is no magic cure for statistical outliers of this sort.
He was a logger for years and he didn't have much money and he was used to being in the woods and then probably society grew up around him and now he's the one somehow in the wrong, basically.
Society moves forward and then we are all judgy towards the still living anachronisms who maybe weren't so weird "back in the day" but now it's just not done.
I'm glad someone had a little compassion for him instead of criminalizing him for being poor and old as is done all too often these days.
He was a logger for years and he didn't have much money and he was used to being in the woods and then probably society grew up around him and now he's the one somehow in the wrong, basically.
Society moves forward and then we are all judgy towards the still living anachronisms who maybe weren't so weird "back in the day" but now it's just not done.
I'm glad someone had a little compassion for him instead of criminalizing him for being poor and old as is done all too often these days.
Actually, River Dave may have a pretty strong case for adverse possession [1] as he lived there for a very long time, over the 20 year limit for NH [2], and he was pretty active on the land.
[1] https://courts-state-nh-us.libguides.com/adversepossession
[2] https://www.nashualaw.com/adverse-possession-in-new-hampshir...
[1] https://courts-state-nh-us.libguides.com/adversepossession
[2] https://www.nashualaw.com/adverse-possession-in-new-hampshir...
from [2],
> Further, the claimant must possess the land adversely to the actual owner. This means that the adverse possessor cannot be occupying the land with the permission of the owner.
Dave claims that he was given permission to occupy the land by a previous owner, which can complicate matters here. If the current owner took possession more than 20 years ago and insists that permission was not granted, then Dave wins. If they took possession less than 20 years ago, then Dave hasn't been there without permission for long enough, unless there's some duty to inform. Given that the legal dispute started in 2016 the window probably isn't even 27 years: more like 21. And without documentation to establish that he was actually there 27 years ago, it's not looking good for Dave here
> Further, the claimant must possess the land adversely to the actual owner. This means that the adverse possessor cannot be occupying the land with the permission of the owner.
Dave claims that he was given permission to occupy the land by a previous owner, which can complicate matters here. If the current owner took possession more than 20 years ago and insists that permission was not granted, then Dave wins. If they took possession less than 20 years ago, then Dave hasn't been there without permission for long enough, unless there's some duty to inform. Given that the legal dispute started in 2016 the window probably isn't even 27 years: more like 21. And without documentation to establish that he was actually there 27 years ago, it's not looking good for Dave here
[deleted]
27 years ago was 1994. Society has been here a long time already. Lets be real. Its not like its a post 94 invention.
I get that he is not really harming anyone but he us squatting on someone else’s property. Theres all kinds if legal liability concerns for the property owner.
I get that he is not really harming anyone but he us squatting on someone else’s property. Theres all kinds if legal liability concerns for the property owner.
I'm substantially younger than River Dave and a lot of social norms and legal stuff has changed within my lifetime. Even if the law doesn't change, how it gets viewed, interpreted and applied can.
Social norms change and then older people are sometimes treated like their assumptions are crazy talk rather than totally normal assumptions from their childhood when what they are doing now wasn't some freakish, weirdo, "you must be an abusive criminal type" back then.
Social norms change and then older people are sometimes treated like their assumptions are crazy talk rather than totally normal assumptions from their childhood when what they are doing now wasn't some freakish, weirdo, "you must be an abusive criminal type" back then.
Squatting is good in my opinion, property rights are overly favorable to property owners while neglecting the needs of the property-less. The world is not like a game of Monopoly where we all start out with the same potential and resources and succeed or fail through a combination of look and good or bad decision-making.
I think it's worth remembering that the US mores about property as enshrined the Constitution were a) meant to protect against landed aristocrats' forcible expansions of their estate, and b) codified at a time when the first Americans had colonized one relatively small corner of a continent that seemed vast beyond the imagination, and the acme of mechanization/industrial production was the water wheel.
I think it's worth remembering that the US mores about property as enshrined the Constitution were a) meant to protect against landed aristocrats' forcible expansions of their estate, and b) codified at a time when the first Americans had colonized one relatively small corner of a continent that seemed vast beyond the imagination, and the acme of mechanization/industrial production was the water wheel.
[deleted]
This was caused by some bureaucrat “taxing the rich” landowner for the makeshift shack that was built on his property without his knowledge. Plausibly, the landowner burnt it down to reduce taxes. Sounds like a value destruction event to me.
Comments like this make it seem like you have no awareness of how our government works from the inside. That’s a sad failure of civics education. Here’s a basic outline: it takes money from individuals, and gives it to contractors.
Comments like this make it seem like you have no awareness of how our government works from the inside. That’s a sad failure of civics education. Here’s a basic outline: it takes money from individuals, and gives it to contractors.
> that are supposed to make us feel good
Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts.
Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts.
