Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
@markomihkelson 1).
„For many in the @realDonaldTrump's White House, that blurring of business and geopolitics is a feature, not a bug.
„For many in the @realDonaldTrump's White House, that blurring of business and geopolitics is a feature, not a bug.
@markomihkelson @realDonaldTrump 2).
Key presidential advisers see an opportunity for American investors to snap up lucrative deals in a new postwar Russia and become the commercial guarantors of peace.
Key presidential advisers see an opportunity for American investors to snap up lucrative deals in a new postwar Russia and become the commercial guarantors of peace.
@markomihkelson @realDonaldTrump 3).
In conversations with Witkoff and Kushner, Russia has been clear it would prefer U.S. businesses to step in, not rivals from European states whose leaders have »talked a lot of trash« about the peace effforts, one of these people said:
In conversations with Witkoff and Kushner, Russia has been clear it would prefer U.S. businesses to step in, not rivals from European states whose leaders have »talked a lot of trash« about the peace effforts, one of these people said:
@NotToday14093 @Killahb1036 Yeah it's well documented the algorithms on this shithole are horribly broken and biased towards leftist psychos like you. Also that it's 75% bots. WHAT A BANGER!!!
@NotToday14093 @Killahb1036 Also speaking of Hiroshima, how's Palestine doing? Did you know Palestinians are more extreme in their social views than Charlie Kirk? Will you ever support what Israel is doing to them? (you won't because they're brown/you deserve to end up just like them) 
@NotToday14093 @Killahb1036 @threadreaderapp unroll
@Suzierizzo1 🧵 ⬇️
TURNING POINT USA IS A FASCIST PROPAGANDA AND GOP GROOMER ORGANIZATION FUNDED BY DARK MONEY AND BRIMMING WITH CROOKS, RACISTS, AND SEXUAL DEVIANTS!
TURNING POINT USA IS A FASCIST PROPAGANDA AND GOP GROOMER ORGANIZATION FUNDED BY DARK MONEY AND BRIMMING WITH CROOKS, RACISTS, AND SEXUAL DEVIANTS!
@Suzierizzo1 Turning Point USA" has employed NUMEROUS CREEPS who have gone on to be locked up for child pornography.
The list includes Adam Hageman... who went on to work for the Trump Administration before getting busted, and of course Ruben Verastigui ⬇️
lawandcrime.com/crime/pro-life…
The list includes Adam Hageman... who went on to work for the Trump Administration before getting busted, and of course Ruben Verastigui ⬇️
lawandcrime.com/crime/pro-life…
@Suzierizzo1 Ryan Fournier founded "Students For Trump" and used to be Charlie Kirk's # 2 guy.
He had to quit after he was busted for fraud and ratted out his bestie to avoid jail time. He was later arrested for hitting his girlfriend with a hammer.
thedailybeast.com/students-for-t…
He had to quit after he was busted for fraud and ratted out his bestie to avoid jail time. He was later arrested for hitting his girlfriend with a hammer.
thedailybeast.com/students-for-t…
@bakujok3s It's another mentally ill queer teenager with the worst standards for pedophilia in history and "modesty" standards near-indistinguishable from a religious conservative
@bakujok3s She's flat and her legs and arms are covered to begin with and this is still "sexualized" to you. The original artist even covered up her fingers more. Neurotic fucking freaks
@bakujok3s In before you respond to "it's really weird to cover up her fingers more" with a thinly-veiled child rapist accusation. Hope you get another one of these, freak!
hrc.org/news/hrc-respo…
hrc.org/news/hrc-respo…
"Revealed: Europe’s water reserves drying up due to climate breakdown"
Future climate related water shortages, are one of the near future challenges we face. Yet, our leadership, is remarkably indifferent to these threats.
However, the big challenge, is how these near future threats interact. You can without much difficulty, see how water shortages, combined with agricultural yield, and how water shortages could cripple industry, and the economy.
Nevertheless, these interactions are far too simplistic, because there are a myriad way, near future climate impacts, are going to interact, and most have never even been thought of.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵
Future climate related water shortages, are one of the near future challenges we face. Yet, our leadership, is remarkably indifferent to these threats.
