A friend of mine recently got headhunted by a "defense" company called, and I won't even post the link, it's a website which sounds a bit like Van Helsing with some AI thrown in as a twist. He got an offer of 50k EUR more than his current already ridiculous salary.
I had to say that it's up to you, but don't expect me to still be your friend and still talk to you if you go for that.
I wonder what opinions and values you hold which someone could make a convincing argument for cutting you off about. Or who would find your job offensive.
Worrying about what other people think is the biggest waste of energy. I'm glad a lot of people wouldn't be friends with me because of some of my ideals. I don't want to be liked by everyone. Why would you?
My job doesn't involve murdering people. It does not contribute to the death of people nor animals. It is somewhat insignificant.
My job does pay my bills and put food on the table but is certainly less glamorous than something which changes the lives of millions of people (though in some way it might). It is definitively inoffensive.
Adding a line of code to a killing machine. That is something else my friend.
Yes I would and without question. If by "do" you mean remove myself from the absolute evil that these establishments are, and shame them for it then yes.
I can approve of just about any job unless it's about murdering people because some politician(s) want it.
Obviously, it's one thing to be a commander ordering an attack, vs a soldier firing the weapon, vs starting the company to make the weapon, vs being a supplier to the weapons company, vs being an employee at the manufacturer, etc.
What about working for a president who is going to inevitably order hundreds if not thousands murdered? Or voting for said president?
What about paying taxes, knowing those tax dollars will go to missiles and guns used to murder?
(This isn't a criticism of your worldview, by the way. I'm just genuinely curious about how others draw these lines.)
I'm not GP but I could've written a similar comment. Personally I don't draw the line based on "proximity to war", but on the choices being made. I think poorly of someone who freely chooses "job directly contributing to war" over "job mostly unrelated to war".
Because weapons will be used and you will have no control over how.
And it being a European company doesn’t mean this weapon won’t be sold to Israel eg
Given the current state of things I would say that it's really easy to pivot to "let's sell weapons to whoever wants them". Still presenting a product as a way to defend democracies is comical. At the end of the day, people with money will buy these things and it doesn't matter who because oversight is scarce.
Sure, but what _is_ the practical solution to the invasion of a foreign military power on your home soil then? Do you think these systems should only be developed by the government? And if so, do you then apply the same logic to anyone working in the government?
Lol, this is SOP for the British state. There has been a revolving door between the civil service and the private sector for decades. You cannot conceive of how many billions have been wasted on "consultancy" contracts with the big four, IT projects that lasted for years and delivered nothing, etc.
I really do love the American "but the veterans!" script, despite only them being a minority of the people involved:
> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.
> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
The "revolving door" spoken of here isn't quite as simple as it looks. Granted there are problems at "senior government level" but that is rare.
I worked for UK government for a few years. Then I went to the private sector. This happens a lot. Most of people who do, me included, it's because the public sector is so deep in incompetence and stupid politics that it is soul-crushing. Also to get anywhere you tend to have to take placement roles andmove around a lot and resort to a lot of arse licking and back-stabbing. Having a family or any stability is really difficult.
So you leave. And then they attempt to get you back with "enhanced pay" over your initial mediocre salary because there is suddenly a skills vacuum and everything is falling apart. They know who to reach out to because they want people who can slide back in and clean up the mess. All with redundancy again waved around constantly due to government reshuffles.
“Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them. Characterising this as part of a ‘revolving door strategy’ does them, and all veterans, a disservice.”
Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?
The problem with the article cited as the source is that it's unclear as to how many are former public servants or serving ones. Of course, Peers hold their seat in the Lords by virtue of appointment and title, and unless they quit, the implication is that at least some of these are basically side gigs and hence, not a revolving door (that would be how regulatory capture happens in the US and the mere fact that one can straight up a member of the Upper House, however broadly powerless it nowadays, is frankly, asking for the appearance of impropriety). Also 18 people still work there and the PR firm might have screwed up by making a statement that needlessly bring up the question of whether those who no longer work for companies and the veterans mentioned overlap in part or whole. The list of names don't add up to to 30, but 26.
