Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

www.palantir.com

Seriously, a point-by-point real world counterargument of your comment.

Palantir is the exception, not the rule. Most software built within governments, (I work on the finance side of tech projects for the city of New York) are basic crud apps that have to integrate with very old data systems. Most developers are "consultants" that are treated as code monkeys because managers have absolutely no idea about building software - for example, there was a CIO who didn't know what a stored procedure was and didn't understand why they exist after a developer spent time explaining what one was. There are smart developers working on projects, but they are typically not given the freedom to be creative.

EDIT: relevant essay by PG http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html

I totally agree that it's the exception, but I think if it were the rule this article never would've been written.

Valid point.

And this is why I stopped working in gov.

They're not public, but I'm pretty sure they're not underbidding anyone. Nor are they bidding on the giant IT projects. Seems more like they're doing specialized work in niches where the government is actively seeking novel solutions (and by the standards of government contracts, these are small projects so they can get away with less specification).

The whole Palantir vs DCGS-A thing seems to fall under both the underbidding and large (although not massive) projects. They're definitely fighting an uphill battle for it though.

I'm relatively certain that despite not seeking an IPO, Palantir is not a nonprofit organization (a key part of the proposal in this article). Maybe I missed that memo though, can you point to their page so I can make a tax-deductible donation?

Maybe I missed that being nonprofit was a criterion here? But it that's the case, sure you're correct.

It was certainly 1) mentioned in the article and 2) a part of my critique (that I specifically quoted). And since Palantir is a "point-by-point" counterargument of my critique, I suppose it should at least be somewhat important.

Palantir is a for profit company that works on both commercial and government projects, and is valued at $9 billion. If you believe that that is in the spirit of what this article is proposing, then sure, I suppose this is the perfect counterargument. I think its pretty clear that Palantir is a very different company with very different goals than what is being proposed here.

The point of this article is creating a "for the common good" contractor with the aim of lowering bidding prices, and increasing software quality across the board, funded perhaps by donations, and certainly not having profitability as its primary driving force. Palantir is just another company, a very successful one mind you, that yes happens to make good government software.

Ah, I read the "start it as an... intentionally unprofitable company" as one that starts in the red but doesn't necessarily have to remain unprofitable forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com