However, the big challenge, is how these near future threats interact. You can without much difficulty, see how water shortages, combined with agricultural yield, and how water shortages could cripple industry, and the economy.
Nevertheless, these interactions are far too simplistic, because there are a myriad way, near future climate impacts, are going to interact, and most have never even been thought of.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
1/🧵
As I have pointed out with regard to the danger of climate induced civilization collapse, no one, no field of science, no institution, has ever systematically studied the resilience of our societies, and our civilization, to climate and ecological impacts.
Some well known scientists, who have dismissed the possibility of civilization collapse, as unscientific, because there are no scientific papers supporting this concern, are not being scientific. Because there has never been scientific research into this, so of course there are no papers supporting a scenario, that has never been examined. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Don't take my word for it, that this has never been studied, read the paper linked to.
I have always been very unsettled, for well over 40 years, why no one has been looking into this.
As a graduate in ecology, I realize the practical difficulties. When you look at interactions on this scale, the complexity is overwhelming, and well beyond anything else, ever successfully modelled.
However, even if the conclusion of such a well funded study, was that it was far too complex to investigate, using any known scientific methodology, it would be useful, if only to tell us that we were playing with fire, and flying blind.
I don't know, how conscious scientists/governments have been about the failure to study this. Is it a case of they just don't want to know, because they already know this, because they know the conclusions would be very frightening. Or is it some sort of unconscious denial?
You could only really establish this, if some sort of parliamentary committee investigated this, and asked tough questions of key politicians and scientists, to find out why such a vitally important topic, has never been investigated.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
2/
Some well known scientists, who have dismissed the possibility of civilization collapse, as unscientific, because there are no scientific papers supporting this concern, are not being scientific. Because there has never been scientific research into this, so of course there are no papers supporting a scenario, that has never been examined. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Don't take my word for it, that this has never been studied, read the paper linked to.
I have always been very unsettled, for well over 40 years, why no one has been looking into this.
As a graduate in ecology, I realize the practical difficulties. When you look at interactions on this scale, the complexity is overwhelming, and well beyond anything else, ever successfully modelled.
However, even if the conclusion of such a well funded study, was that it was far too complex to investigate, using any known scientific methodology, it would be useful, if only to tell us that we were playing with fire, and flying blind.
I don't know, how conscious scientists/governments have been about the failure to study this. Is it a case of they just don't want to know, because they already know this, because they know the conclusions would be very frightening. Or is it some sort of unconscious denial?
You could only really establish this, if some sort of parliamentary committee investigated this, and asked tough questions of key politicians and scientists, to find out why such a vitally important topic, has never been investigated.
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…
2/
The reason I am wary of starting to explain the level of interaction, I'm talking about. Is that just to illustrate the problem with examples, would be highly misleading. In that it would give the false impression, that this is what the future danger is, whereas in reality, it is this, and far, far more.
We can see this with future water shortages. Yes, you can illustrate it with people's taps running dry, the immediate and direct impacts. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, as water is so central, to so many everyday things, that it would totally disrupt everything. Our societies, political stability, food supplies, and biodiversity, which is taken for granted, as are the myriad ecosystem services it provides. Most of it, which we have never even thought about, until the absence of those ecosystem services, hit us hard.
3/
We can see this with future water shortages. Yes, you can illustrate it with people's taps running dry, the immediate and direct impacts. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, as water is so central, to so many everyday things, that it would totally disrupt everything. Our societies, political stability, food supplies, and biodiversity, which is taken for granted, as are the myriad ecosystem services it provides. Most of it, which we have never even thought about, until the absence of those ecosystem services, hit us hard.
3/
Lemma 2 (Kalecki–Godley Equivalence under Endogenous Credit)
Sectoral Financial Balances (Godley)
This establishes the Kalecki–Godley equivalence at the level of flow-of-funds accounting.
Do you Even Wonder..
