[KineticLensman]

> The 1977 Hobbit film which was produced for NBC [1] was a excellent adaptation

I've not seen the 1977 Hobbit film, but I note that your reference [1] prominently says: "The Tolkien scholar Douglas A. Anderson called the adaptation "execrable"; the author Baird Searles called it an "abomination" and an attempt that had "failed miserably", regretting the quality of the animation and of the soundtrack, and the omission of key plot points."

[ianbicking]

The 1977 Hobbit has its issues, but having watched it recently I feel like it does well with capturing the vibe of the book, especially the first half (it does really fall apart later). I personally find Peter Jackson's version of the Hobbit unwatchable for the same reason... he takes the LOTR vibe and imposes it onto a much more innocent story.

[aiforecastthway]

The thing that I like about the Hobbit 77 film is that it realizes the material is a child's fantasy book. It's a breath of fresh air in a our current era -- where VCs seem to understand that any attempt to profit off of the American taxpayer's defense spending requires some Tolkien reference in the company name.

The existence of the '77 animated adaptation is our last reminder that the Generals green-lighting all this spend are literally mid-witted man-children.

[GolfPopper]

That Thiel named his company Palantir has always struck me oddly.

In the books, the palantir were "seeing stones" gifted to men by the elves, and could be used to see events remotely, and to communicate mind-to-mind by users. But after Sauron acquired one, using them became perilous as the Dark Lord could limit what users saw, effectively controlling their information flow, even if he could not overwhelm or twist them directly via the mind-to-mind contact. While Aragorn does manage to wrest one free of Sauron's control, allowing him to save the day at a key moment, overall they are a powerful tool for the forces of evil.

[plausibility]

I think it's just because he had no illusions as to the good and bad uses it would bring. I've used Palantir Foundry heavily at work, and it is good for remotely viewing events and communicating mind-to-mind to executives with pretty dashboards. Definitely nicer optics than their Gotham platform used by USA law enforcement since e.g. it helps Airbus identify issues on their plane fleets before they occur.

Plus from talking to the Palantir engineers, the CEO and Thiel are both weirdo nerds, so it's fitting.

[dbt00]

If you’re going to build a powerful tool for governments don’t you want a constant reminder of how even tools for good can be corrupted by evil?

[optimalsolver]

I put the probability of them having that mentality when choosing the name at literally zero.

[jltsiren]

It's not even the specific name, but simply using any name from Tolkien.

Tolkien didn't like the consequences of technological progress. While engineers were not inherently evil in his works, they were at a high risk of becoming evil, or at least instruments of evil. Think of characters like Sauron and Saruman, or Fëanor and Celebrimbor. If you give a Tolkienian name to your tech company, you are implying that you are one of those guys.

[Ar-Curunir]

If you realize that Peter Thiel intends to use Palantir exactly for that purpose (controlling information flow, and as a surveillance system), it makes complete sense.

[psunavy03]

Having worked on three- and four-star staffs while I was in uniform I can assure you that they are decidedly NOT that. The folks who make it to that level are sharp as hell and usually do not suffer fools lightly.

Your glaring anti-military prejudice aside, the "spend" you refer to is Congress's job, not that of senior officers.