
Ask HN: Palantir or Facebook? - jizue
Similarly to the question asked on HN four years ago, I am deciding between a grad position with Palantir or a grad position with Facebook, and I&#x27;m having a tough time deciding. Both positions would be in NY.<p>Palantir is a much smaller company (in particular, the team I would be joining is tiny) so I feel like I&#x27;d have a much larger impact on the product itself, while Facebook is one of the most used things on the internet. It seems like the major difference is in the difference between a consumer product and an enterprise product, but I would be happy working in either area.<p>I&#x27;m finding it very difficult to decide, so I&#x27;m thinking about just going for whichever one will be higher paying, post negotiation. Is this dumb?<p>Thanks for reading!<p>EDIT: Both positions are in software engineering, and offers seem mostly comparable in terms of perks and benefits.
======
diyorgasms
I think very few people would blame you for taking the mercenary approach
here. However, you may wish to consider who it is you will be working for.

Palantir is deeply entrenched in the surveillance state. Though they may come
at you with a decent offer, I believe it is ethically impermissible to use my
skills in order to contribute to the deprivation of the human rights of others
across the world.

I do not have much positive to say about Facebook either, except that the bulk
of their revenue does not come from three letter agencies. And they have in
the past and will probably continue in the future to solve some interesting
challenges in scalability.

~~~
kriro
I agree with the general recommendation that you should consider those
factors.

I also agree with your rough assessment. Facebook is pretty sketchy as well on
the privacy front but you're not really forced to use them if that's a
concern.

Having worked for Facebook is probably better for the CV, too if you decide to
move on (debatable depending on the specific line of work. Palantir is
obviously not an unknown).

~~~
chimeracoder
> Facebook is pretty sketchy as well on the privacy front but you're not
> really forced to use them if that's a concern.

I agree with what you're saying, but we should mention that Facebook's data
collection extends far beyond what we generally think of as Facebook's users.
(They collect data on friends of Facebook users as well - search for "dark
profiles" to see what I mean, and they also collect data on people who simply
view websites that have Facebook "share" buttons or the like).

And it's expanding even further - if Facebook has its way, parts of the
developing world will use Facebook as their primary (or only!) way of
accessing the Internet.

I agree that Facebook is _slightly_ the lesser of two evils at the moment, but
we're basically debating between Scylla and Charybdis[0] here.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scylla)

------
ath0
Worked for Palantir from 2010-2012. Palantir will push you hard (if you let
it, and are interested in doing so); it's the highest-performing team I've
ever worked with, and I learned a ton both technically and culturally (how to
interview, how to hire, how to productively have high expectations of your
colleagues) that has served me well in the other roles -- even though it
wasn't immediately obvious what I was learning when I was there.

That said, there's a lot that's rough about the place, especially as it's
gotten larger. You'll likely have a little more freedom than at Facebook, but
I wouldn't expect to have a significant impact on the product -- though you
will absolutely see an impact on a smaller number of enterprise customers. The
culture can be a little overwhelming; it's hard to get oriented as a new
person. You need to take responsibility for learning things for yourself and
have to think on your feet -- don't expect your colleagues to spend a lot of
time training you.

~~~
jk4930
Would you elaborate on the "how to" aspects of the cultural part?

~~~
ath0
There are certain cultural imperatives; catchphrases that get repeated. Like
Facebook's "move fast and break things." That's an interesting statement in
and of itself, but what's more interesting is watching how people interpret
that imperative and get things done.

Don't want to go into too many examples, but let's take the "we maintain an
incredibly high hiring bar, because good people want to work with good
people." Everyone says that; how do you actually execute on that in practice?
What interview practices work? One well-known public thing you can see from
reading Glassdoor interviews is that the founders try to interview every
candidate. One of the most memorable things about my time there is that even
the guy who was hired to stock the kitchen went through an intense interview
process; which seems like overkill until you meet him and realize the depth of
pride, customer service and creativity he brings to his job is every bit as
strong as the engineers we hire. Not everyone who says "we maintain a high
hiring bar" would go through that kind of effort.

(P.S. re: the above "lifelong friends" comment as well - that guy, who I am
still friends with, continues to post photos of particularly well-executed
Palantir meals to private social media. So while I respect the feeling that
'it sounds like the military' \-- like the military, I'd say it's hard work in
the short term, occasionally nonsensical, but for people who are willing to do
it it's very much a long-term positive experience.)

~~~
jk4930
Thanks. So it's a mix of self-discipline, holding oneself to high standards,
going the extra mile. And--I assume--trusting that others do the same.

------
junkacct444
Palantir:

\- Boring work since you will be an FDE if in NY (data munging, plugins, etc -
no "real" coding projects)

\- Below-market pay (including equity due to future dilution)

\- Culture of working 80-100 hour weeks

\- Corporate cult mentality (everyone constantly wearing the company clothing,
living at the office, etc)

\- Reputation for having a "bro culture"

Facebook:

\- Higher cash comp, probably less equity upside

\- No opportunity to work with customers if that interests you

\- More typical "go to work and code" environment

\- You will actually grow as an engineer because you will work on more
substantial projects that are not throwaway code for one customer

\- Your code will be reviewed

In short, if you don't really care about your life outside of work, and you
see yourself enjoying a more consulting focused role that will put you on a
career path away from programming in a few years, go with Palantir NYC. If you
actually care about improving your software engineering skills, and you have
friends/significant other/family that you care about seeing during the week,
go with FB.

