IMO drove its funding.
Alex Karp was calling himself a self-described socialist as recently as 2018.
>If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law.
>We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others.
https://x.com/JTLonsdale/status/1996947600533066185
https://thehill.com/opinion/robbys-radar/5640692-public-exec...
Answer: No
EDIT: This in regards to knowing: "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes."
The State killed a lot of people between the 14th and 20th centuries and also the homicide rate went down.
Wow!
QED
Good thing there weren't other major confounding changes between errmmm... the longbow and the atomic bomb. Or Dante's Divine Comedy and jazz.
I'm convinced. Why'd you even put the note "if not conclusive" with evidence this strong?
Note that Frost and Harpending are pretty conservative in their estimates; they figure only ballpark half the decline could be explained by this.
Case-control methods, natural experiments, surveys of criminals, and meta-analyses of the prior.
Literally any method other than "pick 600 year period and say 'vibes shifted generally across a continent and then homicide went down'"
Of course this question has been studied extensively for decades and the current conclusion is: completely inconclusive!
There's some evidence it increases violent crime, some that it decreases it, most evidence doesn't clearly show any effect at all.
So whatever effect it may have, it almost certainly isn't very strong, or is countervailed by opposing effects.
I think that if we're proposing the State, which we know to be fallible in so many cases, should make irreversible decisions like "executing suspected bad guys" more frequently, then we should have extremely strong evidence that it would actually achieve the desired result.
> It's also at least quasi-testable; someone could fund a study on examining alleles associated with aggression in historical remains.
Good luck establishing how "alleles associated with aggression" contributes to violence. I'm pretty sure most of the people who adopt your position would argue that their "aggressiveness" is a virtue in whatever competitive landscape they choose to occupy.
I think we're in violent agreement here; yes, this obviously bears further investigation. The way good science gets done is "We have some preliminary evidence that could support a certain hypothesis. We think people should do further investigation." Then you go do that further investigation to see if you can reject the null.
The alleles point, though, is weaker. You're not just looking at stuff like MAO-A activity, also CDH13, COMT, other variants. We actually have a pretty good set worth analyzing that are pretty well-characterized in research, so we don't have to depend on any one particular allele. We have a pretty good set of those that aren't associated with, I don't know, aggression in boardrooms.
If either side of any struggle acquires supreme force, the other side suffers without limit or recourse.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-share-tax-recor...
Umm..
The 20th century features a number of blood soaked horrors where the CIA gave lists of names to the anticommunist party of some country who went on to commit _a statistic_ against their political foes. As I understand it, Palantir is in the business of supplying names and addresses to go on lists for domestic and foreign intelligence, right?
I haven’t met a single communist in my life. These delusions people have truly scare me.
Edit: Forgot to mention I’ve also been to Mexico, Jamaica, 2 different states in Brazil, Netherlands, France, England, and Canada. I must repel communists.
If we are to assume communists do not out themselves, how do these people find those communists?
It was a war on terror analyst notebook, and correct me if I’m wrong but Islamic extremism is not communism.
Your personal motivations for pursuing a particular commercial enterprise and the business of the enterprise itself are not the same. One is the purpose of the company, the other is your purpose in working for or founding it.
You'd have a very hard time arguing the materiality of Lonsdale's personal political beliefs and anti-communist stance for the investors of Palantir. Even a good attorney would have a hard time arguing this. He'd have an impossible time arguing it against another very able attorney. He'd also have an impossible time proving actual damages, which means you couldn't win a securities fraud civil case. Or common law fraud.
Oh also any investor who sued someone who made him boatloads of money over his political beliefs would have a very tough time finding someone to take his dollars and give him board seats in the future.
However, the "Paradox of Tolerance" left doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on here, when they've been asserting their right to assault or even kill anyone they deem a Nazi, or even just a "fascist" (a horribly overloaded term), since even before the first Trump administration. The comments extremistwashing Charlie Kirk and implicitly or even explicitly ("[ Removed by Redit ]") justifying his execution did well enough to alienate moderate rightwingers to the degree that few, if any, will voice their opposition to the normalization of this kind of rhetoric targeting communists.
madspindel•1mo ago
clanky•1mo ago