NixOS just dropped Anduril as a NixCon sponsor
twitter.comWould like to add some needed context (at least I think it's needed):
* This started out because NixOS mastodon account posted on chaos.social local timeline which is rather German Mastodon instance with a strict no-military-content-without-content-warnings moderation policy. People got angry for NixOS posting about the sponsor there and started complaining en masse to drop it. I think most people complaining aren't affiliated with NixOS at all but I'm sure there were also attendees of the conference complaining on Mastodon.
* NixCon is a (compared to other open source conferences like kubecon) extremely small community conference, organised by volunteers who have been under immense pressure this week to pull off all the organisation whilst also having to handle this drama on Mastodon.
* We as a community should definitely discuss during the conference this weekend what we're gonna have as policies for sponsorship going forward. Because as far as I know we haven't had any real formal policies regarding NixCon organisation at all. It has always been kind of community-driven.
* This year the role of the NixOS foundation has been made way more clear in the NixOS community. Before it really was just an entity for receiving donations but it did not actively do anything community building. I'm happy that we have an active Foundation board now that isn't just an administrative formality but an actual voice that can make statements.
* NixOS foundation is having a board meeting today and will have a more clear statement later from what I understand
* I am looking forward to Nixcon this weekend despite this hiccup. And I'm sure we'll figure it out.
Edit:
Also for context a statement from the founder of Anduril: https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1699590452847272044
A key aspect is that we discovered very late that TU Dresden has their own policies against military association that we weren't aware of. We would have had to fill in ton of paperwork, and potentially lose the place.
This is what I tried to communicate to Anduril via email but it must have been lost in translation.
Maybe then tweet something to the effect of “we are extremely sorry, and we would love to continue having Anduril as sponsor and part of the community, but because of a screw up on our part, we didn’t realize we need to comply with venue requirements, so we need to drop Anduril just this single time”. Should be easy, no? That is, unless the TU Dresden policies is only a pretextual reason for this.
extremely disappointing that y’all needed the venue to impose this decision.
as said by a friend this morning:
> i, personally, would not accept money from the company actively militarizing the southern US border but that's just me
> as said by a friend this morning:
> > i, personally, would not accept money from the company actively militarizing the southern US border but that's just me
Anduril is not "militarizing" the southern border. They're adding observation stations (funded by the Biden administration mind you) so that who is crossing the border illegally is known. There's no weapons on these things or something.
No, the weapons come later. The "observation stations" just determine who they will be pointed at. That's different, right?
There is no contract to provide weapons on the border nor has any official stated they are interested in doing so. It's just pointless hyperbole.
People die crossing the border trying to avoid those cameras, because it forces them through the most dangerous parts of the desert.
The same tech is deeply wrapped up in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
It's absolutely absurd to pretend that the whole business of border enforcement tech is not stained with blood.
If you're interested in the relevant US history and why it's characterized as militarization and violence by those opposed to it, I recommend this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7861.No_One_Is_Illegal
(The book has a point of view and makes no apologies for that. But if you want to see why people who disagree with you see the US border and its enforcement the way they do, it will provide that for you.)
>whilst also having to handle this drama on Mastodon
What do you mean by "having to"? It is unreasonable to set a standard where every single complaint on social media deserves a reply. Either the sponsor is dropped or it is not -- where is the handling?
I guess it may also be meaningful context that the account posting the link on HN indicates that it is affiliated with Anduril.
Is it? Did they say anything deceptive or dishonest? It's just a link submission.
You can obviously conclude that it isn't relevant. Or that it is, but interpret it differently.
I've edited to soften; I intentionally omitted interpretation. It's just context (that you may or may not see as meaningful).
thanks for providing some context here.
AI sentry towers on the US-Mexico border lends credence to Anduril's name from Lord of the Rings -- "the Flame of the West."
This is completely unrelated, but if you like weapons with cool names (or are looking for names for your next defense-industry startup) the Tolkien legendarium has many!
