from the a-very-bad-bet dept

Earlier this month, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that “Palantir Technologies (PLTR) has proven to have great war fighting capabilities and equipment. Just ask our enemies!!!” — notably including the stock ticker, because why not just make the market manipulation explicit.

The stock popped after that and has continued to rise in the past couple weeks, though it’s still down on the year.

Welcome to patronage capitalism with a stock ticker attached.

Last year, we wrote about the disturbing trend of tech founders and VCs nodding along to the neoreactionary pitch that democracy is holding back innovation, and that what the industry really needs is a “tech-friendly” strongman to sweep away institutional guardrails. We argued this was both morally bankrupt and strategically suicidal, since real innovation requires exactly the kind of stable, open, competitive institutions that authoritarianism systematically destroys.

Palantir has apparently decided to volunteer as the case study. Palantir — the very company whose entire sales pitch is built around using technology to make better strategic decisions and predict how things will play out.

But now the company seems to be betting that Trumpist-flavored authoritarianism is a permanent feature of the American political landscape — and that going all-in on it will never, ever have any long-term consequences.

Over the weekend, the company’s official account posted what it called a “brief” 22-point summary of CEO Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic, framed as an introduction to the “philosophy” behind Palantir’s work. Most of it is a reheated version of the familiar Thiel-adjacent playbook — Silicon Valley owes a debt to the country, we must build AI weapons before our adversaries do, the iPhone has made us soft — the kind of thing that gets nodded along to at certain conferences and immediately forgotten.

But a few points deserve to be called out. First, there is the quite telling series of bullet points effectively saying that famous people shouldn’t be subject to public criticism because it means they might not want to help save you piddling simpletons.

We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

[….]

Advertisement

The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

This is the same Harpers Letter-style nonsense where people who deem themselves to be great thinkers or great men of history find it horrifying that the public might call them on their bullshit. I mean, sure, we should show more grace in general to lots of people, but these fragile-minded billionaires keep acting like because some wacko on social media calls them on their bullshit pronouncements it’s the end of the world.

But it gets way worse from there. Buried near the end are points 21 and 22, which are insane, and should make anyone who continues to work with or for Palantir radioactive:

Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

Advertisement

Strip away the corporate-academic language and you’re left with a very old, very problematic argument: certain cultures — and we all know which ones they are claiming are supposedly the “middling” and “regressive” ones — are inferior, and the pursuit of inclusivity has been a civilizational error. That framing — some cultures produce wonders, others are regressive and harmful, pluralism is a civilizational threat — has been used to justify exclusion, hierarchy, and far worse for over a century. And while internet fascists like to think of it as edge lord contrarianism today, to most people it just comes across as a shiny coat of paint on historical bigotries and ignorance.

Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat, sarcastically pointed out that it was “extremely normal and fine for a company to put this in a public statement.” In a much longer and more thoughtful thread on this, he made a key point:

This is the publicly endorsed worldview of a company that is rapidly becoming load-bearing infrastructure for the federal government’s surveillance and enforcement apparatus, and it contains arguments that would be at home in a white nationalist pamphlet.

Palantir has always been a bit creepy and cultlike in their worship of government power. Years back I debated one of its founders regarding Google employees convincing the company to drop out of a government AI surveillance effort, Project Maven. He insisted that those employees were naive and Google was weak for backing down. Of course, Google’s decision to leave Project Maven turned out to be a huge win for Palantir, who effectively took it over in Google’s place.

But back then, Palantir at least played the game of pretending to care about cultural diversity and pluralism. As Chris Person pointed out, until fairly recently, Palantir had employee resource groups called Palamigos, PalaNoir, PalanQueer, PalanGender Queer, the Palantir Interfaith Network, PalAPI, and PalNoir. The company celebrated exactly the kind of pluralism and multicultural identity that Karp’s manifesto now denounces as “shallow” and “vacant.”

And yes, they even pretended they had a pro-DEI stance:

At least now we see what happens when they feel they can go full mask off.

