Where are the people who are asking for help with this? Will people who value having fewer distractions on their screens be opted into this great content?
It always kind of amazed me as a pick for a company name. Like, they realize palantirs are a tool of the bad guys, right? They're not a good thing! It's like naming your company "Stormtrooper", or "Dementor".
Actually the palantiri were created by the elves as communication tools, even before the sun and moon were created, and used by the good guys for several thousand years before they fell in the hands of the bad guys about halfway through the third age.
Just like how a lot of computing was built by the good guys as communication tools/for fun, before the sun and moon were created back in the 1970's, and used by the good guys for several decades before computing fell into the hands of the bad guys aka surveillance state.
I've always interpreted it to mean that Thiel dislikes bullshit, so he's kinda sheepishly telling everyone who is sufficiently detail oriented/nerdy exactly what his new company is all about, right there in the name.
The explanation I've seen is that a palantir itself is value-neutral. However, because Sauron and Saruman each had one and used them regularly, using any of them became risky, because they were a channel through which information and influence could leak.
But that, in turn, is arguably a great metaphor for the chilling effects of advanced persistent threats and abuse of surveillance capabilities by our ostensible/former allies.
There's a company in Boston called Vecna [0]. I always thought it was odd to name a company after a famous evil lich [1]. Though now that I'm reading the company's About page, I see both names were probably inspired by the Czech word for "eternal".
I think it is happening unconsciously. Like say Chertoff named his naked-airport-scanner company Rapiscan. I think on some level they do it because they can, and that serves as a signal -- we are so awesome we can even use a name like that and still be successful.
...or played with systems that got them more of what they want, instead of insisting they want a RNG despite always being unhappy with what it gives them.
So split it up. Most React projects make use of Webpack or Browserify, or use ES6 modules via Babel. There are emerging patterns for keeping concerns in separate places but still having one component you can drop in declaratively.
These things have always been socially negotiated, though. We have a new social playing field and we aren't fully sure how it works; that is a much more useful focus for this issue than free speech is.
Where you read "safety" in this article and other discussions of the issue, it's illuminating to substitute the words "regard as full human beings."
Contexts that don't regard certain classes of people - those with a history of this lack of regard - as full human beings are going to be considered obsolete by today's undergraduates. That's just a given. Repair these contexts and universities would see a lot of these problems go away.
There are, of course, contexts you can't repair - namely, works that have value but were made in, or contain, obsolete contexts. The recontextualization work here can be difficult, it's true, but universities and professors that don't do it are going to be hearing about it.
And what about spam?