Well, they just love complaining. You won't find many who profess to like DLC, yet that sells.

They're better than one might expect at diagnosing issues from the error output or even just screenshots.

No. But most software products are nowhere near that sensitive and very few of them are developed with the level of caution and rigor appropriate for a safety-critical component.

It doesn’t seem like making money Is the object.

They all offer some "memory" cross chat now and they're all more annoying than helpful. Not really compelling. You can pretty easily export your chat if you want.

However sloppily expressed I think the intent is clear: he is saying “I don’t think it’s important that they comply with laws concerning their conduct, but they’re drumming up business for me, so I don’t mind.”

> he is saying “I don’t think it’s important that they comply with laws

I cannot see where Karp says that. Do you have the quote?

> “Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,” Karp said. His reasoning is that if it’s constitutional, you would have to make 100% sure of the exact conditions it’s happening in, and in order to do that, the military would have to use Palantir’s technology, for which it pays roughly $10 billion under its current contract.

Make your own judgment but I thought that it was a reasonable inference if his answer is about how he’s got dollar signs in his eyes that he doesn’t see a moral imperative here.

I'd say that many of the people upset now didn't like that either but it at least had the pretense of bothering with a declaration of war.

The US has not had a congressional declaration of war since WWII.

OK, AUMF. Sorry for the imprecision.

It was War on Terror, no? As a direct response to murder of thousands of citizens… (not condoning it though, America loves to murder people though I’ve heard a lot in October during election campaign that this time will be different…)

If you use War on Terror as justification, then why not use War on Drugs? How many citizens have died due to illegal drugs? How many lives have been ruined?

I would say it is pretty hard to take that seriously as a justification when they’re also letting Juan Orlando Hernandez go.

except there is no war on drugs - quite the contrary - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/02/trum...

and if you were serious about war on drugs you’d start in America, not Venezuela

How many historical examples of civilians being misidentified as combatants does it take before we question whether these strikes have all been drug boats?

When he says "push to make it constitutional" what he means is push to make them comply with complex rules.

I feel like the headline kind of misleads since what he actually says is, essentially, "yeah, go nuts trying to limit it, then they need to buy from me." Which is still crass but not what the headline suggests.

Well I mean, they didn't "just give homeless people money" or just give them homes or any of those things though. I think the issue might be the method and not the very concept of devoting resources to the problem.