5 ms·

Canada shouldn't include Palantir at all.

by jschrf 2mo ago

gatvol 2mo ago
Why not?
- free_bip 2mo ago
  It's pretty obvious this comment didn't come from a Canadian. Because if it was, you'd know that Palantir is elbow-deep in the Trump administration, the same one that has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada. That is not a threat to be taken lightly, and the Canadian public agrees, which is why the trump-opposing Liberal party is currently enjoying a parliamentary majority. A more relevant question would be "Why would anyone with Canada's interests in mind even consider Palantir in the first place?"
  - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
    > Palantir is elbow-deep in the Trump administration, the same one that has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada. That is not a threat to be taken lightly, and the Canadian public agrees Are they making any preparations for war, at all, that they weren't also doing in 2021?
    - jmye 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        Assuming the answer is "no", that is sufficient to demonstrate that the Canadian public sees the threat as one to be taken lightly, and indeed one to which the most appropriate reaction is to ignore it.
        jeromegv 2mo ago
        Ah yes.. the threat to invade us... should be taken lightly. Right. We should fall in line, let them bully us, do nothing, keep sending our money there. I'm sure that your dear leader would also take lightly any threat of invasion against the United States.
        thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        You're taking it lightly right now. If you believe it isn't something to be taken lightly, why do your actions contradict your beliefs so badly?
    - epistasis 2mo ago
      Did the US make any preparations for war before abducting Maduro from Venezuela or before getting into a war with Iran that cost them freedom of passage in the Strait of Hormuz? Right up until Russia invaded Ukraine, Russia maintained that, no, that troop buildup wasn't meant as an invasion force, and a good chunk of the world believed Russia because it was a moronic idea to invade Ukraine. Trump is far more moronic and power drunk than Putin, and would perhaps not even organize troops befre invading Canada, all because somebody in the inner circle goaded Trump into it.
      - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        What do you think your comment has to do with mine?
        epistasis 2mo ago
        You were asking if the US was actually preparing to invade Canada, were you not?
        thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        No, obviously not. Check out every other response I got.
        timbit42 2mo ago
        You asked whether they were preparing for war, in response to a comment about the US threatening to annex Canada. How would people not think you were?
        thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        Just reading the comment would be a good start. > in response to a comment about the US threatening to annex Canada Work on your ability to determine what a sentence has in focus and what it doesn't.
    - mikem170 2mo ago
      I'd say yes. Things like increased military spending (2% of gdp, largest since the end of the cold war), buying more non-US weapon systems (like Saab's GlobalEye, instead of US AWACS), exploring other alliances (with Europe and China), and lessoning dependencies on US companies (like Palantir). Are you thinking that the Candian public doesn't care about Trump's annexation threats?
      - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        I'm thinking that they care in only the most minor ways imaginable, yes. They find the threats offensive, but not threatening.
- jmye 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- toomuchtodo 2mo ago
  They’re arguably a US based technoauthoritarian think tank masquerading as an enterprise software and data analytics firm. https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/palantir-posted-a-manifesto-that-reads-like-the-ramblings-of-a-comic-book-villain-181947361.html https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/palantir-posted-a-manifest... https://www.newsweek.com/us-draft-update-major-tech-company-urges-universal-national-service-11850885 https://www.newsweek.com/us-draft-update-major-tech-company-... France, Germany, Spain, and Britain have or are in the process of disassociating from them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/16/france-ai-data-tools-palantir-chapsvision https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/16/france-ai-data... https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-offices-snub-us-based-palantir-software/a-77160897 https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-offices-snub-us-ba... https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/andy-burnham-drop-spy-tech-firm-palantir-nhs-reports-say https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/andy-burnham-drop-spy-tec... https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/spain-tells-state-backed-firms-to-avoid-new-palantir-contracts-amid-national-security-concerns/3983804 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/spain-tells-state-backed-fir...
- ronsor 2mo ago
  America shouldn't even include Palantir.
- antonvs 2mo ago
  Because it’s a company with no ethics beyond “might makes right,” owned by a person of dubious sanity who travels around the world to warn anyone who’ll listen about how the Antichrist is bad for their business. Why would anyone in their right minds do business with a company like that?
  - kingofmen 2mo ago
    To be fair the Antichrist, being a prophesied entity from several millennia ago, is probably not super up to date on twenty-first-century business best practices. They probably still use waterfall.
    - timbit42 2mo ago
      The Antichrist is NOT a prophesied entity. There is no, "the Antichrist". Antichrist isn't even mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Antichrist is only mentioned in the 1st and 2nd letters of John, where it refers to many antichrists (1 John 2:18), who are identifiable because they deny the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22), and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (2 John 1:7). The term simply means, 'against Christ', so anyone who is against Christ could be labelled such, even if they didn't match the description in 1st and 2nd John. So antichrists existed when these letters of John were written and an innumerable number of them have existed over the past 2,000 years and exist even today. While antichrists would likely continue to exist while the events in Revelation occur, they are not described as having any role in the events described in Revelation. The reason people link antichrist to the beast or false prophet in Revelation is not due to the writings in the New Testament stating that there is a link. It is more that any being who is against Christ, including those in Revelation, are likely to deny the Father and the Son and deny that Jesus came in the flesh, so, it isn't difficult to find numerous antichrists throughout the past 2,000 years that Christians could identify as being an antichrist and since, for each generation, their time was, to them, the end of time, because the future hadn't happened yet, it was easy for them to think of these antichrists as potentially being the beast or false prophet of the end times described in Revelation. Over time, this traditional link between antichrist and the beast or false prophet became very strong, in spite of not being stated in scripture and more tradition has grown up around linking antichrist with the beast or false prophet, creating traditions upon traditions, upon traditions, not of which is substantiated by scripture or any other early writings from the Christian community.

