Live data from Hacker News

Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

france24.com

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "or just because they're hard to obtain " Are they? I have the feeling they are easier to obtain than if they were only sold at dedicated stores and teenagers had to show an ID, or similar to casinos addict trying to get out could ask to be put on ban list. Having said that, legalizing would not get rid of cartels, who are very diversified and also operate illegally on legal products by taxing producers and control…

At least in my circles I'd have a much harder time getting access to meth or heroin than I would a product that can be bought from a special store. I imagine there are many individuals like me, but I'm not sure, which is why I ask for data. There's no doubt in my mind that addicts know how to find dealers, and don't have trouble finding new dealers when their former dealer gets arrested. What I'm worried about and as…

Within your circles it may be hard. But if tasked to get some hard drugs today in a big city you could easily get it done. Find the tweakers who are very public in most cities and ask if they’d sell you drugs.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have legal meth, it's branded Adderall® and we regularly prescribe it to children, grad students, and hedge fund managers. You just have to be rich enough to afford the 'scrip.

I do think Adderall should be available OTC to everybody. It's an open secret that rich kids with no legitimate mental issues buy prescriptions for adderall to boost their school and job performance. The popular talk of "ADHD brains" for which Adderall works differently is pseudoscience tacitly endorsed by the medical community to make people feel okay about using these drugs. They don't just boost the school perform…

I wouldn’t say it is relatively harmless like caffeine. You hardly notice an effect from caffeine. You take adderall you are noticeably stimming on the other hand. You feel quite high and it is in no way subtle.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in my circles I'd have a much harder time getting access to meth or heroin than I would a product that can be bought from a special store. I imagine there are many individuals like me, but I'm not sure, which is why I ask for data. There's no doubt in my mind that addicts know how to find dealers, and don't have trouble finding new dealers when their former dealer gets arrested. What I'm worried about and as…

Within your circles it may be hard. But if tasked to get some hard drugs today in a big city you could easily get it done. Find the tweakers who are very public in most cities and ask if they’d sell you drugs.

I have absolutely no idea where I'd find a "tweaker"(maybe that's a statement on where I live more than anything? and I would never have the courage to go up to them and ask to buy drugs. I imagine best case they'd laugh and ask if you're a cop, worst case they'd sell you god knows what or rob you. It's just completely incomparable to going to a store to buy a product.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#144
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because they watched it long enough to know that it is not going to rendezvous with anyone, and if they wait longer it may turn around and they will lose sight of it?

It very well might have a camera--they knew they had been seen and couldn't just tail it.

it'd be really silly to have a long distance anything with full starlink bandwidth and not transmit images or video. they would have seen law enforcement catch it and poke at it for sure. and even if it was just telemetry, they'd see it was stationary for some period of time, and maybe even detect it was out of the water for a prolonged period of time

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doesn't mean there should be no regulation for drugs whatsoever. Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?

> Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that? If an opiate addict could get their daily heroin legally for $10/day, there would be no black market filled with poorly dosed fentanyl pills that kill people. The amount of overdose deaths is caused by enforcement forcing the market to select an inferior prod…

Not even $10: one tablet of buprenorphine costs like $1 at the pharmacy. Probably more in the US, though.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#146
post #134
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because solar panel math doesn't work. It's the same reason it makes no sense to put solar panels on a car: the solar panels would add minutes of driving daily. You would need massive area of solar panels to power a sub which is obviously not workable if you want to be stealthy.

RCTestFlight begs to differ: > 72hrs On My Unlimited Range Solar Boat > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc2PFExZXas

a narco sub could easily be 50x the weight, needs to move significantly faster (RCTF boat is going like 5mph tops), and is fighting against extremely strong currents and waves (RCTF is on extremely still calm water).

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the humane and sensible thing to do, so obviously we are not going to do that. Let’s double down on enforcement so violence, corruption and profits increase. We really did not learn anything from the alcohol prohibition.

It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doesn't mean there should be no regulation for drugs whatsoever. Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?

No. The drug warriors are neither humane nor sensible. Opioids are actually not all that dangerous, but the range between high and dead is not all that great. When you know what you're getting (chronic pain patients) the problem rate is low.

But with the street you get varying purity. And the drug war has caused the manufacturers to move to more concentrated products to make smuggling easier. And fentanyl has a very nasty property: the tendency to clump. This is no problem for the pharmaceutical industry, but when you have a dealer mixing stuff it's easy for a lethal clump to remain in the product. You get that, you better hope somebody nearby has Narcan.

You don't see it killing the pain patients like it kill the people on the street--this is a dose problem, not something inherent to the drugs.

And why is that a reason, anyway? There is no question as to the most deadly recreational drug: tobacco. Yet it's legal. Protecting the user is clearly not the motivation. (The data isn't so clear on the second because the data is so contaminated, but it looks like it is alcohol.)

Also, the majority of crime traces back to drugs. Remove the drug market, you cut the crime rate in half overnight. And there's no question the drug war causes a lot more harm than the drugs.

I can see no reasonable justification for the low-addictive stuff not to be legal. The highly addictive stuff you can make an argument for it being legal with a prescription, addiction is a valid reason for a prescription. It has been handled that way in the past in England and worked well. In in ideal world I would favor this approach, but I have a sufficient distrust of the politicians to trust this wouldn't become full of obstacles.

Amsterdam's experience with legalization says that it doesn't increase use, but advertising does.

Thus, what I would like to see: General promotional stuff is limited to simple item-price listings. Nothing more can be presented unless the customer has already demonstrated interest, either by entering a website (and the insides of the website can't be bookmarked, you must enter the gate each visit), or by entering a portion of a store devoted to that drug. Externally there must be a minimum of information needed to identify what the business is.

The selecting your stuff part can never be mixed, you want two different types and you must visit both places even if they have a common checkout.

The same rules apply to all recreational drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.

Re: Colombia seizes first unmanned narco-submarine with Starlink antenna

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a choice between legalization of all drugs or violence and corruption. Sure, the way the US cracked down on drugs did more harm than good. But that doesn't mean there should be no regulation for drugs whatsoever. Take the opioid epidemic for example. It claimed the lives of hundreds of people per day. Do you think "humane and sensible" people were responsible for that?

The opioid epidemic is not a great example, as it began by overprescription of legal, regulated medicinal drugs. The problem blew up when authorities started cracking down on those prescriptions, and the newly dependent started seeking drugs from illegal sources. Those sources included clandestinely produced heroin and fentanyl, leading to massive numbers of overdose deaths. In other words, it was the enforcement of…

Actually, it had another serious flaw:

The drug at the center of this was listed as working for 12 hours. In many patients it did not. And the docs do not listen--it's supposed to be every X hours, it's every X hours. Fortunately I've had very little need of pain stuff because I know every single drug that I have ever been able to discern wearing off does so in less than the specified time. Blood pressure by the book of 1/day swings both too high and too low. Same total dose split into morning/evening provides very good control.

Post reply on HN