How does it even make sense for you to be asking about getting a beer with me? Your friend considers a job you don't approve of and is dead to you. What am I? Presumably something worse than that, right?
My point is, reconsider coercing your friends into taking only the jobs you approve of.
1. How does Palantir's technology which deeply enables the blackmailing surveillance state NOT have to do with politics.
2. You have a shitty sense of humor. Can't a friend say to another friend "You do X, you're dead to me"
3. You stated in a previous post where we deeply disagreed "But I'd still have a beer with you"
4. Your comments do begin to reinforce something I said to you previously which you took very deep offense to; I believe that you're being an apologist to the egregious security state that the NSA has made the USA become. To me, it is subtle but still apparent, I am pretty damn sure, through all our interactions here on HN, that you are incapable or purposefully reticent of seeing what a threat to the world the US intelligence apparatus is. I had said this previously, based on my opinion that this was due to the nature of your work/livelihood - and that at the time that was an assumption, but it is actually your direct comments that reinforce my position.
Stop trying to make NSA (and the surrounding technology/security companies) acceptance happen. Its not gunna happen.
2. Doesn't track. “Dude if you don't make it out for drinks tonight, you're dead to me” would make sense. “If you do <serious thing> you're dead to me” isn't really funny.
Sure, if you have no context; Friend and I are totally aligned on what we think of the current state of the int environment is.
We work in tech. We share same aversions to certain activities.
He's talented IT guy, companies interested; had offer from several SV bigco's - had offer from this company as well, which we talked about in depth. He ended up making a different choice - and then later I had told him what I stated in my OP; the context and the parties between which this conversation happened; it was funny.
The core of the sentiment though is not: I personally am against companies which built their core business on supporting the surveillance state.
A lot more can be said on that topic; debates over proper use of tech, where lines are drawn, define core business, these problems apply to all industries, etc.
But the fact remains that there are companies who services are more greatly leveraged by the surveillance state. This company is one of them. I don't support them.