Why does the form need rerendered on a per request basis? HTML/Browser already tracks the current form state.

Lenience and mercy are critical components of a system of a just criminal justice system. We have judges issue sentences in large part because we want a human being with good judgement to decide how serious the punishment for an offence should be based on the circumstances.

A person who shoots their partner who has been abusing them for years should probably receive a different punishment than a person who pulls out a gun in traffic and shoots someone for cutting them off. Mercy or "lenience" are not inherently flaws in the justice system, though of course there's always "too much of a good thing."

I must be missing something.

"Wired wrote that some people think Palantir "maintains a giant, centralized database of information collected from all of its clients", which is untrue."

'some people' is a classic weasel word[0] used to prop up the writer's opinion. This sentence is even funnier because it initially appears to state that Palantir has a centralized DB of clients data, only to finish with "...which is untrue." If the claim is untrue, why lead the section paragraph with it unless you're intending to smear or mislead? If I were to end sentences with "...which is untrue" I could write any number of things on Wikipedia.

It's as though I wrote "A YN user wrote that 'john_strinlai works for the CCP and uses ChatGPT to write all his posts', which is untrue."

I'll keep reading but rhetorical chicanery like this colours my interpretation of the article in general.

EDIT the section goes on: "[We can't pin anything specific on Palantir here]; still it is generally accepted that abuses by governments and data management failures can happen." What does that have to do with Palantir? "data management failures can happen" why is this in the section on "Palantir:Controversy"? This article is not good.

EDIT 2: This section is just comedy gold... 'Palantir "remains open to the critique of potentially being an accessory to acts of deportation, imprisonment, and racism through its contracts".' Open to critiques of potentially being an accessory to "racism?" What is this, the Future Crimes unit from Minority Report? This "future crimes" accusation is especially ironic in relation to the critiques of Palantir itself!

So I haven't read this whole section (it's quite long) but if this is the nature of the "smoking guns" I don't think much of it. Potentially maybe doing something according to 'some people...' this shouldn't hold water for any rational person.

If someone objects to Palantir for working with ICE I understand that, and if that's the nature of Spain's objections they should just say so.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

I'm sorry but I can't find where he said this. I'm finding it confusing and suspicious that the objections to Palantir & Alex Karp are all so vague and seem to lack the rigour typically required of assertions made here on YN. Usually if you declare something like someone "argues clearly for authoritarianism," you're expected to link to a source of this claim.

People keep telling me here it's so obvious Palantir is bad I shouldn't require any specific evidence and I'm stupid if I don't see it; I'm only reminded of the emperors new cloths.

Can you explain how Trump's MoU fits into this "beholden to Israel" model? This deal goes directly against Israel's interests and wishes.

Biden forced Israel to stay their hand during their war with Hamas, for example telling them not to go into Rafah, which delayed them for some time. So is Israel controlled by the US, or is it the other way around? (When they did go into Rafah, they found both Israeli hostages and Hamas leadership, proving that Biden was wrong for telling them not to take the fight there.)

What are the specific concerns?

"They are spending so much, that's why they control the government!" They (American citizens funding AIPAC) actually spending much less than many other lobbying groups. "Aha- they're so conniving they can control the government even without being in the top 10 lobbies!"

There's no winning against this "logic" because the conclusion has been decided ahead of time & any evidence is interpreted as supporting that conclusion, no matter which way it goes.

I'm also saying the narrative that "AIPAC controls the gov't via lobbying" which many people believe is incoherent because Coinbase must control the gov't even more by this thinking.

If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics.

Can you name 10 of the groups who spent more than them? How about five? The question worth asking is why are people obsessed with demonizing the AIPAC in particular and singling it out as the one or primary 'evil lobbying group' when there are tens or dozens of groups that spent more. The 2024 AIPAC spending number (50 mil, which is donated by American voters, not foreign money) is 1/8th of the $400 million plan Qatar (a foreign government) gave Trump in 2025.

People focus on AIPAC specifically because they have a problem with Jews. Jews and other Israel supporting Americans are allowed to pool money and lobby just like anyone else. the fact that people think they shouldn't be allowed to play this game, the same one everyone else is playing in US politics, is what should be questioned.

0: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/top-organizat...

No war has ever been waged without civilian casualties, Israel is the only country held to this standard. “Thousands” of Hezbollah pagers were exploded and there were apparently 2 children killed. This is a tragedy as is every civilian death, but that’s pretty amazingly targeted and an extremely low civilian death toll for thousands of bombs.

For contrast, Hezbollah fired one single rocket and killed 12 children: https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-dark-day-for-majdal-shams-dr...

@OP: PEBKAC, respectfully.

Furthermore, to say platform owners don't care about offending such users would be an understatement: platform owners likely want to actively repel such users. Why serve someone who neither pays a fee nor agrees to be shown ads?