~~~
freehunter
In my industry, FDE only means full disk encryption. I've seen that acronym a
few times in this thread though. Can someone break that down for me?

~~~
datapolitical
Forward Deployed Engineer

~~~
freehunter
Thank you! A quick Google search on that tells me a lot, sounds like a sales
engineer meets a consultant.

------
hadoukenio
I saw this in my RSS feed. Without seeing the text, I actually thought this
post was going to be a question of which company was more evil.

Downvotes welcomed, but I stand by my point.

~~~
snowwrestler
Is there a large company that a significant number of folks on HN _don 't_
think is evil? Amazon, maybe?

~~~
api
I personally don't see Apple or Microsoft as being _that_ evil. Microsoft is
less evil today than in the past. Google is kind of a complicated case.
Facebook is sketchy but at least using them is a choice. Palantir is evil.

------
jlas
I'd go with Facebook, I imagine they're offering more money anyway. Facebook
is a household name, has better perks last time I checked, and more offices.

Palantir looks hip but the work they do is very boring on the Forward-Deployed
engineer side — which, being a position in New York, sounds like what you're
gonna be doing.

PS I interviewed with both these companies very recently.

------
tbolse
Yes this might be a dumb way of deciding where to work, especially because you
might be able to negotiate your salary based on the competitive offers you
might get.

Ask yourself:

\- with which of the companies (mission and strategy, as well as customers)
can you identify yourself best?

\- where do you see yourself having a more pleasent work environment in
regards to the people you would be working with and the working
culture/environment?

\- what are your future career targets and which opportunity might increase
the probability to reach them? what is the potential for the role?

\- what might be the goals, and can you identify with them as well as add
value, of your direct reports?

------
jacquesm
Are you limited to choosing between those two companies? If not then maybe
cast your net a bit wider and go for something that is less likely to keep you
up at night from a moral point of view. Of course if these are your only
options I'd choose facebook as the lesser of two evils.

------
spacefight
[http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Palantir-considered-
evil](http://www.quora.com/Why-is-Palantir-considered-evil)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/14/agent-o...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/14/agent-
of-intelligence-how-a-deviant-philosopher-built-palantir-a-cia-funded-data-
mining-juggernaut/)

------
alanctgardner3
I spoke to a Palantir recruiter once, if you aren't in the Bay Area you'll be
doing customisation for customers - not the core engineering stuff that's
really cool. Do you know what team at FB you'd be working with? For me the job
itself is the most important thing: I wouldn't want to sling PHP, but FB has
amazing teams who wrote Hive, Scribe, Presto, HHVM, etc.

~~~
i_do_both
"if you aren't in the Bay Area you'll be doing customisation for customers"

False.

------
int19h
One unique advantage Palantir would have over Facebook is that if you get the
itch to travel, Palantir casts a much wider net throughout the world (assuming
you'd be willing to work as a forward deployed engineer, which in Palantir's
case is genuinely not a sales role).

Tough call, but a nice problem to have, congrats!

~~~
liotier
> Palantir casts a much wider net throughout the world

In more ways than one !

------
jadc
This is a very difficult question for anyone to answer for you. It all depends
on which metrics/values are most important to you. Here are a few generic
ideas:

You can look on Glassdoor for company reviews but they tend to be biased
negatively, as in disgruntled people are more likely to write and complain
about their experiences than those who are perfectly happy.

Talk to people at both companies, preferably ones in similar positions or
doing similar work.

In terms of salary, don't fixate on just the salary but consider total
compensation as in salary + stock options + rsu + bonus, etc...

Finally given that you've presumably interviewed with teams at both companies,
you should have a better sense about your would-be teammates and manager and
which environment suits you better.

------
solutionyogi
I would suggest that you go to Facebook. Why? Being an SV company, they will
generally treat developers better than say Palantir. Being treated as a
valuable member of the team and not a cost center is very important for job
satisfaction. (And those free lunches/snacks will definitely help you save
some money in NYC)

To start your career at a place where one has to solve huge scaling issues
will really do you good. You may not understand everything right away but you
would be trained from the beginning to think of scaling anytime you solve a
problem. I don't know much about Palantir but I will doubt if they have
scaling problems as big as Facebook.

Finally, brand name. Whenever you will decide to move on to the next job, you
will have a much easier time if you were at Facebook v/s Palantir. Trust me,
this is important. You should view each job opportunity as a stepping stone
for your overall career.