Why You as an " Indian " from India🇮🇳
And Real Americans are called as " Red Indians " or " Native Indians "
How The word "Indian" is called for both groups that are Million of miles away
Time to Hear the Truth That Many Have no Idea of🙂↕️
A Thread 🧵
Why You as an " Indian " from India🇮🇳
And Real Americans are called as " Red Indians " or " Native Indians "
How The word "Indian" is called for both groups that are Million of miles away
Time to Hear the Truth That Many Have no Idea of🙂↕️
A Thread 🧵
The Word India does not appear in any original ancient Hindu scriptures like Vedas, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, Upaniṣads, Mahābhārata & Ramayaṇa or the 18 major Purāṇas..
But Still The Land Of Bharat mentioned in Vishnu Puran & Bhagavata is Named as India, Do u wonder why ?
But Still The Land Of Bharat mentioned in Vishnu Puran & Bhagavata is Named as India, Do u wonder why ?
Many Will Say , The name comes from the Indus River (Orginal name-Sindhu River)
The Persian and Greeks renamed it as per their understanding
Do u Think The Oldest Civilization which is as old as millions of Yugas need Persian or greek names forced by colonialist Anglo Saxons ?
The Persian and Greeks renamed it as per their understanding
Do u Think The Oldest Civilization which is as old as millions of Yugas need Persian or greek names forced by colonialist Anglo Saxons ?
Poetic Justice - China’s Deindustrialization That Never Came — And Why the West Can No Longer Sell to China
A response to @RobinBHarding article “China is making trade impossible”
For years, Western analysts warned of China’s impending “deindustrialization.” (collapse). It was supposed to be the natural arc of economic development — rising wages, declining manufacturing, and eventual dependence on foreign imports. Instead, the exact opposite occurred. China doubled down on industry, expanded its production capacity across nearly every sector, and reached a point where foreign manufacturers increasingly find they have nothing China needs that it cannot already produce cheaper, faster, or at greater scale.
Washington’s long-term objective became clear: remove China from the global supply chain and rebuild a world where critical manufacturing returned to the U.S. or was redistributed among American-aligned economies. Multinationals were pressured to leave China, shift production to India or Vietnam, and restructure procurement so that even Chinese contractors had to relocate or lose business. Apple complied, moving a portion of iPhone assembly to India — only to discover that quality consistency, supply-chain density, and industrial discipline were not easily transplanted. Early batches of India-assembled devices saw high defect rates and higher consumer complaints, a reminder that manufacturing excellence is not a commodity one can simply ship across borders. China is not just a location; it is a mature industrial ecosystem that the U.S. has found impossible to replicate elsewhere.
China's continuously upgrading industrialization did not happen accidentally. It is the consequence of sanctions, energy shocks, financialization in the West, and Beijing’s deliberate push toward self-reliance. Today, the paradox is clear: the West hoped to constrain China’s industrial rise. In doing so, it forced China to industrialize further — until the point where selling industrial products to China is no longer a viable business model.
1. The Russia Lesson: A Future Sanctioned China Must Produce Everything
The complaint that “China is making trade impossible” is as valid as “Russia is making trade impossible.”
Western policy planners openly state that if Beijing reunifies with Taiwan, sanctions could mirror the Russia regime: financial cutoff, technology bans, trade strangulation. China drew the conclusion early — self-reliance is not optional. It is national survival.
Russian industry after 2022 became a raw case study. Aircraft parts, semiconductors, machine tools — everything suddenly had to be produced domestically or sourced through alternative channels. China watched in real time. A country of 1.4 billion cannot afford such dependence. It must be able to manufacture jet engines, lithography machines, industrial robots, port cranes, agricultural equipment, ie, everything at home. Not 70%, not 90%. One hundred percent. Total self-reliance is insurance. Long-term. Strategic. Existential.
Today, that is already close to reality.
A response to @RobinBHarding article “China is making trade impossible”
For years, Western analysts warned of China’s impending “deindustrialization.” (collapse). It was supposed to be the natural arc of economic development — rising wages, declining manufacturing, and eventual dependence on foreign imports. Instead, the exact opposite occurred. China doubled down on industry, expanded its production capacity across nearly every sector, and reached a point where foreign manufacturers increasingly find they have nothing China needs that it cannot already produce cheaper, faster, or at greater scale.