Angrist - the dagger that cut a Silmaril from Morgoth's iron crown. Means "Iron Cleaver" in Sindarin
Dagmor - "dark-slayer", Beren's short blade
Aranruth - The terrible sword of Thingol, King of Doriath. Means "King's Ire"
The twin bastard swords "Anglachel" and "Anguirel" -- Forged by Eol the Dark Elf from a meteor, these swords were both sort of malevolent and I think were probably inspired by the Norse Tyrfing. Probably also influenced Stormbringer and Mournblade in those terrible Moorcock books.
Celeg Aithorn - A legendary sword from the First Age. Reference to a Valar (God's) blade "lightning", and said to be the blade that will one day cleave the world.
Edit: Ack! I forgot my favorite. "Dramborleg" -- the axe that the man Tuor found during the Fall of Gondolin. He slew three balrogs (!) and many orc champions with it. Means "thudder-sharp", because it both smashes and cuts at the same time. ("smote both a heavy dint as of a club and cleft as a sword")
... that's enough. I know the posted tweet is a serious topic and what I have posted is not, but that's where I'm at today.
> AI sentry towers on the US-Mexico border lends credence to Anduril's name from Lord of the Rings -- "the Flame of the West."
So they hijacked a name from Tolkien's works and the Tolkien estate did nothing about it?
They threatened to sue TSR for using "hobbit" in D&D in the 70s [0], which prompted D&D authors to change the name to "halfling" and later on change their lore a bit.
[0] https://www.museumofplay.org/blog/cease-and-desist-dont-mess...
Same goes with Palantir. No idea how the estate chooses what to go after.
"Hobbit" is rather central to the Tolkien brand; Palantir and Anduril are essentially props, so it could be that these were seen as less important instances of name-theivery.
What is the point? Getting some goodwill of non-paying users (aka. freeloaders), while (maybe) alienating paying users? I get that it is a project that uses lots of volunteer work, but you won't pay your hosting fees and buildfarms from latest rust helloworld-webservice flake contributions from the programmers-socks wearing community.
Sidenote: the foundation of current computing is built on DoD money.
> Getting some goodwill of non-paying users
I think you'll find they'll loose goodwill from some other non-paying folks. There are many people who code and use this technology who are pro-military. They may not speak up in the same circles as those who are against this but they exist. I'm only pointing this out to showcase the market is more diverse than people often realize.
also there is a silent majority, who does not have a special stance on lots of topics, just thinks like live and let live, and these kind of signalling are always a bad news for them (regardless of anti- or pro-something), as these useless drama-acts signal further polarization of the world, which often signal that some political takeover has happened in organizations which are not inherently political. This often signals a loss of focus for projects. (think GNU for example)
Yeah, political statement and stances taken in venues/spaces that are not appropriate are not good IMO. We need less of that.
Accepting sponsorship money from a company that designs and manufactures killing machines is a political statement, though. It is impossible to avoid political stances and live in the real world.
> There are many people who code and use this technology who are pro-military
But are they pro-US military or they might be pro-other countries military?
Large defense contractors are almost never exclusive to one country. For instance, the F35 is being procured by 17 different NATO and non-NATO countries. Similarly, Anduril has a number of European customers.
I wonder where that anti-military sentiment in U.S. tech stems from? At least in former Soviet bloc, we view your military in quite a positive light. Well, for sure in a more positive light than armies of competing 'superpowers'.
A bunch of people who grew up during the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions, or for older people Vietnam?
It's been a while since the US was in a war that we looked at afterward (or during, frankly) and said "yeah it was a good and smart thing we did that, worth the costs."
It's not anti-military, it's anti military suppliers who won't sell to civilians, even when there is no legal restriction preventing it.
H&K, Anduril, Boston Dynamics, are just a few examples of companies who have entire product lines inaccessible to me, a private citizen who is not military, LEO, or a contractor of either.