But it'd be really helpful if this obvious moral hazard is explicitly enumerated in the law somehow. Look, the Commons runs the country, and the PM can't violate the constitution (not that there is one and I don't think it's a coincidence that countries have tended to write theirs down, apologies of Bagehot). Why does the Lords still exist when they are basically a rump branch anyway? If the lower house can simply legislate every aspect of it, it's a liability and not that great of a look from afar, whether some sort of influence peddling actually occurred or not. In the US the standard is appearance of impropriety in addition to actual bias and conflict of interest (as in, more than appearance) because this kind of relationship erodes public trust. At some point, it can't be worth the potential PR problem to keep around a rump branch of the government. There's almost 1000 years worth of sunk cost so gotta know when to let go. Are the OBEs and CBEs and all that honours list stuff not good enough? I'm with David Bowie on this one.
And people still voting ReformUK while seeing what's happening across the pond with equally idiotic people who are in charge for last ~18 months + 4 years in their first term. Looks like they need to learn on their own skin
They also hired the eldest grandson of the most famous British fascist (Oswald Mosley) to be head of the UK division.
No idea what the grandsons politics are like, and the guy has to work somewhere. But, you get the feeling mentioning his famous grandfather in the interview was ticking a lot of boxes for this gig.
We need to hold the line — nobody who has held a job with the UK Government ever deserves to be employed by the private sector. Once you're in the government, you've made your choice, you live or die in the public sector. No more begging the private sector for mercy later.
I guess like Americans, Britons also have forgotten all of those who paid by their blood to keep destroy these sort of people. Just like Americans, a large number of people know this is a crazy deal, but not enough to do something about it.
A friend of mine recently got headhunted by a "defense" company called, and I won't even post the link, it's a website which sounds a bit like Van Helsing with some AI thrown in as a twist. He got an offer of 50k EUR more than his current already ridiculous salary.
I had to say that it's up to you, but don't expect me to still be your friend and still talk to you if you go for that.
"defense"
I wonder what opinions and values you hold which someone could make a convincing argument for cutting you off about. Or who would find your job offensive.
Worrying about what other people think is the biggest waste of energy. I'm glad a lot of people wouldn't be friends with me because of some of my ideals. I don't want to be liked by everyone. Why would you?
Because society functions a lot better when it has people in it who like each other.
My job doesn't involve murdering people. It does not contribute to the death of people nor animals. It is somewhat insignificant.
My job does pay my bills and put food on the table but is certainly less glamorous than something which changes the lives of millions of people (though in some way it might). It is definitively inoffensive.
Adding a line of code to a killing machine. That is something else my friend.
Out of curiosity, would you do this to family members accepting a job you don’t approve of too, or just friends?
Yes I would and without question. If by "do" you mean remove myself from the absolute evil that these establishments are, and shame them for it then yes.
I can approve of just about any job unless it's about murdering people because some politician(s) want it.
How many steps removed do you draw the line?
Obviously, it's one thing to be a commander ordering an attack, vs a soldier firing the weapon, vs starting the company to make the weapon, vs being a supplier to the weapons company, vs being an employee at the manufacturer, etc.
What about working for a president who is going to inevitably order hundreds if not thousands murdered? Or voting for said president?
What about paying taxes, knowing those tax dollars will go to missiles and guns used to murder?
(This isn't a criticism of your worldview, by the way. I'm just genuinely curious about how others draw these lines.)
I'm not GP but I could've written a similar comment. Personally I don't draw the line based on "proximity to war", but on the choices being made. I think poorly of someone who freely chooses "job directly contributing to war" over "job mostly unrelated to war".
Working on "killy" stuff is bad. That's my whole point. I is l stupid and counterproductive to what we as humanity are supposed to be doing.
Do you like abortion?
Interesting worldview!
> He got an offer of 50k EUR more than his current already ridiculous salary.
Out of curiosity, what's considered an "already ridiculous salary"?
Wait until you learn about the history of the internet on which you're communicating now.
Why?
Have you seen what Russia is doing to Ukraine?
What's wrong with a European company working on not letting the same (or worse) repeat in the Baltic states or Poland?
