3 ms·

Drones man. I think drones are gonna be the end of mankind man lol.

ethbr1 3y ago
Things that change the future are because they change it in kind, not in specifics. Drones (a) remove the requirement to have a human present & (b) aerial ones can operate is a largely congestion-free medium. Taken together, those two attributes are game changing for a lot of things. Persistent naval ISR is going to revolutionized, just as aerial has.
- gnarlouse 3y ago
  > Things that change the future are because they change it in kind, not in specifics. As always not sure what you’re on about. All it takes is one moron who wants to hurt people to strap something dangerous to a drone and send it off in a civilian area. In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody. In a worst-case scenario, like China or North Korea is the who does it and it’s a widespread/orchestrated event. Seems pretty inevitable to me
  - rurp 3y ago
    > In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody. It's not like progress will get to a certain point and then just stop. If terorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want, an insane amount of resources will be directed at stopping that and new countering methods will be developed.
    - gnarlouse 3y ago
      > terrorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want I mean I think all they have to do is attack voters psychologically. Furthermore, what happens when these awful school shooter losers decide to apply Ukrainian tactics on after school activities? They’re all little wannabe terrorists. I personally think it’s just a matter of time, the same way Columbine was (unfortunately) a matter of time. I sure hope I’m just over-paranoid. Could be a really dark future.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Technical aptitude tends not to be found in one-off terrorists (school shooters). More so in insurgencies (IEDs), where there's an opportunity for specialization, training, and iterative improvement. Mostly because technical people tend to be well-off, and well-off people don't have many reasons to throw their lives away. The drone attack scenario seems more likely from a clandestine state actor, hoping to take advantage of anonymity. E.g. ship a drone into the country, then detonate it in a mass gathering, then walk away But state actors, even hostile ones, don't usually commit acts of terror against civilian targets, because they're counterproductive. They don't harm military capability and rally the public.
        gnarlouse 3y ago
        I’m sure that was the same logic they had pre-Columbine
        ethbr1 3y ago
        Walk me through how the Columbine shooters demonstrated technical proficiency?
        gnarlouse 3y ago
        That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m saying the logic was “something like columbine will never happen because …” like ok, famous last words. Technical proficiency is your contribution here and I just disagree with it. It’s not like drones are (a) hard to fly, (b) expensive or (c) access restricted. Kids my age at 13 were making backshed napalm out of pure fascination. And also I’m pretty sure the columbine kids were trying to build a bomb, so there’s your technical proficiency request. Like I said buddy, I hope I’m wrong.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        Drone are indeed (a), (b), and to some degree (c), to the extent that if you're proficient with them you currently have employment opportunities in developed economies. It's the capability vs financially beneficial alternatives that matters. Links on the Columbine kids building a bomb? Given how easy it is to make a pipe bomb, I feel failure there would cut in favor of my argument re: Columbine.

Things that change the future are because they change it in kind, not in specifics. Drones (a) remove the requirement to have a human present & (b) aerial ones can operate is a largely congestion-free medium. Taken together, those two attributes are game changing for a lot of things. Persistent naval ISR is going to revolutionized, just as aerial has.

gnarlouse 3y ago
> Things that change the future are because they change it in kind, not in specifics. As always not sure what you’re on about. All it takes is one moron who wants to hurt people to strap something dangerous to a drone and send it off in a civilian area. In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody. In a worst-case scenario, like China or North Korea is the who does it and it’s a widespread/orchestrated event. Seems pretty inevitable to me
- rurp 3y ago
  > In a best-case scenario, going outside is ruined for everybody. It's not like progress will get to a certain point and then just stop. If terorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want, an insane amount of resources will be directed at stopping that and new countering methods will be developed.
  - gnarlouse 3y ago
    > terrorists reach the point of being able to bomb anyone they want I mean I think all they have to do is attack voters psychologically. Furthermore, what happens when these awful school shooter losers decide to apply Ukrainian tactics on after school activities? They’re all little wannabe terrorists. I personally think it’s just a matter of time, the same way Columbine was (unfortunately) a matter of time. I sure hope I’m just over-paranoid. Could be a really dark future.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Technical aptitude tends not to be found in one-off terrorists (school shooters). More so in insurgencies (IEDs), where there's an opportunity for specialization, training, and iterative improvement. Mostly because technical people tend to be well-off, and well-off people don't have many reasons to throw their lives away. The drone attack scenario seems more likely from a clandestine state actor, hoping to take advantage of anonymity. E.g. ship a drone into the country, then detonate it in a mass gathering, then walk away But state actors, even hostile ones, don't usually commit acts of terror against civilian targets, because they're counterproductive. They don't harm military capability and rally the public.
      - gnarlouse 3y ago
        I’m sure that was the same logic they had pre-Columbine
        ethbr1 3y ago
        Walk me through how the Columbine shooters demonstrated technical proficiency?
        gnarlouse 3y ago
        That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m saying the logic was “something like columbine will never happen because …” like ok, famous last words. Technical proficiency is your contribution here and I just disagree with it. It’s not like drones are (a) hard to fly, (b) expensive or (c) access restricted. Kids my age at 13 were making backshed napalm out of pure fascination. And also I’m pretty sure the columbine kids were trying to build a bomb, so there’s your technical proficiency request. Like I said buddy, I hope I’m wrong.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        Drone are indeed (a), (b), and to some degree (c), to the extent that if you're proficient with them you currently have employment opportunities in developed economies. It's the capability vs financially beneficial alternatives that matters. Links on the Columbine kids building a bomb? Given how easy it is to make a pipe bomb, I feel failure there would cut in favor of my argument re: Columbine.