Anduril, in particular, rubs me the wrong way because Palmer Luckey talks a big game about being pro-liberty, but his company will only sell to the pigs.
> I wonder where that anti-military sentiment in U.S. tech stems from? At least in former Soviet bloc, we view your military in quite a positive light. Well, for sure in a more positive light than armies of competing 'superpowers'.
I'm not American, and to me it just seems like a very vocal minority is doing a lot of the talking on behalf of everyone else.
I say this as a Canadian (meaning - don't take my opinion on the US too seriously), but it's so strange to see what's happening to tech.
US Tech in the past: "we dislike the military, the government, the military-industrial complex (and generally all authority) because we skew hippy and/or libertarian. Let us be creative and free!"
US Tech today: "we dislike the military, the government, and the military-industrial complex because our particular flavour of cultural identity politics doesn't like it. Let us conform to the moral outrage of the day."
Meanwhile, the best reason IMO -- "we dislike the military, the government, the military-industrial complex because it serves the interests of the wealthy first and foremost (at the expense of the poor)" -- seems to get less discussion.
But all of these are reasons why tech can dislike the military or at least be uncomfortable with it, even while DARPA funding has helped progress tech and many innovations have come out of military-first applications.
As an American for the past 44 years my anecdotal experience has been the 3rd option you provided mixed with senseless war and death when someone is anti military.
Growing up in republican midwest and living in CA later I haven't met someone who just goes "military bad bc political party and moral outrage". I think that is just a twitter thing
Your US tech today characterization is likely a strawman; from what I see in left leaning spaces, opposition to US military is more along the lines of your best reason.
I don't see what's the difference between "we skew hippy and/or libertarian" and "our particular flavour of cultural identity politics". Hippy and libertarian is a particular flavor of cultural identity politics.
According to wikipedia identity politics is defined as
"... politics based on a particular identity, such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, social class."
Which is not my association for Hippie politics or classic libertarian politics.
Hippies in my head were known for proposing anti-materialistic lifestyle, less moral looking down on promiscuity, open to drug usage and anti war. None of those target a specific identity group.
Libertarians are a political group who support freedom. Normally that means opposing state intervention, taxes, social nets, restrictions to what you can buy/sell. I don't see this as politics for a special identity group either. (ok maybe for the identity group in the upper social class)
PS: somehow I feel like in the US libertarians seem to be seen as left wing which might be the case, but is not inherent to libertarian politics. You can have right wing libertarian politics like some libertarian parties in other countries show
> Hippies in my head
Maybe this is part of the issue? You're comparing a contemporary social phenomenon through to one you've (probably) only learned about through history books, media and cultural osmosis.
> somehow I feel like in the US libertarians seem to be seen as left wing
That is the polar opposite of my "feeling", which is that US libertarians overwhelmingly skew right. Just look at the most prominent figures who self identify as such : The Pauls [Ron, Rand], Gary Johnson, Thomas Massie - all either current or former Republicans.
Hippy/libertarian -> oppose war on principle
Culture war / identity politics -> oppose/support war because that's the current thing
I still don't see a difference. The second is simply an uncharitable reading of the first.
Is there some specific controversy with Anduril that the community is reacting to, or is NixCon simply avoiding sponsorship from defense firms?
I'm not aware of any specific recent controversy, but the core concept of autonomous military equipment is extremely controversial. Bloomberg called them "Tech's Most Controversial Startup" a few years ago: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-03/tech-s-mo...
Palmer Luckey and Peter Thiel themselves are also quite controversial political actors.
By controversial you mean that they are conservative. I'm not aware of anything they've done that is particularly controversial; furthermore, if the standard for controversial is that a person has donated money to political candidates and organizations that would make a huge portion of big tech figures controversial.
No that is not what I mean, I don't consider "being conservative" or donating money to any candidate to be controversial. For Palmer Luckey I'm referring to him personally holding a multi-million-dollar fundraiser for Donald Trump, and for Peter Thiel I'm referring to his opposition to democracy and women and poor people voting, among other things.
