Yes, discussed in the article, too.
There has been an article like this every few years since at least the 1990s where someone (re-)discovers that Silicon Valley works closely with DoD. Almost every startup delivering genuinely novel technology will have a relationship with some part of the DoD whether they talk about it or not, it has always worked that way. People who think startups are not working with DoD are deluding themselves.
The government has generally taken a "buy one of everything" approach to evaluating new technology. They are actually an interesting early customer to work with, which is why so many startups do.
They haven’t destroyed every vestige of liberal democracy — the states can fight and there are still courtroom battles — but the fascists own the enforcement mechanisms for justice, and don’t feel bound by the outcomes. The guardrails are gone.
Do not harbor illusions that we’re going to return to normality in our lifetimes. It’s possible something new and better will take over once the Trump regime is somehow ended, but I doubt it; they’re trashing the place pretty thoroughly.
>Silicon Valley’s militarization is in many ways a return to the region’s roots.
>Before the area was a tech epicenter, it was a bucolic land of fruit orchards. In the 1950s, the Defense Department began investing in tech companies in the region, aiming to compete with Russia’s technological advantages in the Cold War. That made the federal government the first major backer of Silicon Valley.
>The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a division of the Department of Defense, later incubated technology — such as the internet — that became the basis for Silicon Valley’s largest companies. In 1998, the Stanford graduate students Sergey Brin and Larry Page received funding from Darpa and other government agencies to create Google.
E.g. hedge funds or short sellers publishing financial advice is seen as "talking their book" rather than high quality analysis.
I find it absurd to think that the NYT would hope to achieve some commercial advantage by (and being able to) "slander" big software as a whole.
That makes no sense to me.
You could also say that every member of this board should be considered biased towards journalism as a whole, because most work for companies who have nothing to win from independent journalism.
Maybe some even work for direct competitors (online media) or companies with an interest to thwart the independence of journalism?
Framing the NYT as a competitor to SV as a whole also says that SV would be a competitor to journalism: that makes no sense to me.
Which one of the MAG7 is a journalism company? I know Amazon owns The Washington Post and I know that Alphabet and MS want to use content from journalists without paying and best replace journalism with AI or at least become a gatekeeper.
> Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news
(unknown)
The NYT should do more investigative journalism, but it is better than nothing. SV pundits just recycle and comment on news stories that the mainstream press has reported.
SV outlets will never go after the "deep state" apart from performative complaining because they are in it and get the money from it.
I wish the NYT/WaPo were as good as in the 1980s in terms of investigative reporting, but that is what we have.
although that's useless as a definition of fascism
Does anyone else remember the good old days when the Secretary of Defense would fly to Redmond to meet with Bill Gates?
https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/1/24259369/microsoft-holole...
I don't see Anduril producing anything like the B2 or the F22 or nuclear submarines, all of which are the really important technologies. Oculus VR isn't really successful, VR is shoehorned into Army applications "because high tech". Given that the army is unliklely to be deployed and soldiers probably hate the VR headsets this is just more waste.
That said, they are definitely competing against nuclear subs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNCHZBJxsM
In the West if you run afoul of political elites in the worst case: you get imprisoned & cancelled, potentially bankrupted.
If speaking out mildly: you may have some dueling op-eds or lose a contract/customer. Big whoop
In the best case: you'll make tons of money and have great quality of life provided you don't become an overt monopoly, but even if you get broken up you'll make even more money.
***********************
In the East if you run afoul of political elites in the worst case: you & your family will be disappeared, executed or harvested for body parts
If speaking out mildly: you may get sent to a re-education camp and lose control of your company & assets, or eat a negative social credit score
In the best case: you'll make tons of money and have great quality of life provided the Nation does not choose to nationalize you.
***********************
While I may be broadly grouped on the nuanced Paleo-Libertarian R faction, I've been pretty content to work with my very L colleagues, that is the influential in our industry.
But let us not mistake the best case, likely case, and worst cases for the very different world views of East vs West.
As much as I have an anti-Color Revolution approach, I think much of the L has been very conscious of Ukraine / Chinese Nationalization, and State-Owned Enterprise organized theft of IP and lack of a rule of law.
If it comes down to a question of institutions, and outcomes, most of us vastly prefer those of the West bloc to the East bloc.
Jgoauh•2h ago
Well Dark-Enlightenment has been speeding up since trump took office. I am not surprised that the neo fascist movent aiming to transform Silicon Valley tech giants into authoritatian city states would embrace and strenghen its relationship with the military. Someone is gonna need to defend your company-state proprety against minorities, former employees and the annoying non-fascists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
assword•1h ago
Jgoauh•1h ago
tolerance•1h ago
Tactical control and an embedded influence that ensures that "failure" never manifests in the way that it has for civilizations past.
"They" pivot. From keyboards to motorbikes. Nuclear power plants to...'sex toys'.
Pivot in such a way you can't really point a finger at who's to blame and before you've got a handle on it they've spun around into something else again.
Jgoauh•1h ago
sfitz•59m ago
pfdietz•25m ago
Jtsummers•16m ago
The rest of DOD has shifted to very conservative approaches to system development and sustainment (for better or worse, mostly worse IMO). It's stuck in the mindset of "This aircraft platform will be around for 50 years." Which is not conducive to the move fast, breaking things or not, approach.
moc_was_wronged•37m ago