With Trump in power, Karp apparently feels free to discard the diversity framing the company used for years to recruit employees and just say the quiet part out loud.

The apparent hope is to use Trump’s support over the next few years to permanently weave themselves into the federal government’s tech stack. The NY Times last year talked about how Palantir’s Foundry is becoming the connective tissue for federal data:

The push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including D.H.S. and the Health and Human Services Department. Widely adopting Foundry, which organizes and analyzes data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies, the government officials said.

Creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. The Trump administration has already sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including their bank account numbers, the amount of their student debt, their medical claims and any disability status.

Palantir has made itself ideologically and technically indispensable to one specific administration’s political project — which happens to include mass deportation, data consolidation on citizens, and the kinds of enforcement actions that require exactly the ideological framework Karp just publicly endorsed.

Meanwhile, the even more recent $10 billion Army contract consolidates 75 separate contracts into a single decade-long enterprise deal.

Supporters of Palantir will likely argue that it sounds like this “embrace fascism” strategy is working great. The company is signing these rich contracts and getting its technology deep within the infrastructure of the federal government. And, yes, you could say that these are short term wins (even if the stock price is kinda lagging).

But these things cut both ways. When your value to the government is primarily ideological alignment with a specific political project, you become a clear and visible target the moment that project loses power.

One of the many problems with fascism as a business strategy is that it only works if the fascists stay in power indefinitely. It’s a woefully unpopular ideological position, especially in the US — betting on a temporarily ascendant horse that has no chance in a longer race.

But Karp and Palantir have bet the farm that either Trumpism will remain a powerful force within the government or that they will be so deeply buried in the systems that it would be effectively impossible to rip them out when more grounded leadership enters the picture.

That’s an incredibly risky bet, and one I doubt will pay off.

Karp has made sure that he and his company have become ideologically toxic to a non-fascist government. A future non-Trumpist administration will have tremendous reputational incentive to very visibly rip out Palantir, as a signal that the prior regime’s infrastructure is being dismantled.

This is exactly the trap we warned about last year when we wrote about Silicon Valley’s embrace of fascism for short-term gain. Contractual dependency you can unwind. But you’ve told everyone in public what you are, and you can’t walk that back when the winds shift.

And the winds do shift. Companies that tied themselves to nationalist or authoritarian regimes throughout the 20th century tend not to have great long-term track records as independent entities. Some survive — though often in name only, most heavily restructured, with decades of reputational rehabilitation to follow. When you make yourself a load-bearing pillar of a specific regime’s specific project, your fate becomes tied to that regime’s fate.

Then there’s the talent question. The piece we wrote last year noted that authoritarianism drives brain drain — that foreign students, researchers, and the global talent pool that has always fed American innovation are already heading elsewhere. Palantir just published a document telling the world, in effect, that a diverse workforce is “shallow” and “vacant” and that some cultures are “regressive.” The engineers who have options — and the best ones always do — just got a very clear signal about whether they should take Palantir’s recruiter call.

There’s a version of Palantir’s business that doesn’t require publishing a white-nationalism-adjacent manifesto. You can sell analytical software to the federal government without announcing that pluralism is a mistake and that some cultures are regressive. Plenty of defense contractors manage it. The business didn’t force the decision to publish those 22 points. It was a choice to double down on ideological signaling, presumably because Karp and company have calculated that visible loyalty gets rewarded in the current environment.

And perhaps it earned some cheers from the remaining trolls on X, for whatever that’s worth.

But it’s a recipe for disaster over the long haul, which seems odd for a company whose entire sales pitch is based around the ability to use its tech to get great insights into how strategic decisions will play out.

This is exactly the warning we gave tech founders last year. The pitch that democracy is messy and slow, that innovation really needs someone who “gets it” cutting red tape, leads directly and predictably here: first you justify the pragmatism of cutting red tape, then you’re chasing the contracts, then drafting the manifestos, until your stock price depends on friendly presidential posts and your long-term viability depends on a political coalition never losing power.