Running a fundraiser for Trump is not controversial even probably to plenty of liberals, and if you are referring to Thiel's 2009 essay, that is a very uncharitable and biased summary of what he is saying.
It is an incredibly straightforward reading of what he wrote. "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." He was 42 years old when he wrote that.
He is welcome to apologize or publicly state that he no longer believes this, and he has done that for other past controversial statements. Since he has not done so, we should conclude that he still holds this belief and acts accordingly.
I found the particular text of the sponsorship tweet rather shocking. "Software-defined conflicts" is a callously buzzy way to describe events involving mass loss of life.
Anduril is infamous for its AI sentry towers along the US-Mexico border.
People who push back on technology used at the border make little sense to me. Using technology frees up other resources to process migrants more quickly through the abused asylum process. That means they are in detention for less time, they get court cases quicker, and get asylum or removal quicker.
Surely you can imagine some consistent viewpoints that a person could have here, such as "it can be a good thing when someone is able to escape a terrible situation in their current country even if they don't meet the rules for being granted asylum"?
I can see how people empathize with that but on the flip side I've known plenty of immigrants who went through the process the right way, waited months or years, gone through naturalization process and did the same to get get their families here.
They, along with others still in line feel cheated by the people entering illegally / abusing the asylum claim systems. If you're escaping a bad situation in a central or southern American country, and then pass through 4-5 countries to get here, you're not seeking asylum, you're an economic migrant no different from immigrants from India, China, etc all seeking a better life.
No other developed country would or should allow people to illegally enter and skip the legal process.
That's just hazing bullshit, "I went through this misery so you must, too!". You fix it by making the legal route less awful, not by intentionally inflicting even more suffering.
It won't be politically possible to change much of anything about the legal immigration system until we stop the ~200K[1] of people illegally coming across the border every month.
The minute you announce some kind of concession for people already here (which would most definitely be part of a broader immigration reform bill) then the floodgates will open with people trying to make it in before the effective date.
[1] https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-enc...
Are you a US citizen making this statement? If you are, then you don’t know the scale of social spending that you will be hit with if that legal route for that comes to pass.
Either way, I can’t see any progress on immigration reform. It’s not happening, unless the flow at the border stops or reduces significantly.
Undocumented immigrants in the US already pay taxes today. Their employers pay into the tax system and the undocumented workers never get any of it back, unlike citizen taxpayers.
The idea that immigrants are a net cost in terms of social services is nonsense.
> No other developed country would or should allow people to illegally enter and skip the legal process.
Perhaps the situation in the UE since 2015 did not reach you. Google "Wir scaffen das!"
[flagged]
Which do what exactly? It's surveillance equipment.
Do you know how many people die attempting to cross that border? Hundreds every year.
Maybe when the temperature is extreme, you want to have an idea of where people are.
Current US border policy is in no way designed to minimize hyperthermia related suffering. For instance, there are nonprofits that install water stations in the desert to minimize migrant deaths. CBP agents regularly vandalize these to prevent their use [0]. They also keep captured migrants in crowded outdoor cages and in facilities without meaningful AC during the hottest months.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/us-border-pa...
I never suggested otherwise. Ideally zero people would be crossing this border illegally and then there would be no deaths, right?
We should do everything possible to discourage this crossing. Adequate surveillance is a large part of that.
If you are legitimately seeking asylum you can just walk up to any border crossing station and not risk your life.
Edit: As far as the condition that we keep captured criminals in, I would wager a good bet that they're comparably better than the appallingly horrific conditions of South American jails.
Imo large parts of the southwest and CA benefit immensely from immigrant labor. Both in time-savings and $ (outsourcing upkeep, housework, child-care) which allow their population to consume more and pursue other opportunities.