Washington’s long-term objective became clear: remove China from the global supply chain and rebuild a world where critical manufacturing returned to the U.S. or was redistributed among American-aligned economies. Multinationals were pressured to leave China, shift production to India or Vietnam, and restructure procurement so that even Chinese contractors had to relocate or lose business. Apple complied, moving a portion of iPhone assembly to India — only to discover that quality consistency, supply-chain density, and industrial discipline were not easily transplanted. Early batches of India-assembled devices saw high defect rates and higher consumer complaints, a reminder that manufacturing excellence is not a commodity one can simply ship across borders. China is not just a location; it is a mature industrial ecosystem that the U.S. has found impossible to replicate elsewhere.
China's continuously upgrading industrialization did not happen accidentally. It is the consequence of sanctions, energy shocks, financialization in the West, and Beijing’s deliberate push toward self-reliance. Today, the paradox is clear: the West hoped to constrain China’s industrial rise. In doing so, it forced China to industrialize further — until the point where selling industrial products to China is no longer a viable business model.
1. The Russia Lesson: A Future Sanctioned China Must Produce Everything
The complaint that “China is making trade impossible” is as valid as “Russia is making trade impossible.”
Western policy planners openly state that if Beijing reunifies with Taiwan, sanctions could mirror the Russia regime: financial cutoff, technology bans, trade strangulation. China drew the conclusion early — self-reliance is not optional. It is national survival.
Russian industry after 2022 became a raw case study. Aircraft parts, semiconductors, machine tools — everything suddenly had to be produced domestically or sourced through alternative channels. China watched in real time. A country of 1.4 billion cannot afford such dependence. It must be able to manufacture jet engines, lithography machines, industrial robots, port cranes, agricultural equipment, ie, everything at home. Not 70%, not 90%. One hundred percent. Total self-reliance is insurance. Long-term. Strategic. Existential.
Today, that is already close to reality.
2. Tech Sanctions Forced Domestic Capability. Dependence is fatal.
The first front was semiconductor tech. Washington banned sales of advanced chips, restricted Nvidia GPUs, pressured TSMC and Samsung, and froze ASML lithography exports. The logic was to cut China from the high-end supply chain and slow its technological ascent.
The result was the inverse.
Investment into domestic lithography surged. The number of semiconductor fabs under construction in China in 2024-2025 exceeded the total of the U.S., EU, Japan and South Korea combined. Firms pivoted into ASICs, chiplet design, indigenous stacks — not replacements, but parallel architecture. China accelerated at the mid-range node, dominating 28nm, 14nm, and racing into 7nm. Meanwhile, AI chips designed in-house now power data-centers without a single Nvidia card inside the system.
The West hoped to maintain monopoly through embargo. Instead, it created a formidable technological competitor.
The sanctions on Huawei were intended as a warning to all of China’s rising industry. Washington cut the company off from chips, operating systems, foundries, and even global supply partners, aiming to cripple it as a symbol of American technological dominance. Huawei was meant to serve as an example: defy the U.S., develop too fast, and you will be brought to your knees. But the result was the opposite. The shock of Huawei’s near-strangulation triggered a nationwide reflex — companies large and small began shifting to domestic suppliers, investing in indigenous chip design, operating systems, and industrial software. Huawei’s struggle became a lesson written into the consciousness of every Chinese manufacturer: depend on foreign technology, and your lifeline can be cut overnight. The fear the U.S. intended to instill has backfired — instead of submission, it produced absolute self-reliance.
The first front was semiconductor tech. Washington banned sales of advanced chips, restricted Nvidia GPUs, pressured TSMC and Samsung, and froze ASML lithography exports. The logic was to cut China from the high-end supply chain and slow its technological ascent.
The result was the inverse.
Investment into domestic lithography surged. The number of semiconductor fabs under construction in China in 2024-2025 exceeded the total of the U.S., EU, Japan and South Korea combined. Firms pivoted into ASICs, chiplet design, indigenous stacks — not replacements, but parallel architecture. China accelerated at the mid-range node, dominating 28nm, 14nm, and racing into 7nm. Meanwhile, AI chips designed in-house now power data-centers without a single Nvidia card inside the system.
The West hoped to maintain monopoly through embargo. Instead, it created a formidable technological competitor.
