undefined | Better HN

0 pointsscott_w1y ago0 comments

Specific to the NHS, Palantir not being a UK company was a big talking point, so yes, that's a tangible difference between Palantir and, say, Capita.

Your (and the sibling) responses also beg the question: must governments contract to big foreign consultancies? It's not illegal to do things in-house if they so choose, you know.

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

crimsoneer1y ago· 2 in thread

God, if we're only now going to accept "Built British" IT, we're not going to be going very far.

scott_wOP1y ago

Take the effort you’re putting into trying to look edgy on the internet and instead channel it into reading and understanding what I actually wrote.

llamaimperative1y ago

What you actually said is ridiculous:

"Your (and the sibling) responses also beg the question: must governments contract to big foreign consultancies? It's not illegal to do things in-house if they so choose, you know."

No, they don't must do this. No, it's obviously not illegal to do things in-house. They choose not to because it's obscenely hard to build what Palantir has already built and to battle test its security anything close to what Palantir has done.

(Disclaimer: I used to work there, so you can go ahead and dismiss my opinion outright, but I am responding directly to what you're saying)

1 more reply

Aeolun1y ago· 1 in thread

I think by the point you are ready to hire a big foreign consultancy you’ve generally tried in-house and failed.

Of course you can try with a local consultancy, but I wouldn’t know of any, and I assume the reason for choosing one over the other is mostly a matter of reputation.

scott_wOP1y ago

I think you’re giving the British government far too much credit. Between 2010-2024, the governing party had a religious belief in the power of outsourcing to the point that former ministers (Rory Stewart being one) have spoken out about how many problems they caused by pushing the model to its extremes, irrespective of whether it makes sense or not.

Where it comes to organisational complexity and the barriers it creates, bear in mind that the British state is vastly more centralised than the USA. Fragmentation in the NHS was massively exacerbated by the Lansley Reforms which also forced trusts to outsource a lot of work.

BlueTemplar1y ago

(See also Microsoft being used to build the French healthcare database.)

The blog's moral stance is that GAFAMs are "neutral" or even "marginally good", because I suppose, they are, among other things, "pro-West".

I don't know which repressive country he "spent a few years in", but I am not sure why he seems more concerned by Russia and China (especially in a country under direct nuclear umbrella) than the risk of parts of the West turning repressive.

And that's not even counting the damage that they might cause outside, like Facebook's complicity in Myanmar's genocide.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 3 top-level

crimsoneer1y ago· 2 in thread

God, if we're only now going to accept "Built British" IT, we're not going to be going very far.

scott_wOP1y ago

Take the effort you’re putting into trying to look edgy on the internet and instead channel it into reading and understanding what I actually wrote.

llamaimperative1y ago

What you actually said is ridiculous:

"Your (and the sibling) responses also beg the question: must governments contract to big foreign consultancies? It's not illegal to do things in-house if they so choose, you know."

(Disclaimer: I used to work there, so you can go ahead and dismiss my opinion outright, but I am responding directly to what you're saying)

1 more reply

Aeolun1y ago· 1 in thread

I think by the point you are ready to hire a big foreign consultancy you’ve generally tried in-house and failed.

Of course you can try with a local consultancy, but I wouldn’t know of any, and I assume the reason for choosing one over the other is mostly a matter of reputation.

scott_wOP1y ago

BlueTemplar1y ago

(See also Microsoft being used to build the French healthcare database.)

The blog's moral stance is that GAFAMs are "neutral" or even "marginally good", because I suppose, they are, among other things, "pro-West".

And that's not even counting the damage that they might cause outside, like Facebook's complicity in Myanmar's genocide.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse