4 ms·

What about them? What about open source learning martial arts and excercising a lot? The fear of someone else's potential to harm is meaningless without some

What about them? What about open source learning martial arts and excercising a lot? The fear of someone else's potential to harm is meaningless without some idea what you propose to do about it, and having that idea be at at all remotely tolerable or even sane. It doesn't matter how scared you are of the possibility of a drone or anything else, since you can be afraid of litetally infinite possible things. What matters is, is there anything that you have any reasonable right to do about it? Can you prevent open source drones that could somehow be used to harm you, without causing a million times more harm to everyone else just to make you feel safer? Open source kamikaze drones, ok sure, what, precicely, about them? Finish your thought. I await amazement.

reducesuffering 3y ago
Do you believe everyone has the right to RPG weapons? Nuclear weapons? What do you think the substantial difference is between an RPG and a kamikaze drone?
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  I don't hear that proposed solution. What is an open source kamikaze drone composed of, and which of those parts do you think can be controlled, and how? I have some disturbing news for you, every rando in the world already has free access to all the materials, tools, and info needed to make all those scary sounding weapons. Anyone can already bomb buildings or even shoot planes out of the sky. The extra exotic controlled materials that governments have access to don't actually matter. They just give them slight tactical advantages in wars. If someone wants to bomb a bridge, or a whole city, they don't need a nuclear bomb. If they want to destroy a tank or shoot a person, they don't need a fancy depleted uranium bullet. Ordinary materials are already quite good enough to build quit good enough canons and missiles etc, and the knowledge is just ordinary engineering. You can't build a bicycle without knowing enough engineering to be able to design a functional gun from scratch. I could design, fabricate, and fire an 'RPG' right now, and so could you. An "open source kamikaze drone" is like that. It's made up entirely out of ordinary generic knowledge and materials. Their potential has existed ever since the first electric motor and radio. It doesn't even require any software or even any ICs. If that alarms you, well it must be terrible to require assurance that no one else has the power to harm you, yet live in a universe that you aren't the god of.
- hgs3 3y ago
  Meta question, but is there a name for this phenomenon? When someone asks a question to "prove a point" using outlandish analogies (RPG's, nuclear weapons, kamikaze)? I see this frequently in online discussions.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    Objecting to someone’s motte-and-bailey
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      And yet I still don't hear any answer to a very basic question that is in fact relevant and pertinent. Let's rewind and pretend I agreed. "Right! That is crazy! We should... wait, what should we do?" It doesn't matter how terrible something is if there is nothing to be done about it. What is the point in saying that it's literally the end of the world if a nova goes off 30 light years away? It would be, and it could happen any time. We should... what? The terrible thing you expressed is not actually a thing that can be isolated and managed, because there is no such atomic distinct unit as a kamikaze drone. The thing that you have pointed out that is so dangerous is any human in the world having any free will at all. There is no motte and fucking baily In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole even though it was disingenuous and an attempt to deflect.
      - reducesuffering 3y ago
        > There is no motte and fucking baily > In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole You need to calm down. Carmack posits you should be an "absolutist." Always and anything open source, 100%. I pointed out an obvious contradiction, with parallels to the same ridiculous argument "2A" advocates put forth. There are clear red lines that almost the entire population agrees shouldn't be crossed. They fly in the face of "absolutist" and maximalist hyperbole about having things to 100%. Any weapon for anyone. Open source can be used for the same extremely dangerous weapons that almost everyone agrees isn't something a society wants proliferated. The Bailey is open source absolutism, and when challenged with a case that shows this absolutism maybe isn't so great, the Motte is "all i'm saying is open source is good ok, why are you mentioning dangerous weapons"

reducesuffering 3y ago

Do you believe everyone has the right to RPG weapons? Nuclear weapons? What do you think the substantial difference is between an RPG and a kamikaze drone?

Brian_K_White 3y ago
I don't hear that proposed solution. What is an open source kamikaze drone composed of, and which of those parts do you think can be controlled, and how? I have some disturbing news for you, every rando in the world already has free access to all the materials, tools, and info needed to make all those scary sounding weapons. Anyone can already bomb buildings or even shoot planes out of the sky. The extra exotic controlled materials that governments have access to don't actually matter. They just give them slight tactical advantages in wars. If someone wants to bomb a bridge, or a whole city, they don't need a nuclear bomb. If they want to destroy a tank or shoot a person, they don't need a fancy depleted uranium bullet. Ordinary materials are already quite good enough to build quit good enough canons and missiles etc, and the knowledge is just ordinary engineering. You can't build a bicycle without knowing enough engineering to be able to design a functional gun from scratch. I could design, fabricate, and fire an 'RPG' right now, and so could you. An "open source kamikaze drone" is like that. It's made up entirely out of ordinary generic knowledge and materials. Their potential has existed ever since the first electric motor and radio. It doesn't even require any software or even any ICs. If that alarms you, well it must be terrible to require assurance that no one else has the power to harm you, yet live in a universe that you aren't the god of.
hgs3 3y ago
Meta question, but is there a name for this phenomenon? When someone asks a question to "prove a point" using outlandish analogies (RPG's, nuclear weapons, kamikaze)? I see this frequently in online discussions.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Objecting to someone’s motte-and-bailey
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    And yet I still don't hear any answer to a very basic question that is in fact relevant and pertinent. Let's rewind and pretend I agreed. "Right! That is crazy! We should... wait, what should we do?" It doesn't matter how terrible something is if there is nothing to be done about it. What is the point in saying that it's literally the end of the world if a nova goes off 30 light years away? It would be, and it could happen any time. We should... what? The terrible thing you expressed is not actually a thing that can be isolated and managed, because there is no such atomic distinct unit as a kamikaze drone. The thing that you have pointed out that is so dangerous is any human in the world having any free will at all. There is no motte and fucking baily In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole even though it was disingenuous and an attempt to deflect.
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      > There is no motte and fucking baily > In fact I even DID respond to your moronic RPG/nuke hyperbole You need to calm down. Carmack posits you should be an "absolutist." Always and anything open source, 100%. I pointed out an obvious contradiction, with parallels to the same ridiculous argument "2A" advocates put forth. There are clear red lines that almost the entire population agrees shouldn't be crossed. They fly in the face of "absolutist" and maximalist hyperbole about having things to 100%. Any weapon for anyone. Open source can be used for the same extremely dangerous weapons that almost everyone agrees isn't something a society wants proliferated. The Bailey is open source absolutism, and when challenged with a case that shows this absolutism maybe isn't so great, the Motte is "all i'm saying is open source is good ok, why are you mentioning dangerous weapons"