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?
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.
There is a fantastic book to be written about the Antichrist finally rising to lay waste to the world, only to be astounded by air travel, the internet, etc. A demonic horde of a thousand flaming knights riding through Rome is largely written off as a new burning man thing, etc.
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.
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?"
> 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?
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.
You are being rude and condescending to a third party, when I think you meant to be rude and condescending to me.
You comment was ambiguous, using pronouns with multiple referents. I chose the referring that was the most charitable possible interpretation of your ambiguous comment. Your intended point is even more obviously wrong.
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?
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.
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.
I do it this way, but this led to people asking me in reviews why I use NULL^^
My explanation was that it signals intent to me, and is different from some property not being part of the expected object shape or not having been initialized because of some accident or logic failure.
Since then, I've sticked to it, and am "allowed" to use NULL ^^
It can lead to some annoying checks in TS for primitively-typed properties, so for these, I still allow explicit usage of undefined when it's simpler given the surrounding code.
But I agree with you in principle. Using "undefined" as a "second nullish value" and explicitly checking for it is a programming error.
When there's object/areay vs null/undefined, thankfully, the truthiness narrowing often allows me to interface with code relying on "undefined" without explicitly handling this "value" in my own parts of the code base :)
In general the language uses `null` if it would otherwise return an object (similar to Java; this is also why null is an object but not really in both languages), while `undefined` is used if it could otherwise return any value.
Could the language have done without both null and undefined? Definitely. But it's here and here to stay.
Though, it's not the only language with two nulls. Julia has nothing and missing, though their semantics are more well defined and with different behaviors than in JavaScript.
If you're a type purist then undefined looks nicer... It'd be like being upset at booleans because things get coerced to them or some 'ish.
No: it's the type that has one inhabitant—it's not that type's fault that it appears as a default argument or var or was left out of JSON... So long as typeof null === "object", null is the absurd one
undefined is not less absurd because there are parts of the standard that allow you to differentiate between
undefined
and a non-initialized value.
Of course you shouldn't do that, but I once encountered a library that behaved differently depending on whether an option in an options bag object was not present or explicitly set to undefined.
You can run into similar ugliness with function parameters, if you do evil things like using
arguments
And of course you can explicitly check keys of objects, including parameters that are going to be destructured.
All not things you should do, but taints the "purity" argument, doesn't it? :D
It's AI.
reply