Canada shouldn't include Palantir at all.

by jschrf 2mo ago

Canada shouldn't include Palantir at all.

gatvol 2mo ago

Why not?

free_bip 2mo ago
It's pretty obvious this comment didn't come from a Canadian. Because if it was, you'd know that Palantir is elbow-deep in the Trump administration, the same one that has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada. That is not a threat to be taken lightly, and the Canadian public agrees, which is why the trump-opposing Liberal party is currently enjoying a parliamentary majority. A more relevant question would be "Why would anyone with Canada's interests in mind even consider Palantir in the first place?"
- thaumasiotes 2mo ago
  > Palantir is elbow-deep in the Trump administration, the same one that has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada. That is not a threat to be taken lightly, and the Canadian public agrees Are they making any preparations for war, at all, that they weren't also doing in 2021?
  - jmye 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
      Assuming the answer is "no", that is sufficient to demonstrate that the Canadian public sees the threat as one to be taken lightly, and indeed one to which the most appropriate reaction is to ignore it.
      - jeromegv 2mo ago
        Ah yes.. the threat to invade us... should be taken lightly. Right. We should fall in line, let them bully us, do nothing, keep sending our money there. I'm sure that your dear leader would also take lightly any threat of invasion against the United States.
        thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        You're taking it lightly right now. If you believe it isn't something to be taken lightly, why do your actions contradict your beliefs so badly?
  - epistasis 2mo ago
    Did the US make any preparations for war before abducting Maduro from Venezuela or before getting into a war with Iran that cost them freedom of passage in the Strait of Hormuz? Right up until Russia invaded Ukraine, Russia maintained that, no, that troop buildup wasn't meant as an invasion force, and a good chunk of the world believed Russia because it was a moronic idea to invade Ukraine. Trump is far more moronic and power drunk than Putin, and would perhaps not even organize troops befre invading Canada, all because somebody in the inner circle goaded Trump into it.
    - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
      What do you think your comment has to do with mine?
      - epistasis 2mo ago
        You were asking if the US was actually preparing to invade Canada, were you not?
        thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        No, obviously not. Check out every other response I got.
        timbit42 2mo ago
        You asked whether they were preparing for war, in response to a comment about the US threatening to annex Canada. How would people not think you were?
        thaumasiotes 2mo ago
        Just reading the comment would be a good start. > in response to a comment about the US threatening to annex Canada Work on your ability to determine what a sentence has in focus and what it doesn't.
  - mikem170 2mo ago
    I'd say yes. Things like increased military spending (2% of gdp, largest since the end of the cold war), buying more non-US weapon systems (like Saab's GlobalEye, instead of US AWACS), exploring other alliances (with Europe and China), and lessoning dependencies on US companies (like Palantir). Are you thinking that the Candian public doesn't care about Trump's annexation threats?
    - thaumasiotes 2mo ago
      I'm thinking that they care in only the most minor ways imaginable, yes. They find the threats offensive, but not threatening.
jmye 2mo ago
[flagged]
toomuchtodo 2mo ago
