3 ms·
> I did not predict anything, I said "maybe, maybe not". The derisive way of putting the alternative (Musk's proven trash announcements) indicates that you wer
by dinfinity 1y ago
> I did not predict anything, I said "maybe, maybe not".
The derisive way of putting the alternative (Musk's proven trash announcements) indicates that you were arguing a certain side. It definitely wasn't neutral.
> And you told me it was "bad reasoning".
The bad reasoning is what you're basing the (let's say) doubt on. You seem to know that a lot of technological progress has happened in the military FPV drone industry, but the article and described limitations are about (again) consumer level shit thrown together, not the advanced FPV drones that exist today.
Perhaps the conclusion should be that a lot of the problems described in the article are already solved, but that Ukraine (and Russia) couldn't get their hands on enough of the more capable FPV drones due to those being too expensive or not produced in large enough quantities.
- palata 1y ago> the problems described in the article are already solved, but that Ukraine (and Russia) couldn't get their hands on enough of the more capable FPV drones due to those being too expensive or not produced in large enough quantities. Yes, that's what I think. And I believe that's what the article says: "The FPV drones we currently use are not ideal". Then people say "yeah but they will improve", to which I answer: "or maybe not so much". Simply because better systems already exist, are mass-produced and are more expensive.