• misk@piefed.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Individuals leaving would be unproductive but by the time they’re leaving due to reputational troubles we can still ask them why they didn’t do it earlier. This is something to keep in mind once whistleblowers and insiders start spilling beans. We’ve allowed nazis into science programs but these people have nothing of value to offer.

    • Rekall Incorporated@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I will respectfully disagree.

      Reputational risk of the kind offerred by contractual engagement with Palantir (or say Meta) can only arise if you have a system for managing high level oligarchs and corruption.

      US doesn’t have it and very likely won’t in the next 20-30 years minimum (you likely need a whole new generation of people).

      EU perhaps has the opportunity to address these issues (more than the US), but they have their own failures in different related arenas.

      Or you need a situation that’s unpredictable and no one knows what is going to happen next and how things play out.

      I have a little bit of exposure to silicon valley companys and culture through long-lasting friends (some emigrated from other countries).

      I find it difficult to believe that the notion of working for Palantir or Meta has any negative associations for vast majority of people with relevant skills. Not saying everyone, but the median individual who can get recruited to Palantir/Meta has other concerns.

      Not a miniscule number of projects in silicon valley that I encountered where straight up legal scams. Perhaps scam is not the right word, but it was clear that they are not legitimate businesses, but more like schemes for the founders.