The sanctions on Huawei were intended as a warning to all of China’s rising industry. Washington cut the company off from chips, operating systems, foundries, and even global supply partners, aiming to cripple it as a symbol of American technological dominance. Huawei was meant to serve as an example: defy the U.S., develop too fast, and you will be brought to your knees. But the result was the opposite. The shock of Huawei’s near-strangulation triggered a nationwide reflex — companies large and small began shifting to domestic suppliers, investing in indigenous chip design, operating systems, and industrial software. Huawei’s struggle became a lesson written into the consciousness of every Chinese manufacturer: depend on foreign technology, and your lifeline can be cut overnight. The fear the U.S. intended to instill has backfired — instead of submission, it produced absolute self-reliance.
3. Green Transition: The West Set the Rules In order to Trap China, China Won the Game and the West is Trapped by its Own Rules.
Climate policy was sold as moral necessity — but structurally, it was also opponent punishing industrial policy. The West expected carbon pricing and green standards to weaken China’s coal-powered factories. The assumption was simple:
China cannot catch up in solar, EV, or wind technology and the colossal carbon taxes its factories have to pay will bankrupt them. China will be forced to deindustrialize.
It was a fatal miscalculation.
China now produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels, 60–70% of wind components, and over half of global EVs. In 2023-2024 China exported more EVs than any other country on Earth. European and U.S. carmakers bet on green transition but entered too late — over-invested in tech not yet competitive, under-invested in supply chains now owned by Chinese firms. Gigafactories bled cash. Legacy engine platforms became stranded assets.
The EU now sits in its own trap. It pushed mandatory auto electrification, yet China mastered the industry faster. Cheap Chinese EVs flood the global market, while European companies cannot retreat without admitting strategic failure at a colossal loss. Paris, Berlin, Brussels argue subsidy, tariff, carbon adjustment in endless conferences — but structurally nothing changes because Europe does not produce the batteries, the components for wind turbines, or the solar panels. China does.
The West wrote the Green Transition rules to put a ceiling over China's industrialization. Europe thought Green Industry 2.0 will see Chinese manufacturing dead and European industry revived.
But China embraced the biased rules meant to cripple it and won the game.
China understood the game from the beginning and intended to outplay Europe more than a decade ago.
The debate between Chinese scientist Ding Zhongli（丁仲礼） and NGO sponsored Chinese journalist Chai Jing （柴静）around 2010 marked the intellectual starting point for understanding how carbon policy could be weaponized. At that time, the world was still negotiating how global CO₂ quotas should be allocated. Ding argued that carbon rights must be based on historical emissions and distributed per capita according to real consumption — only then would every human being, regardless of nationality, be treated equally under the climate regime.
However western negotiators pushed for the opposite arrangement. Their model granted each country a fixed quota — a seemingly neutral framework that, once divided by population, left every Chinese citizen with only a fraction of the emissions entitlement enjoyed by citizens in Europe and the United States. Under such rules, China would have to pay heavy carbon taxes on every ton of steel, cement, battery, or solar panel it produced. Ding saw it for what it was: not an ecological principle, but an industrial ceiling designed to keep China permanently below Western output. His response, soul-searching, sharp and unforgettable, became a meme in China:
Climate policy was sold as moral necessity — but structurally, it was also opponent punishing industrial policy. The West expected carbon pricing and green standards to weaken China’s coal-powered factories. The assumption was simple:
China cannot catch up in solar, EV, or wind technology and the colossal carbon taxes its factories have to pay will bankrupt them. China will be forced to deindustrialize.
It was a fatal miscalculation.
China now produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels, 60–70% of wind components, and over half of global EVs. In 2023-2024 China exported more EVs than any other country on Earth. European and U.S. carmakers bet on green transition but entered too late — over-invested in tech not yet competitive, under-invested in supply chains now owned by Chinese firms. Gigafactories bled cash. Legacy engine platforms became stranded assets.
The EU now sits in its own trap. It pushed mandatory auto electrification, yet China mastered the industry faster. Cheap Chinese EVs flood the global market, while European companies cannot retreat without admitting strategic failure at a colossal loss. Paris, Berlin, Brussels argue subsidy, tariff, carbon adjustment in endless conferences — but structurally nothing changes because Europe does not produce the batteries, the components for wind turbines, or the solar panels. China does.