Palantir has decided this is its business model. The rest of the industry should watch very carefully what happens next. Because the thing about tying yourself to a regime isn’t that it never works. It’s that when it stops working, it stops working all at once — and you’ve burned every other option on the way there.

Filed Under: alex karp, donald trump, fascism, silicon valley

Companies: palantir

Over the weekend in China, a humanoid robot shattered world half-marathon record—the human record—by seven minutes.

The star performer was a robot developed by the Chinese company Honor (the smartphone maker), which finished the 13.1-mile race in 50 minutes, 26 seconds. The human record, set by Ugandan Olympic medalist Jacob Kiplimo, is 57 minutes, 20 seconds. The result marks an impressive milestone especially considering that, just a year earlier, the fastest robot at this half-marathon event took two and a half hours to complete the same distance.

But Honor’s robot was not the only participant. The event consisted of more than 100 humanoid robots from 76 institutions across China. The robots lined up alongside 12,000 human runners in Beijing’s E-Town, albeit on separate courses to avoid accidents. The contrast in performance between humans and robots was more than evident.

Run, Robot, Run

A humanoid robot is designed to mimic the structure and movement of the human body, with legs, arms, and sensors that allow it to interact with its environment. In this case, the winning robot incorporated features inspired by elite runners: long legs (almost a meter), advanced balance systems, and a liquid cooling mechanism, similar to that of smartphones, to prevent overheating during the race.

Advertisement

In addition, many of the participating robots operated autonomously, meaning without direct human control. Thanks to artificial intelligence algorithms, they could adjust their pace, maintain balance, and adapt to the terrain in real time. Notably, the Honor robot that achieved the 50-minute mark operated autonomously. The Chinese manufacturer presented another robot, operated by remote control, that ran the same stretch in even less time: 48 minutes, 19 seconds.

As expected, there were some accidents in the race. Some robots fell down, others veered off the path, and several needed technical assistance along the way. While the physical performance of humanoid robots has advanced rapidly, their reliability is still developing. Of course, the laughter and jeers are no longer as frequent as they used to be, replaced by applause and exclamations of surprise.

The winning robot, “Blitz,” from smartphone manufacturer Honor was on display at the awards ceremony after the Beijing E-Town Robot Half Marathon.

Photograph: Lintao Zhang/Getty Images

Robot Superiority

Just like the robots that went viral for their impressive martial arts display a few weeks ago, this long-distance race is part of a broader strategy by China to show off its leadership in the development of advanced robots.

Advertisement

You don’t need to be a robotics expert to see that this achievement demonstrates that machines can outperform humans at specific physical tasks under controlled conditions. (It’s hard to imagine that the winning robot could achieve the same result, for example, if it started to rain during the race.) But humans still have a few tricks up their sleeve: Running in a straight line is very different from performing complex real-world activities, such as manipulating delicate objects or interacting socially.

However, it’s understandable that the image of a robot crossing the finish line in record time, ahead of human athletes, raises several questions. Is this the beginning of a new era in which machines redefine physical limits?

One could argue that a car is a machine, and those have always been faster than humans. But a humanoid robot is designed to mimic humans. It’s more alarming to see one beat humanity at its own game—even if so many of them are still tripping over themselves.

This story originally appeared in WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

Advertisement

Amazon and Anthropic are strengthening their ties once again, with steep financial commitments made on both sides. Today, Amazon announced that it will invest $5 billion in the AI company, along with as much as $20 billion in additional payments if certain milestones are met. This news follows the initial $4 billion investment Amazon made in Anthropic in 2023 and a second $4 billion round from 2024.

On Anthropic’s side, it has committed to continued use of Amazon’s custom Trainium silicon for its AI models. The latest agreement will see Anthropic promising to spend more than $100 billion on AWS technologies over the coming decade. It will secure up to 5 gigawatts of current and future chip capacity for training and powering its models. Their partnership is also bringing Anthropic’s Claude platform to Amazon Web Services customers within the AWS portal, removing the need for additional credentials.