Stories are chosen for a reason. I don't know what that reason was, in this case, but you can be certain that it benefits those in control of the printing press. It is in this sense that all journalism is propaganda of one sort or another.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
As a one time sub-editor I can tell you the most pressing reason is often to fill space - ie the 'news hole' which is what people buy (or visit the website of) a paper to read, and which makes the advertising profitable to sell in the first place. I take your point about PR/propaganda, which is surely a factor in this public (rather than anonymous) donation from a CEO of a company with a mediocre reputation. But while some editorial decisions are as political as you say, others are just pragmatic bids upon a fickle public's attention.
And I take your point about "filling space." But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers? How do you think your bosses, and the publisher would feel?
I've been out of that business for a long time now, but short answer is yes, absolutely. Yes, it might create problems - there is always and has always been tension between editorial and business. This can definitely be a problem at the local level, it's gonna be hard for a small paper to run a negative story about a big industry or company that's the biggest employer in a town or region or that advertises heavily in the paper, eg real estate firm or the like.
I have had stories spiked because they were 'too political' and that sucked. And I've quit jobs for ethical reasons (though not in that same context), which also sucked. I think your criticism is valid but I also think that an overly ideological analysis - which a guy like Noam Chomsky does a lot - can mislead one into oversimplifying a complex picture. Understanding the idea and mechanics of manufacturing consent is important for media literacy and political understanding. But it's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when consuming media, not an iron law of social behavior; if you start assuming that everyone in the media is part of a giant consent-manufacturing conspiracy, then you can fall into a different cognitive trap that is just as bad as uncritical acceptance.
I have had stories spiked because they were 'too political' and that sucked. And I've quit jobs for ethical reasons (though not in that same context), which also sucked. I think your criticism is valid but I also think that an overly ideological analysis - which a guy like Noam Chomsky does a lot - can mislead one into oversimplifying a complex picture. Understanding the idea and mechanics of manufacturing consent is important for media literacy and political understanding. But it's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when consuming media, not an iron law of social behavior; if you start assuming that everyone in the media is part of a giant consent-manufacturing conspiracy, then you can fall into a different cognitive trap that is just as bad as uncritical acceptance.
> But, tell me: would you even dare to print anything you thought would offend one or more of your advertisers?
But news organisations do this all the time!
Companies like Google advertise in all major national newspapers, but of course those newspaper carry criticism of Google.
Have you really never noticed this?
But news organisations do this all the time!
Companies like Google advertise in all major national newspapers, but of course those newspaper carry criticism of Google.
Have you really never noticed this?
Or it could be because it sells papers as River Dave attracted a lot of attention. Black and white thinking is presented as critical thinking far too often.
> I don't know what that reason was
Right.
Right.
So, you get it now? This story is most certainly made to influence you in some way (i.e. make you feel something). That's the literal definition of propaganda, after all.
> So, you get it now?
You said you thought it was supposed to make us feel good, then you said you don't know what it was supposed to do.
Both things cannot be true at the same time, can they?
You said you thought it was supposed to make us feel good, then you said you don't know what it was supposed to do.
Both things cannot be true at the same time, can they?
I never said it was supposed to make anyone feel good. You are confused. You asked:
> Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts.
I just showed you how it is supposed to make you feel something.
> Is a new story 'supposed' to make you feel anything? It's just giving you the facts.
I just showed you how it is supposed to make you feel something.
> I just showed you
You just claimed it - you didn't show anything but your opinion! There are lots of reasons people print stories - such as earning income.
You just claimed it - you didn't show anything but your opinion! There are lots of reasons people print stories - such as earning income.
I did. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
That’s polemic. In reality we know the situation is more subtle. For example news outlets do in practice write stories that are critical of their advertisers. Many write stories that are critical of themselves.
Wow, the ultrarich are donating their table scraps. I guess we shouldn't worry about taxing them after all.
Edit to add: @rdxm -- my first thought was what you originally posted. If I could give you an upvote I would, rules or not.
Edit to add: @rdxm -- my first thought was what you originally posted. If I could give you an upvote I would, rules or not.
Twitter and HN have amplified and normalized technology founders and CEOs as celebrities to the rest of us in this orbit.
Who cares? (yes Dang I know it's upvoted so it's relevant haha).
With Karp @ $2.1b net worth, this is akin to somebody worth $10m giving away $715.00. Or somebody worth $100,000 giving away $7.15.
There is nothing notable about this story, other than Carp was probably browsing the internet, saw this "Local News Cares" tragic story and the subsequent GoFundMe and made a donation to a story that pulled on his heart strings just like the rest of us.
Who cares? (yes Dang I know it's upvoted so it's relevant haha).
With Karp @ $2.1b net worth, this is akin to somebody worth $10m giving away $715.00. Or somebody worth $100,000 giving away $7.15.
There is nothing notable about this story, other than Carp was probably browsing the internet, saw this "Local News Cares" tragic story and the subsequent GoFundMe and made a donation to a story that pulled on his heart strings just like the rest of us.
I think many HN readers don't gloss "Palantir CEO" as "tech celebrity" but rather as "Spymaster of Evil Mercenary Spy Agency".