They’re arguably a US based technoauthoritarian think tank masquerading as an enterprise software and data analytics firm. https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/palantir-posted-a-manifesto-that-reads-like-the-ramblings-of-a-comic-book-villain-181947361.html https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/palantir-posted-a-manifest... https://www.newsweek.com/us-draft-update-major-tech-company-urges-universal-national-service-11850885 https://www.newsweek.com/us-draft-update-major-tech-company-... France, Germany, Spain, and Britain have or are in the process of disassociating from them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/16/france-ai-data-tools-palantir-chapsvision https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/16/france-ai-data... https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-offices-snub-us-based-palantir-software/a-77160897 https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-offices-snub-us-ba... https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/andy-burnham-drop-spy-tech-firm-palantir-nhs-reports-say https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/andy-burnham-drop-spy-tec... https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/spain-tells-state-backed-firms-to-avoid-new-palantir-contracts-amid-national-security-concerns/3983804 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/spain-tells-state-backed-fir...
ronsor 2mo ago
America shouldn't even include Palantir.
antonvs 2mo ago
Because it’s a company with no ethics beyond “might makes right,” owned by a person of dubious sanity who travels around the world to warn anyone who’ll listen about how the Antichrist is bad for their business. Why would anyone in their right minds do business with a company like that?
- kingofmen 2mo ago
  To be fair the Antichrist, being a prophesied entity from several millennia ago, is probably not super up to date on twenty-first-century business best practices. They probably still use waterfall.
  - timbit42 2mo ago
    The Antichrist is NOT a prophesied entity. There is no, "the Antichrist". Antichrist isn't even mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Antichrist is only mentioned in the 1st and 2nd letters of John, where it refers to many antichrists (1 John 2:18), who are identifiable because they deny the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22), and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (2 John 1:7). The term simply means, 'against Christ', so anyone who is against Christ could be labelled such, even if they didn't match the description in 1st and 2nd John. So antichrists existed when these letters of John were written and an innumerable number of them have existed over the past 2,000 years and exist even today. While antichrists would likely continue to exist while the events in Revelation occur, they are not described as having any role in the events described in Revelation. The reason people link antichrist to the beast or false prophet in Revelation is not due to the writings in the New Testament stating that there is a link. It is more that any being who is against Christ, including those in Revelation, are likely to deny the Father and the Son and deny that Jesus came in the flesh, so, it isn't difficult to find numerous antichrists throughout the past 2,000 years that Christians could identify as being an antichrist and since, for each generation, their time was, to them, the end of time, because the future hadn't happened yet, it was easy for them to think of these antichrists as potentially being the beast or false prophet of the end times described in Revelation. Over time, this traditional link between antichrist and the beast or false prophet became very strong, in spite of not being stated in scripture and more tradition has grown up around linking antichrist with the beast or false prophet, creating traditions upon traditions, upon traditions, not of which is substantiated by scripture or any other early writings from the Christian community.