4 ms·
The assumption the lancet won't attack them because of price ignores the lack of concern to price in war. They may feel like a low value asset, but I am less su
by ggm 2y ago
The assumption the lancet won't attack them because of price ignores the lack of concern to price in war. They may feel like a low value asset, but I am less sure the Drone aside from AI models of tank == good car == bad has a value asset measurement. Remember, shooting up Rommels car driving in France accounted for his inability to operate during post D-Day fighting in part, so an asset like a car can be valuable in ways the drone cannot tell.
If I can tell a car has anti-drone RF noise creators maybe its a high value asset?
Allies and Axis alike learned that active RF was a signal to target as much as a mechanism to find objects targetting you, and (wrong words?) antenna resonance is a thing: your passive RF collector can be an RF emitter as well.
- pestatije 2y agohas anybody ever told you you write nonsense?
- jalapenos 2y agoTuring test: failed
- ggm 2y agoIf you really think you can tell, put your money up and prepare to lose. A website to do Turing test for $ would be fun.
- ggm 2y agoYes, several times. And I've been compared to GPT before as well. Odd that the people who propose this don't think "hmm.. maybe the GPT detector is bullshit" but that's gell-mann effect for you.
- graboy 2y agoI wanted to understand what you wrote better so I rewrote it: You can't be sure that a lancet won't attack you just by the economics alone. Just because the price of a drone exceeds the price of its target doesn't mean there won't sometimes be expensive drones attacking cheap targets. Maybe drones can improve their cost-efficiency by targeting stuff that has RF emissions. Your writing reminds me of how I write when I have taken too much Vyvanse, I don't mean it in an offensive way but I'm kind of curious if you take stimulants.
- ggm 2y agoNope. I do not take stimulants. Your rewrite is good btw.