4 ms·

They have a finite # of employees, a finite budget, and a finite amount of time. Hobbyists do not. ROI is not a factor.

by PostOnce 5mo ago

pixl97 5mo ago
As yes, the hobbyist built nuclear weapons program..... Legalize recreational plutonium.
- tempest_ 5mo ago
  To be fair the state works pretty hard to crush "hobbyist" nuclear weapons programs so you don't really know how far it could get.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    By the time you're building (or buying) the necessary highly esoteric and expensive ultracentrifuge setup I think you would be well outside the realm of "hobbyist" unless someone insists on the most unreasonably pedantic definition for the term. Unless we're only considering final assembly. Just gotta get that weapons grade fissile material supplier lined up. That might or might not qualify as rich hobbyist territory depending on how high a price tag is permissible.
    - tempest_ 5mo ago
      You don't have to use the ultracentrifuge, though I don't suppose the power plant you would need for a diffusion plant would be much more attainable.
      - cyberax 5mo ago
        In theory, there's also direct laser-based isotope separation. It's a technology that is being actively suppressed, and that's one case where I very much in favor of that.
    - redsocksfan45 5mo ago
      [dead]
  - bryanrasmussen 5mo ago
    so which one is it here? This subthread starts off with the argument that the big corps will never beat the little determined hackers, one of the founding myths of the early internet. And then every now and then a strong little branch of the argument runs up against an example and it becomes well sure, the little hobbyist hackers don't have anything there but that is because the big corps/gov/billionaires/whatever put so much into beating them. I mean reading it all certainly sounds like the people on the little guy's side are overestimating the value of pluck, an observation Hollywood generally makes just before the heroes with pluck win for ever!
    - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
      > And then every now and then a strong little branch of the argument runs up against an example and it becomes well sure, the little hobbyist hackers don't have anything there but that is because the big corps/gov/billionaires/whatever put so much into beating them. It's almost never about the level of resources the organization puts in. The usual reason is that there isn't enough incentive to do it. What is a hobbyist going to do with a nuclear weapon? Why spend your time creating one if you, like the overwhelming majority of people, have no desire to blow up a city? Preventing something that hardly anybody would be trying to do even if it wasn't being suppressed is a lot more practical than preventing something millions of people would do given the chance.
- cmxch 5mo ago
  You don’t happen to know a certain Doc Brown?

They have a finite # of employees, a finite budget, and a finite amount of time. Hobbyists do not. ROI is not a factor.

pixl97 5mo ago

As yes, the hobbyist built nuclear weapons program..... Legalize recreational plutonium.

tempest_ 5mo ago
To be fair the state works pretty hard to crush "hobbyist" nuclear weapons programs so you don't really know how far it could get.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  By the time you're building (or buying) the necessary highly esoteric and expensive ultracentrifuge setup I think you would be well outside the realm of "hobbyist" unless someone insists on the most unreasonably pedantic definition for the term. Unless we're only considering final assembly. Just gotta get that weapons grade fissile material supplier lined up. That might or might not qualify as rich hobbyist territory depending on how high a price tag is permissible.
  - tempest_ 5mo ago
    You don't have to use the ultracentrifuge, though I don't suppose the power plant you would need for a diffusion plant would be much more attainable.
    - cyberax 5mo ago
      In theory, there's also direct laser-based isotope separation. It's a technology that is being actively suppressed, and that's one case where I very much in favor of that.
  - redsocksfan45 5mo ago
    [dead]
- bryanrasmussen 5mo ago
  so which one is it here? This subthread starts off with the argument that the big corps will never beat the little determined hackers, one of the founding myths of the early internet. And then every now and then a strong little branch of the argument runs up against an example and it becomes well sure, the little hobbyist hackers don't have anything there but that is because the big corps/gov/billionaires/whatever put so much into beating them. I mean reading it all certainly sounds like the people on the little guy's side are overestimating the value of pluck, an observation Hollywood generally makes just before the heroes with pluck win for ever!
  - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
    > And then every now and then a strong little branch of the argument runs up against an example and it becomes well sure, the little hobbyist hackers don't have anything there but that is because the big corps/gov/billionaires/whatever put so much into beating them. It's almost never about the level of resources the organization puts in. The usual reason is that there isn't enough incentive to do it. What is a hobbyist going to do with a nuclear weapon? Why spend your time creating one if you, like the overwhelming majority of people, have no desire to blow up a city? Preventing something that hardly anybody would be trying to do even if it wasn't being suppressed is a lot more practical than preventing something millions of people would do given the chance.
cmxch 5mo ago
You don’t happen to know a certain Doc Brown?