The West wrote the Green Transition rules to put a ceiling over China's industrialization. Europe thought Green Industry 2.0 will see Chinese manufacturing dead and European industry revived.
But China embraced the biased rules meant to cripple it and won the game.
China understood the game from the beginning and intended to outplay Europe more than a decade ago.
The debate between Chinese scientist Ding Zhongli（丁仲礼） and NGO sponsored Chinese journalist Chai Jing （柴静）around 2010 marked the intellectual starting point for understanding how carbon policy could be weaponized. At that time, the world was still negotiating how global CO₂ quotas should be allocated. Ding argued that carbon rights must be based on historical emissions and distributed per capita according to real consumption — only then would every human being, regardless of nationality, be treated equally under the climate regime.
However western negotiators pushed for the opposite arrangement. Their model granted each country a fixed quota — a seemingly neutral framework that, once divided by population, left every Chinese citizen with only a fraction of the emissions entitlement enjoyed by citizens in Europe and the United States. Under such rules, China would have to pay heavy carbon taxes on every ton of steel, cement, battery, or solar panel it produced. Ding saw it for what it was: not an ecological principle, but an industrial ceiling designed to keep China permanently below Western output. His response, soul-searching, sharp and unforgettable, became a meme in China:
SitRep - 28/11/25 - Yermak has resigned
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In a new government reshuffle, head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak has resigned due to links to an ongoing corruption scandal.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In a new government reshuffle, head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak has resigned due to links to an ongoing corruption scandal.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
Missed the latest SitRep?
We start with Russian losses
🧵 THREAD: China Just Broke Silver — And COMEX Had to Bend 👇
1/
China just delivered the BIGGEST signal yet:
Both SGE and SHFE closed silver at fresh all-time highs today.
Not “seasonal strength.”
Not “holiday volatility.”
➡️ Real physical price discovery — led by Asia.
China just delivered the BIGGEST signal yet:
Both SGE and SHFE closed silver at fresh all-time highs today.
Not “seasonal strength.”
Not “holiday volatility.”
➡️ Real physical price discovery — led by Asia.
2/
Here are the real numbers from tonight’s close:
• SGE Ag (T+D): ≈ 57.83 USD/oz
• SHFE Silver: ≈ 58.03 USD/oz
These are the highest closing prices in the history of China’s silver market — and they happened during night trading, where real physical premiums show up first.
Here are the real numbers from tonight’s close:
• SGE Ag (T+D): ≈ 57.83 USD/oz
• SHFE Silver: ≈ 58.03 USD/oz
These are the highest closing prices in the history of China’s silver market — and they happened during night trading, where real physical premiums show up first.
@AmaniUniverse I am educated with a graduate degree in medieval history. You?
Madrassas have little in common with universities as we know them, as I’ve informed you. India had a system similar to Islam which existed earlier than Al-Qarawiyyin. Both prototypes, perhaps, but not universities.
Madrassas have little in common with universities as we know them, as I’ve informed you. India had a system similar to Islam which existed earlier than Al-Qarawiyyin. Both prototypes, perhaps, but not universities.
@AmaniUniverse A university must meet these requirements: A corporate legal status, faculties, standardised curriculum, degrees with recognized authority, self-governance, collegial body of masters, autonomy from church/state, a recognised student body. If any element is missing, there is no
@AmaniUniverse university. The Islamic madrassas lacked a corporate legal identity, multi-faculty structures and a standardised degree system—ijazahs were not degrees.
Palantir and Genesis Mission
Is is a good idea? 🤔
Is is a good idea? 🤔
The Technological Republic : Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West is a 2025 book co-authored by Alexander C. Karp, the co-founder and CEO of Palantir Technologies, and Nicholas W. Zamiska, Palantir's head of corporate affairs and legal counsel to the CEO.
Grok : " Palantir is a core partner in the precursor to Genesis—the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR)—which Genesis explicitly builds upon. This involves Palantir's Foundry and AIP platforms for secure data integration across federal datasets..
