4 ms·

Also selling it to the military to "increase lethality". https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236116/microsoft-hololens-army-contract-workers-letter https://ww

Also selling it to the military to "increase lethality". https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236116/microsoft-hololens-army-contract-workers-letter https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236116/microsoft-holole...

ABeeSea 8y ago
Well I assume the military generally doesn’t want decreased lethality when purchasing equipment.
- setquk 8y ago
  Actually they do. Only because collateral is a PR nightmare.
  - derp_dee_derp 8y ago
    No they don't. Collateral damage is a function of inefficient lethality (killing people who are not your target is wasteful and inefficient). Increasing lethality decreases collateral.
    - setquk 8y ago
      No that's not quite right. Lethality is the effectiveness of desired outcome. Was the target eliminated? Collateral is the side effects of the desired outcome. Was anyone or anything else eliminated? They are two different metrics. Consider two contrasting analogies which break your understanding: Ballistic missile: high lethality, high collateral probability. Polonium tea: high lethality, low collateral probability. About 20 years ago, I was working in the defence sector, on guidance systems, as an engineer. Sat through many a powerpoint about how collateral could be marketed away. Turns out they won that battle eventually... Incidentally I bailed out when I saw what a fucking mess of a world I was creating.
      - derp_dee_derp 8y ago
        This is bad logic. By your metrics, the most lethal thing in the world is a rusty spoon stabbed into some ones eye; either it kills the target instantly or kills them later due to infection. Very close to 100% death rate. Very lethal. No collateral damages, either. And yet no professional militaries are armed with rusty spoons
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        I don't know what logic you're seeing but that's not an accurate description. A spoon is low lethality, low collateral.
        dragonsngoblins 8y ago
        That's because the lethality of a rusty spoon is actually very low... The lethality of having been stabbed in the eye might be high, but not of spoons themselves since it is hard to successfully wound the eye of an enemy soldier with a rusty spoon at a distance when said enemy soldier is armed with ranged weaponry, and it is still difficult to do even in melee range relative to how easy it is to wound with bayonets and combat knives.
        setquk 8y ago
        They had swords that did that. Then they found out that guns had higher lethality with lower risk to the attacker (another primary metric). Collateral wasn't much of a problem back then. No one gave a shit.
        imtringued 8y ago
        What is a bullet if not a very carefully shaped rusty spoon stabbed into someone via a complicated launching mechanism?
  - 420codebro 8y ago
    I know I'm splitting hairs, but they want lethal and accurate weapons. When they pull the trigger, they want the person they intend to "neutralize" to only be hit. They do not want to decrease their lethality. The threat of usage of a weapon (lethality) is what keeps a lot of engagements very small, or not even happening at all.
writepub 8y ago
The military also buys iPhones, and Androids. What phone do you use? That very phone was probably used to order a drone strike! Did you use GPS technology this past week? That was the tech guiding the drone to it's target. And this thing called the internet was invented to network the military
- roywiggins 8y ago
  GPS is a military technology opened to civilians... going the other way feels different, for whatever reason.
  - nradov 8y ago
    No, GPS was actually designed from the start as a dual military and civilian system. The only part that wasn't originally available to civilians was the high precision signal.
    - sdinsn 8y ago
      > GPS was actually designed from the start as a dual military and civilian system No, what prompted GPS to be opened to civilian uses was KAL007 being shot down by the Soviet Union. [1] 269 killed, including a US Rep. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
      - nradov 8y ago
        No, as usual Wikipedia isn't quite accurate. Here's an actual interview with the "father of GPS". "BRAD PARKINSON: Absolutely. And there are a lot of misconceptions about that. You hear people saying, well it was a military system and eventually made a civil system. That was not true. When I testified before Congress back about 1975, I said this is a combination military civil system." https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/how-gps-found-its-way/ https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/how-gps-found-its-way...
- 420codebro 8y ago
int_19h 8y ago
I really don't get the opposition to this. Either we need the military, or we don't. If we do, then we want to have one that's can beat anything that could be thrown at it with as few casualties as possible. If we don't, then going after VR devices rather than the rifles is all wrong on priorities.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  Agreed - to pretend that other countries aren't devoting the top tech talent to advance their capabilities in a similar way is beyond naive. I _want_ to agree with this "ethical opposition" approach, but I know too much game theory / history to know that I also don't want my power grid knocked out on a moment's notice because, say, Googlers opposed stronger cyber security for our military.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    I can think of specific projects that might be unethical in that sense, and cannot be justified even by "well, they're doing that". But I can't see why this one would be in that category.