Also, would people pay 50% more, double or triple for fruit picked by Americans, meat packed by , those huge gardens and front yards maintained by, houses built by Americans. I think Florida and Texas after storms start to hint at what night be to come.
> Imo large parts of the southwest and CA benefit immensely from immigrant labor.
I don't see anyone arguing against immigration here. We are arguing against illegal immigration / obvious abuse of the asylum system.
If we can close the obvious holes in our border that are letting 200k people through a month, I'm very much in favor of granting more work visas to immigrants and starting the naturalization process.
My point is that many households have adapted to the cheap labor - larger houses, larger gardens and so on based, larger than the owner can self-suppprt, based on the cost of labor.
Owners would have to do more themselves (thus spend time) or more money (that they can't spend consuming other things) if labor costs increased.
I'm also not arguing for limitless immigration. What I'm trying to say is that there will probably not be zero illegal immigration despite what politicians promise, at this point it's baked into the (cost-)structure of society I suppose and not painlessly undone.
If you want the law to reflect the economic reality, by all means engage with your local politicians.
I know people with a tree farm business in Texas who only hire illegals because every single citizen they've tried to hire cut their pinky off the second week on the job and filed for disability.
I don't disagree with your argument one bit but illegal is illegal. If somebody is going to break our laws to come here what expectation should I have that they're going to respect our laws once they're here? Criminals should be treated like criminals in a functioning society.
If the economic benefits are worth it to you, change the law. Don't subvert its enforcement. You can't stand up shouting about Trump and a Jan 6th insurrection and also turn a blind eye to illegal immigration in the same breath.
Oh yeah, point is "legal ain't cheap". Or maybe even moreso that it might ultimately hurt per-capita output and GDP more than just the apparent cost of immigrant labor value provided.
Look, I don't want to get into a discussion of whether the current laws are proper. HN isn't the place for that. I'm just saying that pretending border surveillance is a way to keep immigrants safe from the desert is pure moral fiction.
I never suggested that it would keep them safe.
I said that you would know that there are people there and they might be or about to be in serious danger. What you do with that information afterwards is an entirely separate conversation.
If it is in your power to have this information and you neglect to, that is highly immoral. If we're going to have this border policy then it is our responsibility to know the effects of that policy. Surveillance of this crossing where hundreds of people die every year is a moral imperative.
People are posting in this thread suggesting that having autonomous surveillance here is akin to pointing weapons at people. The suggestion is hyperbole and ridiculous.
What's really disheartening here is that the people that don't like our border policy would rather we turn a blind eye here guaranteeing that these deaths continue and in greater numbers.
Most of the commentary I've seen is generic, but most of the specific comments I've seen mention Anduril's loitering munitions.
They dropped this company in anticipation of a future version of the CoC and sponsorship rules. Certainly, they have the right to define their rules, but they should revise the rules beforehand.
They’re not saying the company did anything wrong. Just deciding not to take their sponsorship money. I don’t think you should need to enact a new rule in order to decide not to accept money.
I don't think any non profit should ever refuse money. If they make money from something you disagree with, then taking that money and using it in the scope of your non-profit (which you agree with) is a moral imperative
I don't believe that. Being a non-profit is not inherently a moral stance. Your goal is to further your own efforts. That doesn't automatically require you to attempt to 'disadvantage' others (even if that is voluntary on their part).
Finding it bizarre and a little frightening that anti-war comments are being flagged in this thread
Linux groups like this are an absolute joke at this point - it's beyond a circus of political / virtue signaling that's metastasized to a point that it's basically a net negative to anyone actually trying to contribute or learn...
I miss the early 2000's when hacker culture / defcon culture etc could exist on its on merits and wasn't coded by race, gender, politics or orientation...
i'd be curious to hear your experiences trying to contribute or learn about nixos with respect to this. what you're describing here i've never seen on the nixos PR or issue trackers, nor in the Matrix rooms. i don't spend much time on the nixos discourse though: are you having your threads derailed by ideological debate over there?
