3 ms·

They're talking about both detecting and dousing. Note they mention two different kinds of drones (a few monitor drones, and then a fleet of drones to deploy an

They're talking about both detecting and dousing. Note they mention two different kinds of drones (a few monitor drones, and then a fleet of drones to deploy and douse). The monitor drones could be practical, we've demonstrated that loitering sensor drones work well in other domains. Depending on the sensor payload (what it's looking for) and how the data is stored and used, it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire If you’re hoping to do better than sighting a smoke column, you will absolutely have to be. We’re not at a loss of detecting entire houses burning.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger Again, at that point you’re no longer adding value over the status quo. We don’t have a problem detecting large fires near population centres.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. People aren't the only (or largest hotter-than-background, and maybe not hottest-human-sized) thing on your property that a privacy-violating IR sensor drone might want to detect. > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger. If you want an early-detection sensor for fires, they'll be substantially hotter but not substantially larger than an adult human.
    - nomel 2y ago
      I think the point is to detect fires as early as possible, since putting them out becomes much harder the larger they get. If you can detect a fire when it's human sized, you might be able to put it out with a local drone carrying some co2 fire bombs. It's fun/useful to think of things we can do.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it wouldn't really entail a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire If you’re hoping to do better than sighting a smoke column, you will absolutely have to be. We’re not at a loss of detecting entire houses burning.

Jtsummers 2y ago
To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger Again, at that point you’re no longer adding value over the status quo. We don’t have a problem detecting large fires near population centres.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.) and put them on a map. People aren't the only (or largest hotter-than-background, and maybe not hottest-human-sized) thing on your property that a privacy-violating IR sensor drone might want to detect. > Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is substantially hotter and larger. If you want an early-detection sensor for fires, they'll be substantially hotter but not substantially larger than an adult human.
  - nomel 2y ago
    I think the point is to detect fires as early as possible, since putting them out becomes much harder the larger they get. If you can detect a fire when it's human sized, you might be able to put it out with a local drone carrying some co2 fire bombs. It's fun/useful to think of things we can do.