621–630 of 943 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the Toyota acceleration accidents were almost certainly the result of operator error. The fact that the staistical probablity increased with age gives that away. However, Toyota got convicted because their software development process was so terrible that they were effectively criminally negligent and deserved to get absolutely roasted for it.
Did they use tons of global variables?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"How can anyone know these aren't a threat without knowing whose they are?" Easy. They didn't say they don't know whose they are. They could belong to a private contractor who is paid by the military but the military doesn't own the drones nor company (plausible deniability /outsourcing.) Or they could be a friendly country (e.g. UK) red-teaming the US with our consent. I've never heard anyone apply the Five Eyes hor…
yea this is the sad shitty answer - it's just a private company w/ a government contract gathering data on us
A substantial leap. Given that these are flying near military installations, wouldn't the most plausible explanation be that these are test flights? What data would be gathered from low altitude that could not be aggregated from the myriad other sensors in our environments? Or from satellites, etc.?
Seems like the U.S. military has taken to heart that in any near future conflicts, forces of any branch will need to be heavily augmented by drones for reconnaissance, offense, and defense. So, if that's true, I would expect any military site at which personnel are trained to be flying drones constantly. And it serves them no benefit to let everyone know what they're doing. If the U.S. public is "read in", so are all potential adversaries.
Quick summary after following this for a few days: FBI says they're rotary and fixed-wing drones, White House says they aren't foreign adversaries, Pentagon says they aren't USA military, all 3 insist that there's no indication of a real threat despite the drones being bigger and higher tech than retail drones. Politicians are PO'd that something about this doesn't add up: How can anyone know these aren't a threat wi…
People would do well to keep in mind the episode of drone hysteria which happened at Gatwick airport in 2018. Hundreds of sightings were reported over a period of several days, shutting down the airport completely. It was a massive media event, camera crews from every outlet were at the airport, but none ever photographed a drone. None of the radar systems at the airport, nor the military anti-drone systems sent late…
Please tell me that’s someone who takes photos using drones not photos of drones - for a living
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can anyone know these aren't a threat without knowing whose they are? Because they are theirs, obviously. They just won't say it.
Neither FBI nor Pentagon have ability to fly drones in the US airspace at will. On the contrary, they, like everyone else, have to get FAA approvals and those always leak. And usually in fact published by the FAA who needs to warn pilots of potential threats -- one could go to the official FAA website and search those NOTAMs. Ignoring FAA by the FBI or the military just doesn't happen, the price to pay is WAY too hig…
What's more, the feds are clearly signalling that these are ours. As others point out, you can't say its not an adversaries asset unless you know whose it is. Which would suggest either they are flying these illegally, they have some kind of exemption to fly in civilian air space, or they are being flown in military air space that is observable from non-military locations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
People like this talk a big game but the warrant will be written and they will comply. Always the online warriors that act tough but always fold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what's so surprising is that they would run a secretive program in such a conspicuous manner, not that the secretive program exists.
Can you think of a better way to normalize it? Think about the average persons response to online privacy these days for a good indicator about how people will feel about drone monitoring in a few years if this is normalized.
Quick summary after following this for a few days: FBI says they're rotary and fixed-wing drones, White House says they aren't foreign adversaries, Pentagon says they aren't USA military, all 3 insist that there's no indication of a real threat despite the drones being bigger and higher tech than retail drones. Politicians are PO'd that something about this doesn't add up: How can anyone know these aren't a threat wi…
The Chinese "spy balloon" that it turned out wasn't a spy balloon (according to the pentagon)? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66062562
> Pentagon spokesperson Brigadier General Pat Ryder said on Thursday that the US was "aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities". ... He said the efforts the US took to mitigate any intelligence gathering "contributed" to the balloon's failure to gather sensitive information.
So it was a spy balloon but it was off, or it was a spy balloon and on and we outsmarted it, or it was a spy balloon and it malfunctioned at least in part.
Nothing in that source suggests that it was not a spy balloon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like this talk a big game but the warrant will be written and they will comply. Always the online warriors that act tough but always fold.
All this talk about "2nd amendment is about deposing tyranny" and yet they weren't the ones protesting the wars in the middle east and the Patriot act, two recent and objectively tyrannical acts. In fact, we know that the gun nuts in the US were broadly on the side of SUPPORTING those two things.