Because weapons will be used and you will have no control over how. And it being a European company doesn’t mean this weapon won’t be sold to Israel eg
Given the current state of things I would say that it's really easy to pivot to "let's sell weapons to whoever wants them". Still presenting a product as a way to defend democracies is comical. At the end of the day, people with money will buy these things and it doesn't matter who because oversight is scarce.
Sure, but what _is_ the practical solution to the invasion of a foreign military power on your home soil then? Do you think these systems should only be developed by the government? And if so, do you then apply the same logic to anyone working in the government?
Lol, this is SOP for the British state. There has been a revolving door between the civil service and the private sector for decades. You cannot conceive of how many billions have been wasted on "consultancy" contracts with the big four, IT projects that lasted for years and delivered nothing, etc.
I really do love the American "but the veterans!" script, despite only them being a minority of the people involved:
> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.
> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
The "revolving door" spoken of here isn't quite as simple as it looks. Granted there are problems at "senior government level" but that is rare.
I worked for UK government for a few years. Then I went to the private sector. This happens a lot. Most of people who do, me included, it's because the public sector is so deep in incompetence and stupid politics that it is soul-crushing. Also to get anywhere you tend to have to take placement roles andmove around a lot and resort to a lot of arse licking and back-stabbing. Having a family or any stability is really difficult.
So you leave. And then they attempt to get you back with "enhanced pay" over your initial mediocre salary because there is suddenly a skills vacuum and everything is falling apart. They know who to reach out to because they want people who can slide back in and clean up the mess. All with redundancy again waved around constantly due to government reshuffles.
“Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them. Characterising this as part of a ‘revolving door strategy’ does them, and all veterans, a disservice.”
Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?
Because it’s devastating to their defense.
Notice they think it’s inappropriate to include them for negative conclusions but its appropriate to talk about the positive conclusions.
The problem with the article cited as the source is that it's unclear as to how many are former public servants or serving ones. Of course, Peers hold their seat in the Lords by virtue of appointment and title, and unless they quit, the implication is that at least some of these are basically side gigs and hence, not a revolving door (that would be how regulatory capture happens in the US and the mere fact that one can straight up a member of the Upper House, however broadly powerless it nowadays, is frankly, asking for the appearance of impropriety). Also 18 people still work there and the PR firm might have screwed up by making a statement that needlessly bring up the question of whether those who no longer work for companies and the veterans mentioned overlap in part or whole. The list of names don't add up to to 30, but 26.
But it'd be really helpful if this obvious moral hazard is explicitly enumerated in the law somehow. Look, the Commons runs the country, and the PM can't violate the constitution (not that there is one and I don't think it's a coincidence that countries have tended to write theirs down, apologies of Bagehot). Why does the Lords still exist when they are basically a rump branch anyway? If the lower house can simply legislate every aspect of it, it's a liability and not that great of a look from afar, whether some sort of influence peddling actually occurred or not. In the US the standard is appearance of impropriety in addition to actual bias and conflict of interest (as in, more than appearance) because this kind of relationship erodes public trust. At some point, it can't be worth the potential PR problem to keep around a rump branch of the government. There's almost 1000 years worth of sunk cost so gotta know when to let go. Are the OBEs and CBEs and all that honours list stuff not good enough? I'm with David Bowie on this one.
And people still voting ReformUK while seeing what's happening across the pond with equally idiotic people who are in charge for last ~18 months + 4 years in their first term. Looks like they need to learn on their own skin
Only 30? Those guys need to get their act together.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/congr...
They also hired the eldest grandson of the most famous British fascist (Oswald Mosley) to be head of the UK division.
No idea what the grandsons politics are like, and the guy has to work somewhere. But, you get the feeling mentioning his famous grandfather in the interview was ticking a lot of boxes for this gig.
This is outrageous.
We need to hold the line — nobody who has held a job with the UK Government ever deserves to be employed by the private sector. Once you're in the government, you've made your choice, you live or die in the public sector. No more begging the private sector for mercy later.
These people are like a plague. Is there nowhere one can escape them?
Is everyone aware of all the unhinged beliefs their CEO and leadership has been spreading. never mind their actual practices.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/21/palantir-...
I guess like Americans, Britons also have forgotten all of those who paid by their blood to keep destroy these sort of people. Just like Americans, a large number of people know this is a crazy deal, but not enough to do something about it.