As of March 2025, Herbert L. Abrams is the only individual affiliated with Stanford University who has been associated with a Nobel Peace Prize. He served as the founding vice president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which was collectively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for its efforts to prevent nuclear war.
Stanford is packed with extremely bright, ambitious students. Who can easily optimize their "beliefs and values", for getting ahead.
What's the big downside, from their PoV? Being regarded as "immoral" by a few mostly-impotent-and-irrelevant idealists is probably an upside, due to the cred boost in their new in-group.
They'll never cut defense spending. That's where the most grift and corruption are, and that's the bread and butter for any politician to horse-trade for what they want.
“My most effective and moral friends are now working for Palantir,” Ganesan says.
This statement is so absurd to me I don’t even know where to begin.
Effective, sure. Moral? Hmmmm. I’m not sure building tech to snipe people from on high is moral?
I was curious so Chat looked this fun fact up:
As of March 2025, Herbert L. Abrams is the only individual affiliated with Stanford University who has been associated with a Nobel Peace Prize. He served as the founding vice president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which was collectively awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for its efforts to prevent nuclear war.
Do you think war is just inherently immoral? What should a country do to not be Ukraine?
If you believe "si vis pacem, para bellum", then yes, moral plus essential.
Is it possible to be moral and dead?
Quite possible. But is it preferable though?
Morality is not absolute.
Stanford is packed with extremely bright, ambitious students. Who can easily optimize their "beliefs and values", for getting ahead.
What's the big downside, from their PoV? Being regarded as "immoral" by a few mostly-impotent-and-irrelevant idealists is probably an upside, due to the cred boost in their new in-group.
don't they plan to cut defense spending? Where's the gold, competing with Lockheed?
Being bought by Lockheed.
They'll never cut defense spending. That's where the most grift and corruption are, and that's the bread and butter for any politician to horse-trade for what they want.
>> They'll never cut defense spending
Military expenditure (% of GDP) - United States: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat....
They often cut defense spending.
If we switch from % to absolute terms you can see it is almost always up and to the right.
If the US never cuts defense spending, how did it go from 752 billion in 2011 to 633 billion in 2015?
As per the other commenter. How do you rationalize this?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.CD?location...