I don't think he missed the point. You should probably read all of this (which the Hole Hawg bit is an excerpt from) to a whole picture of this school of thought:
Saying their early investor was the CIA isn’t exactly controversial. It’s cited in almost every article about the company. When something is that widely known, it’s usually not cited.
Title: CIA-backed Palantir adds $50M to its war chest
“Palantir's backers include the CIA's In-Q-Tel venture fund and Thiel's Founders Fund. Its customers include government intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency.”
Google In-Q-Tel and Palantir and you’ll find 100 other articles about it.
Anyone who wants to quibble that it's fine to lock up people who lack documentation or who live across the street from a drug dealer, can have that conversation without me. I'm sure if you consult a search engine you can find lots of other stuff like this:
For the record, I'm not a recruiter (and was sad to see myself labeled as such). I've worked on the recruiting problem pretty extensively for Palantir, but I'm actually a software engineer. These days, my work tends towards writing about our technology and occasionally speaking in public but I'd hate to go down in history as a recruiter. (Not that there's anything wrong with recruiters).
If you feel that your work has been wrongly portrayed, you can contact the New York Times, who will ensure that the article is corrected and updated accordingly.
And to add to the point above, Yelp ratings are not well-normalized across markets. The things that people care about in the 'burbs is different than in the city and places get voted up or down for odd reasons.
For example, Joya in Palo Alto is a pretty amazing restaurant but only gets 3.5 stars. The Cheesecake Factory (which is a pretty crappy chain) gets a 5. This is not really good data.
