4 ms·

And you really read this article and think "Oh, they might be talking about a missile-equipped military drone"? Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense

And you really read this article and think "Oh, they might be talking about a missile-equipped military drone"? Of course you don't. This is pedantry nonsense that, while becoming common, is really that someone wants to argue, in utter futility, about the definition of a word. For years HN was caught up naval gazing about the difference between hacker and cracker. Now it is this drone garbage.

d_theorist 12y ago
I think you mean "pedantic nonsense".
TeMPOraL 12y ago
It is important, because it shines light on the seriousness and meaningfulness of the issue. Of course I wasn't thinking about an armed Predator (I mentioned it only to highlight the high end of the scope of things that people call "drones"). But here are some questions I'd like the article to answer: - Was it a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft? - Was it something small or the kind of fixed-wing that companies use to do terrain imaging (think 3x4 meters, $10k+/piece)? - Was it a cheap radio-controlled toy or something capable of flying BVR or autonomously? - If fixed wing, was it a proppeler plane or a jet? A lot depends on those answers. If that was just a random dude who bought a Phantom off eBay, then it's not really worth even writing about. On the other hand, it that was a model jet, it has very serious safety implications related to both speed and the noise its engines generate. Furthermore, if that was just an RC heli then again it's probably nothing, while if it was a long-flight-duration BVR/autonomous vehicle, it could be anything from a shady company doing something illegal to criminals scoping places for a strike. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. As for lumping everything under the name "drone" - for the last few years when you saw a news article with the word "drone" in it, it was usually followed by either a causalty count or remarks about police power abuse. People are scared of this term. Also, it feels sort of weird to call a cheap toy-quadcopter "a drone", much in the same way as calling a tank "a car".
- engendered 12y ago
  You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. much in the same way as calling a tank "a car" Hardly, and that analogy is absurd. More like if a bomb went off in a cafe you would be declaring that "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." It's just noise. Noisy bullshit that is ruining HN.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. I really don't know. It's nowhere in the article - neither stated nor implied. > 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. [citation needed] > The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. Excuse me for trying to get a coherent picture out of that article. Also, you realize that contemporary journalism is mostly misleading mixed with blatant lies? I'd be wary of accepting as a fact whatever is not stated but what you're led to implicitly belive. > "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." Nope. Try a headline "a mysterious explosion occured, no one got hurt" and me asking whether it was a gas explosion, a conventional explosive, or just some random kid who discovered that mixing potassium nitrate with sugar leads to fun things happening.

d_theorist 12y ago

I think you mean "pedantic nonsense".

TeMPOraL 12y ago

It is important, because it shines light on the seriousness and meaningfulness of the issue. Of course I wasn't thinking about an armed Predator (I mentioned it only to highlight the high end of the scope of things that people call "drones"). But here are some questions I'd like the article to answer: - Was it a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft? - Was it something small or the kind of fixed-wing that companies use to do terrain imaging (think 3x4 meters, $10k+/piece)? - Was it a cheap radio-controlled toy or something capable of flying BVR or autonomously? - If fixed wing, was it a proppeler plane or a jet? A lot depends on those answers. If that was just a random dude who bought a Phantom off eBay, then it's not really worth even writing about. On the other hand, it that was a model jet, it has very serious safety implications related to both speed and the noise its engines generate. Furthermore, if that was just an RC heli then again it's probably nothing, while if it was a long-flight-duration BVR/autonomous vehicle, it could be anything from a shady company doing something illegal to criminals scoping places for a strike. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. As for lumping everything under the name "drone" - for the last few years when you saw a news article with the word "drone" in it, it was usually followed by either a causalty count or remarks about police power abuse. People are scared of this term. Also, it feels sort of weird to call a cheap toy-quadcopter "a drone", much in the same way as calling a tank "a car".

engendered 12y ago
You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. Reading this article, I can't really be sure if that "mysterious drone" was any of the above, or if someone just strapped few LEDs to a pidgeon. 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. much in the same way as calling a tank "a car" Hardly, and that analogy is absurd. More like if a bomb went off in a cafe you would be declaring that "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." It's just noise. Noisy bullshit that is ruining HN.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity. I really don't know. It's nowhere in the article - neither stated nor implied. > 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors. [citation needed] > The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd. Excuse me for trying to get a coherent picture out of that article. Also, you realize that contemporary journalism is mostly misleading mixed with blatant lies? I'd be wary of accepting as a fact whatever is not stated but what you're led to implicitly belive. > "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...." Nope. Try a headline "a mysterious explosion occured, no one got hurt" and me asking whether it was a gas explosion, a conventional explosive, or just some random kid who discovered that mixing potassium nitrate with sugar leads to fun things happening.