So assuming that pay/perks/benefits are more or less similar, I would highly
recommend that you join FB.

~~~
ngoel36
Palantir has offices in no fewer than 6 buildings in downtown Palo Alto,
across the street from Stanford. It is as close as you can get to being an SV
company, other arguments aside

------
fdik
Both companies are needing people without that kind of disability we all know
as “ethics”. So your choice is obvious: just take the better offer, and if the
other one then is renegotiating, cheat and again take the better offer.

------
shadowalker
I totally agree with your dumb decision to go for whichever one with the
higher paying. Both companies are extremely large, extremely pushy and
extremely boring.

If you ask me what would be the difference between joining the two companies,
I would say not so many people know about Palantir, but Facebook is well-
renowned all around the world. Facebook could add a lot to your future resume.

After all, employees in the IT industry are flowing between companies pretty
quickly. If you regret joining Palantir, I think you are always welcome to
come back to Facebook, and vice versa.

------
iaskwhy
You can think about where you see yourself in x years and act accordingly. Say
you're more interested in startups vs enterprises, your best bet would be
Facebook and vice-versa.

On the ethical side, without knowing the role specifics, I'd have a hard time
considering Palantir. I'd also have a hard time considering Facebook though
(still a little better on my ethical companies ranking).

Best of luck!

------
kabdib
I wouldn't consider Palantir for an instant. They are rubbing up _this close_
to evil.

FB is at least a public company, with accountability, and probably more
mobility (both in the physical and job-position sense). You'll have a better
choice of stuff to work on, and you'll be able to talk more freely about it.

------
Doches
OP, I'm a FDE at Palantir (not in NY) and I'd be glad to chat with you about
the life/work/impact we have. I've been at several different tech companies
with a variety of bizarro cultures (though not FB!), so maybe I can offer you
a point of comparison on that as well.

My (personal) email is in my profile.

------
fndrplayer13
I hate to be that person, but I would recommend something smaller. I think
you'll learn more and get to really own your project(s). I realize that you
already have offers though, so between the two, I vote Facebook every time.
You won't regret avoiding working in Defense.

------
deepak-iiitb
I would say align yourself with your long-term career goals and the team that
you were offered to work with. For instance, if you would like to start of
your won soemtime, working in a small team can benefit a lot.

------
bsaul
i'm stunned by the fact that people here seem to think that working for a
national security agency seems to be the worst thing to do moraly. i remember
a time when being a spy was probably the coolest thing ever.

one could argue that "spying" on people for the sake of saving lives is a much
more noble cause than doing it purely for commercial purposes.

ps : i am not naive,and i am aware of the recent privacy issues raised by the
snowden case. And i _am_ a lover of private liberties. i'm just stunned to see
such a large conscensus.

~~~
snowwrestler
I'm guessing that you are over 30.

People who are young professionals now do not remember the Cold War at all,
and have grown up considering the U.S. to be essentially invulnerable on the
international stage.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the worst thing they've experienced. But
while those were terrible, they were clearly not an existential threat to the
entire country, the way that the Soviet Union was for 50 years, or Germany or
Japan before that.

Thus, many young people see international espionage primarily as a means of
corrupting lesser states for our own benefit--an abuse of our considerable
power.

~~~
DanBC
How much of that existential threat was really real though?

Apart from the Cuban missile crisis was there ever any real threat to the US
from Russia?

This is a genuine question, I really don't know the answer. I do know that
Americans spent a lot of time with "Duck and Cover" exercises. the UK
equivalent was "Protect and Survive" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_and_Survive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_and_Survive)

~~~
snowwrestler
I think there are really two questions here.

1) How much of an existential threat really existed? This question can be
answered by looking through the vast archives of Soviet-era information which
has now been made publicly available. I'm not an expert, but I'd say it's a
mixed answer--the capability for total destruction really did exist, and there
were some close calls [1]. But the USSR was a lot less interested in killing
everyone than folks in the U.S. thought. Which brings me to the second
question:

2) How much did people in the U.S. feel that they faced an existential threat?
Note that this is not the same thing as what the threat actually objectively
was. I lived through the end of the Cold War (born in the mid-1970s), and I
can tell you that most Americans did in fact feel deep unease and fear. More
importantly, they felt that the USSR was an equal opponent--a powerful nation
that the U.S. did not and could not dominate.

Following the end of the Cold War, that feeling went away. Once the USSR
dissolved, and Russia went through hard economic times, the self-perception of
American citizens was that we were the "last superpower" or "sole
superpower"\--a nation that could not be seriously threatened by anything on
Earth.

This self-perception persists today. In fact I think it has become a serious
source of angst, as many Americans perceive we are "slipping" because we can't
dominate every situation we want to (examples: Syria, Lybia, Ukraine, China).

But IMO the reality is that our dominant position has simply been a temporary
blip in our long history as one of several equal international powers.

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/the-
ussr-and-us-came-closer-to-nuclear-war-than-we-thought/276290/)

