Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

dronedj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 742 posts

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#701

Post by shotnothing »

ryandrake wrote: post #686
palata wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is to say, if you can make a drone for $200, and DJI puts one out for $50, you don't really stand chance The situation was more that western companies could make a drone for $1000, and DJI would make a significantly better drone for $500. Were they both $1000, the DJI drone would still clearly be better. I am not praising DJI for free here. I just think that we need to face the truth. There is no way to improv…

It's not like their drones run on Black Magic or Wizardry. Surely someone can just buy that $50 drone, take it apart, see what components they are using and how much their costs are, and start from there?

I think software and ecosystem is a big part of it, much more than just hardware

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#702

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

mauvehaus wrote: post #455
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her husband has lobbied for NSSF… Why is that bad?

The complaint is typically about access. If you have a policy you'd like your rep to advance, you're stuck going through the same channels nearly everyone is: call, write a letter, etc. If Alice Armalite or Bob Browning[0] wants something advanced, they call their guy who knows not just Stefanik, but probably a bunch of other reps socially through her. Who's more likely to actually get the ear of a politician: you, o…

That’s fine.

But GP didn’t care about industry lobbying, just wanted to cry about guns.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#703

Post by shotnothing »

petsfed wrote: post #169
resoluteteeth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is about planning for the future. In the event of a war the US wants a large existing base of domestic drone manufacturers. Today, that just does not exist at scale as most are made in China. This is similar to efforts to re-shore chip manufacturing. I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be gett…

> I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be getting drones built to order from a military contractor anyway, so I don't think it really matters what the leading consumer manufacturer of drones is to the US military from that perspective. They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their roll…

> They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their rolling drones, and for their submarine controls, because they just work better.

Like oceangate?

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#704

Post by exadeci »

onerepublic wrote: post #622

In 2016, Tesla released the Model 3. When Chinese consumers wanted the most advanced electric vehicles, the Chinese government communicated with Tesla in 2017 about building a factory in Shanghai to produce China-made Teslas. Currently, Tesla is the highest-selling pure electric vehicle brand in China ( Model Y sales in China in December last year were 60,055 volumes ) The intense competition in the electric vehicle…

It's a classic move from corporate America, foreign cars banned if less than 25 years old, high taxes on motorcycles for decades to protect Harley etc...

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#705

Post by caseyy »

blantonl wrote: post #489
caseyy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not under the guise. They are consumer protections. As a European, I like them very much. It surfaces which websites use stronger tactics to track you, and which allow consumer friendly opt-outs. There are even many websites that don’t need the notices as they don’t use cookies for tracking a natural person (their cookies are not associated with personally identifiable information). So we can choose what we use becau…

It surfaces which websites use stronger tactics to track you, and which allow consumer friendly opt-outs. The problem is I didn't see a single web site that I visited where this was apparent. It was a mess of opt-in pop-ups and settings and whatnot that completely overwhelmed me with actionable things I had to do before I could interact with a site, and often many companies clearly just said F it and blocked anyone f…

It becomes apparent after a while. Generally, the websites that have very intrusive pop-ups or no real way to opt-out of associating cookies with personally identifiable information (that is what the notice is for) present themselves as information abusers, and that is a very important signal. I have very low trust that they respect privacy or have it as a value in their business. So it's good to know I shouldn't use their services nor hand over any personal data.

Some websites have become region-locked, but I found that it's mostly those who cater to American audiences anyways. Perhaps if you travelled to Europe, this was more of a problem for you because you wanted to read the local news back home. For us, back home is here, so local American websites region-locking us out isn't a big inconvenience. They probably only do this if European audiences don't make up much of their readership anyways — they wouldn't want to lose significant ad revenue.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#706

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #696
rayiner wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A concession has no legal effect. We have the tradition because it reassures the supporters of the losing candidate that the election system is trustworthy. If you say the word “concede” but then spend the next four years saying “the election was stolen” and “the president is illegitimate” you’re damaging public trust just as much as if you hadn’t conceded. Gore, more than anyone in recent memory, deserves a special…

> If you say the word “concede” but then spend the next four years saying “the election was stolen” and “the president is illegitimate” you’re damaging public trust just as much as if you hadn’t conceded. False dichotomy. > Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor. What you call "exploit[ing] a loophole," others would call "invoking a…

Gore was a cheater, and the only reason he’s not remembered as such is because Americans are bad at math. What he did was as bad as Google exploiting tax law loopholes to make it seem like all their income is earned in Ireland. Except election law is even less of a proper place for creative lawyering than tax law.

But to circle back to my point above, this is why Trump was inevitable and necessary. Republicans must use the Gore standard for litigating elections, the Hilary Clinton standard for talking about elections they lost, and the Alvin Bragg standard for political prosecutions. If Republican presidents aren’t appointing judges who will look for constitutional standards hidden inside “penumbras,” they are committing political malpractice.

(And the “popular vote” has zero weight morally. It tells us nothing, because candidates would campaign differently if the popular vote actually mattered. If field goals counted for 7 points in football, teams would play the game differently.)

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#707

Post by herbst »

rainsford wrote: post #524
redserk wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To start: I do not trust the CCP, but my trust in the American legal system has been waning. What's the legal recourse for a US Citizen served with a dodgy FISA-related subpoena/warrant? Or if a government agency wants to purchase tracking data that includes my phone from a data collection agency? Say the state of Texas purchases geotracking data for app users who cross state lines.

Apple famously told the FBI to go pound sand when asked to help access an iPhone in an actual terrorism case (i.e. it wasn't about going after dissidents or journalists or anything), even though such help was definitely within Apple's technical power. Now, while admitting that I am no way claiming the US is perfect, does anyone actually think something even remotely similar would ever happen between a Chinese company…

Apple famously positively answers 80% of all government data requests. No idea why people think Apple is somehow special with your privacy, it isn't.

Ex. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412550/apple-share-user...

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#708

Post by herbst »

forloni wrote: post #352
TheChaplain wrote: post #328

I don't trust DJI. I was looking to replace my GoPro with the DJI Action, but their app was not on the Play-store. It can only be side-loaded on Android, because their app breaks a number of policies on privacy and data gathering. I believe I saw a site that decompiled their app and found a number of worrisome things.

This whole thing is about the trade war with China. Attacking successful Chinese companies with pretenses.

I don't know why even anyone on HN thinks its something else than exactly that

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#709

Post by herbst »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #658
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why BS? The US government can jail me; the Chinese government cannot. I therefore fear surveillance by the US government more than I fear surveillance by the Chinese government. Now, in an ideal world, I want neither China nor the US monitoring me, nor anyone else. But for me personally, the downside from the US monitoring me is larger. That line of reasoning seems sound to me. If you see a flaw in it, state what the…

It skips important details such as courts, juries, and due process. It's a cynical view that the US legal system must work the same way as in authoritarian Communist China. It sounds like a view that someone living in such a system would have. That your system is equally bad but at least ours is across an ocean. Is it a false equivalence?

America is still jailing a lot more people than any other modern country. So either your point is irrelevant and the system doesn't work or it's simply the criminal hotspot of western the world

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#710

Post by mrjin »

onerepublic wrote: post #622

In 2016, Tesla released the Model 3. When Chinese consumers wanted the most advanced electric vehicles, the Chinese government communicated with Tesla in 2017 about building a factory in Shanghai to produce China-made Teslas. Currently, Tesla is the highest-selling pure electric vehicle brand in China ( Model Y sales in China in December last year were 60,055 volumes ) The intense competition in the electric vehicle…

When you cannot compete, then the only option left is removing competitor. Isn't that simple?
Post reply on HN