To these people, news where the Evil Spymaster does something humanist and caring, would be surprising news, simply by being completely at odds with their biases.
To these people, news where the Evil Spymaster does something humanist and caring, would be surprising news, simply by being completely at odds with their biases.
What is so different between Evil Spymaster for the US Govt [1], and Evil Spymaster for every advertiser [2], and potentially other govts, and the Evil Spymaster that sells your data [3]? Perhaps the exception is that one doesn't mine on their own and merely integrates data, whereas the other 2 are actively weaponizing data against their own users?
[1] https://www.palantir.com/
[2] http://www.google.com/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/
[1] https://www.palantir.com/
[2] http://www.google.com/
[3] https://www.facebook.com/
I believe the sense anti-Palantir people have is that queries against Palantir's database directly result in people being put under criminal/terrorist suspicion; and that that's kinda the whole point of their business model. Advertisers generally aren't out to kill you.
You minimize this as a $7.15 donation, but as someone with a net worth approximately in this range I don’t see the problem? If someone unsheltered asks for a fast food meal I’ll buy it. If I see a sad story from a stranger with a GoFundMe link I might donate $5 or $10. I don’t expect a news story or anything out of it. But I do like to think my small action has in some tiny way made the world a better place.
One difference here is that in one case, we're talking about someone who's financially independent hundreds of thousands of times over, and has enough financial resources to do real good on a fairly large scale, versus @jdavis703, who still needs to work to provide for himself. One can argue (and this is becoming a stronger argument day by day as the whole "tax the rich" sentiment grows stronger and stronger) that the CEO has a responsibility to give back to the society that allows him to exist [0].
This isn't minimizing your personal act of charity. You don't have the power to, say, make sure that every unhoused person in your city has access to shelter, or that every American has access to an affordable source of potable water, or any of the other shameful situations that exist in the richest country in the world by total GDP[1]. This is bringing the scale of the CEO's act down to something the 99.999% of us who aren't billionaires can comprehend.
---
[0]: Of course, I don't mean in the literal sense of "society allows this guy to live," but more that his billionaire status owes in large part to the fact that American society is set up to allow people to become billionaires.
[1]: This is to say nothing of fighting climate change, or any other, important, global issue.
This isn't minimizing your personal act of charity. You don't have the power to, say, make sure that every unhoused person in your city has access to shelter, or that every American has access to an affordable source of potable water, or any of the other shameful situations that exist in the richest country in the world by total GDP[1]. This is bringing the scale of the CEO's act down to something the 99.999% of us who aren't billionaires can comprehend.
---
[0]: Of course, I don't mean in the literal sense of "society allows this guy to live," but more that his billionaire status owes in large part to the fact that American society is set up to allow people to become billionaires.
[1]: This is to say nothing of fighting climate change, or any other, important, global issue.
But you don't get a news article about you. I think the implicit injustice here is that the public perception and appreciation of selfless giving is firmly stuck in absolute rather than relative terms.
The problem of course is if people started thinking in relative terms then there would be little or no incentive for the wealthy to give anything at all. In this version of a just world, this $180k gift would be just as ignored as the $7.50 gift. The fact that this person gave non-anonymously tells me that it was about PR as much as anything else.
BTW, truly blessed are the ones who give anonymously. That, to me, is the ultimate in giving, because you receive nothing, not even notoriety, in return.
The problem of course is if people started thinking in relative terms then there would be little or no incentive for the wealthy to give anything at all. In this version of a just world, this $180k gift would be just as ignored as the $7.50 gift. The fact that this person gave non-anonymously tells me that it was about PR as much as anything else.
BTW, truly blessed are the ones who give anonymously. That, to me, is the ultimate in giving, because you receive nothing, not even notoriety, in return.
From the news article, it seems to me there was no push for publicity on the side of Palantir or Karp.
And ironically, for someone like Karp, giving anonymously might engender worse speculation if found out.
And ironically, for someone like Karp, giving anonymously might engender worse speculation if found out.
There are a lot of other people out there with a lot of money, and Karp was the only one who did it.
That's a mildly interesting fact. Now I'll slightly adjust a couple priors. Good enough for me.
That's a mildly interesting fact. Now I'll slightly adjust a couple priors. Good enough for me.
I am happy he actually did something about it, and didn't just wear a virtue signalling shirt "Support the Homeless", or, go on bloviating about Global Warming while taking a private Jet to Davos Switzerland.
Much more effective pr for palintir than any ad agency
[deleted]
It’s the same green washing as a football club for Qatar or UAE but they can cover it by pointing to this guy as a proper libertarian. As a NH resident, I feel for the guy, but try squatting on Karps land or Theil’s if you can get to NZ and see how close to home their charity continues.
The landowner wouldn't have even realized this geezer was squatting, and he would have continued in peace and tranquility for the few years he has remaining.
Instead it's been a whole hoohah that's wasted a lot of time and money and energy.