Right. So why haven't they gotten rid of Google as a sponsor then given that they also hold contracts with multiple governments, militaries and especially one contract with the Pentagon in the US on top of aiding their surveillance programmes?
(Biased, I work at Google), but I think there's a material difference between what Google does (as I understand it, from public info) – providing infrastructure services on Google Cloud, as all the major cloud providers do, or providing customer support for cloud workloads – and building defence related technology. To my knowledge Google and the other big tech companies aren't building application directly for offence/defence. It seems this company might be.
I would never work at a company that designs and builds missiles or fighter jets, but I would work at a cloud provider that provides infrastructure that is used to design missiles or fighter jets, in the same way that I would work at a telecoms company that provides the phone systems to a defence contractor.
Being one level removed, and providing "neutral" services, is a substantial difference for me, and I suspect for most people.
For what it is worth I would much rather work for parts of western defense industry than for Google.
I'd be overjoyed to help create the tools to drive the invaders out of Ukraine for example, but not so much to try to finally kill the rest of the browser market or to serve shady ads.
Yes, while I am not exaggerating I am probably a bit one sided here - I know there are parts of Google that I have nothing against like GCP - but I am serious: Much rather work for the military than Google.
Yeah we all have our own moral positions on these things. I wouldn't want to work for a hedge fund, but many people do. A friend of mine turned down a university project from a hedge fund, but went to work at a defence contractor after university. I personally disagree with your characterisation of Google, but again this is all based on opinion.
> To my knowledge Google and the other big tech companies aren't building application directly for offence/defence.
Actually there was a big uproar about exactly this several years ago https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/07/google-ai...
From reading that article it pretty much aligns with what I was saying. The US DoD used a Google technology that is not defence specific or designed for defence applications, like them running their servers on Google Cloud, or using Microsoft for their email or something. I think that's materially different to designing missiles/etc.
> To my knowledge Google and the other big tech companies aren't building application directly for offence/defence.
Project Maven? Dragonfly?
Both dropped after very significant internal outcry, even though they'd have objectively been very profitable ventures for Google.
Project Maven looks exactly like the cloud services thing I was talking about. I'm only going on what I can read in public online news sources though. Dragonfly looks a bit different, I'm not super familiar, but it seems it was shut down anyway?
Should they drop power companies and internet service providers too? How many hops away from direct responsibility is enough for moral purity? I think only one hop should do.
I love NixOs even more now.
How many Chinese companies are donating to NixCon/NixOS? What communication did NixCon/NixOS receive from said companies regarding Anduril?
The reality of the world is that if you want a self-determined life and a self determined government, you MUST be better armed and prepared to fight than any bully, abuser, or autocrat. If not, they will soon take your lunch and your government — every time.
Claiming you want "peace" without accounting for how you will defeat the bullies, abusers, and autocrats only helps them, not you. It brings war, not peace. Bullies, abusers, and autocrats do not give a fork about scolding and condemnation; if they succeed in taking what they want, regardless of any talk, they WILL take more — failure to stop them is literally seen as permission to do more.
So, this is the action of absolute fools and cowards. Specifically, Useful Idiots in the Vladmir Lenin sense. Or worse yet, the actions of active supporters of genocidal autocracies.
(And, do not even try to do whataboutism about the failings of the Democratic nations. Even their worst historical failings do not begin to compare vs the active genocide and war crimes being systematically committed today by the autocracies today, Russia in Ukraine, China on Tibet and Uighurs, Myanmar, etc..).
This kind of bullshirt move by sniveling cowards and poseur fauxgressives is a move in the direction of literally getting us all killed.
edit: Also possible that they are just thoughtlessly responding to some clueless complaints, but the failed to even call out even who made the complaints. Nevertheless, this still literally carries water for Xi and Putin.
Do ppl sabotaging those relationships realize that their enemies do not do that?
They count on it.