ABeeSea 8y ago

Well I assume the military generally doesn’t want decreased lethality when purchasing equipment.

setquk 8y ago
Actually they do. Only because collateral is a PR nightmare.
- derp_dee_derp 8y ago
  No they don't. Collateral damage is a function of inefficient lethality (killing people who are not your target is wasteful and inefficient). Increasing lethality decreases collateral.
  - setquk 8y ago
    No that's not quite right. Lethality is the effectiveness of desired outcome. Was the target eliminated? Collateral is the side effects of the desired outcome. Was anyone or anything else eliminated? They are two different metrics. Consider two contrasting analogies which break your understanding: Ballistic missile: high lethality, high collateral probability. Polonium tea: high lethality, low collateral probability. About 20 years ago, I was working in the defence sector, on guidance systems, as an engineer. Sat through many a powerpoint about how collateral could be marketed away. Turns out they won that battle eventually... Incidentally I bailed out when I saw what a fucking mess of a world I was creating.
    - derp_dee_derp 8y ago
      This is bad logic. By your metrics, the most lethal thing in the world is a rusty spoon stabbed into some ones eye; either it kills the target instantly or kills them later due to infection. Very close to 100% death rate. Very lethal. No collateral damages, either. And yet no professional militaries are armed with rusty spoons
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        I don't know what logic you're seeing but that's not an accurate description. A spoon is low lethality, low collateral.
      - dragonsngoblins 8y ago
        That's because the lethality of a rusty spoon is actually very low... The lethality of having been stabbed in the eye might be high, but not of spoons themselves since it is hard to successfully wound the eye of an enemy soldier with a rusty spoon at a distance when said enemy soldier is armed with ranged weaponry, and it is still difficult to do even in melee range relative to how easy it is to wound with bayonets and combat knives.
      - setquk 8y ago
        They had swords that did that. Then they found out that guns had higher lethality with lower risk to the attacker (another primary metric). Collateral wasn't much of a problem back then. No one gave a shit.
      - imtringued 8y ago
        What is a bullet if not a very carefully shaped rusty spoon stabbed into someone via a complicated launching mechanism?
- 420codebro 8y ago
  I know I'm splitting hairs, but they want lethal and accurate weapons. When they pull the trigger, they want the person they intend to "neutralize" to only be hit. They do not want to decrease their lethality. The threat of usage of a weapon (lethality) is what keeps a lot of engagements very small, or not even happening at all.

writepub 8y ago

The military also buys iPhones, and Androids. What phone do you use? That very phone was probably used to order a drone strike! Did you use GPS technology this past week? That was the tech guiding the drone to it's target. And this thing called the internet was invented to network the military

roywiggins 8y ago
GPS is a military technology opened to civilians... going the other way feels different, for whatever reason.
- nradov 8y ago
  No, GPS was actually designed from the start as a dual military and civilian system. The only part that wasn't originally available to civilians was the high precision signal.
  - sdinsn 8y ago
    > GPS was actually designed from the start as a dual military and civilian system No, what prompted GPS to be opened to civilian uses was KAL007 being shot down by the Soviet Union. [1] 269 killed, including a US Rep. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
    - nradov 8y ago
      No, as usual Wikipedia isn't quite accurate. Here's an actual interview with the "father of GPS". "BRAD PARKINSON: Absolutely. And there are a lot of misconceptions about that. You hear people saying, well it was a military system and eventually made a civil system. That was not true. When I testified before Congress back about 1975, I said this is a combination military civil system." https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/how-gps-found-its-way/ https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/how-gps-found-its-way...
420codebro 8y ago

int_19h 8y ago

I really don't get the opposition to this. Either we need the military, or we don't. If we do, then we want to have one that's can beat anything that could be thrown at it with as few casualties as possible. If we don't, then going after VR devices rather than the rifles is all wrong on priorities.

s3r3nity 8y ago
Agreed - to pretend that other countries aren't devoting the top tech talent to advance their capabilities in a similar way is beyond naive. I _want_ to agree with this "ethical opposition" approach, but I know too much game theory / history to know that I also don't want my power grid knocked out on a moment's notice because, say, Googlers opposed stronger cyber security for our military.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I can think of specific projects that might be unethical in that sense, and cannot be justified even by "well, they're doing that". But I can't see why this one would be in that category.