After nearly 15 years as Apple CEO, Tim Cook is stepping down. He will continue to operate in the role until Sept. 1, when he will be replaced by John Ternus, the company’s senior vice president of hardware engineering.

Cook won’t disappear from Apple. He will transition to Apple’s board of directors as executive chairman, the company announced Monday. But the shift represents the end of an era for the company. 

Cook became CEO on Aug. 24, 2011, taking over from Apple co-founder and face of the company Steve Jobs, who passed away two months later. Known for improving the company’s supply chain, Cook oversaw a period of record growth. During his 15-year tenure, it refined its smartphone line from the iPhone 5 onward, debuted new products like the Apple Watch and HomePod, and launched services such as Apple Music, Apple TV Plus and Apple Fitness Plus. 

With Cook at the helm, Apple became a trillion-dollar company in 2018 — the first US company to do so — and surpassed $3 trillion in market cap in 2022.

“I love Apple with all of my being, and I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to work with a team of such ingenious, innovative, creative, and deeply caring people who have been unwavering in their dedication to enriching the lives of our customers and creating the best products and services in the world,” Cook said.

Ternus, who will replace Cook in September, has spent almost his entire career at Apple. An engineer by trade, he joined the company in 2001, becoming vice president of hardware engineering in 2013 and SVP in 2021. He was “instrumental in the introduction” of the iPad and AirPods, according to Apple’s post, and oversaw the company’s product lines all the way up to the recent MacBook Neo.  

This is a developing story. Check back on CNET for more updates.

Apple’s upcoming iPhone 18 Pro lineup may introduce a refreshed set of color options, according to recent leaks, offering a mix of familiar finishes and a new standout shade. While the company has yet to officially confirm details, multiple reports suggest that four colors are currently being tested for the 2026 flagship.

The rumored lineup includes Light Blue, Dark Gray, Silver, and a new Dark Cherry finish, which is expected to serve as the signature color for the iPhone 18 Pro series.

A New Signature Color Takes Center Stage

Among the rumored options, Dark Cherry is drawing the most attention. Leaks indicate that Apple is moving toward a deeper, more refined red tone, replacing brighter shades like Cosmic Orange from the previous generation.

This follows Apple’s typical strategy of introducing one standout color each year to differentiate its latest Pro models. The Dark Cherry finish is expected to be more subtle and premium, aligning with the company’s current design language.

The remaining colors – Light Blue, Dark Gray, and Silver – appear to be more restrained. Light Blue could resemble earlier “Mist Blue” tones, while Dark Gray and Silver continue Apple’s preference for neutral, understated finishes in its Pro lineup.

Why These Changes Matter

Color may seem like a minor detail, but for Apple, it plays a key role in product identity. New finishes help distinguish each generation visually, making it easier for users to recognise the latest models.

The shift toward darker and more muted tones suggests Apple is refining its premium aesthetic rather than experimenting with bold or unconventional colors. Reports also indicate that Apple may once again skip a traditional black variant, continuing a recent trend in its Pro lineup.

These choices also point towards a broader design approach where subtle changes signal upgrades, especially in a market where hardware differences are becoming less visible year over year.

What It Means For Buyers

For users, the rumored color options offer a mix of safe and slightly expressive choices. Those who prefer classic finishes will likely gravitate toward Silver or Dark Gray, while the new Dark Cherry option could appeal to buyers looking for something distinctive without being overly flashy.

Since color is often a key factor in purchase decisions, especially for premium devices, the introduction of a new signature shade may influence early adopters and upgrades.

What Comes Next

As with all early leaks, these details remain subject to change. Apple typically finalises design elements closer to production, meaning one or more of these colors could still be altered or dropped. The iPhone 18 Pro series is expected to launch in September 2026, alongside other hardware updates such as potential display changes and camera improvements.

Until then, more leaks and renders are likely to emerge, offering a clearer picture of what Apple has planned for its next flagship.