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

261–270 of 742 posts

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

#261

Post by 6510 »

dylan604 wrote: post #205
Retric wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes minimal skills or effort to grow pot. This is closer to banning moonshine which was arguably fairly effective.

Whoa there big fella. Let's not denigrate weed growers with your broad brush trying to a make a point. Anyone that believes growing pot takes minimal effort clearly does not know what they are talking about. Maybe you can just drop some seeds in the ground somewhere, and maybe a pot plant will grow, but good weed will not be a plant of any value what so ever.

My joke was to ask who is in charge, the pot grower or the plants? You get people who don't know personal hygiene, cant cook, cant run an agenda, cant read a book, cant pay their bills in time, cant keep a cactus alive. They cant do any of those things if their life depended on it. Then all of a sudden they are busy every waking hour doing all of those things to perfection and they talk like professors. Not to mention the possible consequences. If the plants had legs, arms, a brain and access to the internet they would be doing and thinking precisely the same things. Who do you think has the pants on?

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

#262

Post by ExoticPearTree »

empath75 wrote: post #31
henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

It's definitely economic protectionism but it's mostly protectionism for national security reasons. I assume the US is going to start manufacturing drones for war in large numbers in the near term and they need to be made at home (or at least by allies).

I don't understand your argument: what has DJI - a manufacturer of personal use drones - with the US military wanting to build weaponized drones in the US?

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

#263

Post by kube-system »

simplyluke wrote: post #256
mrtksn wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define success. If it's high stock market cap calculated by multiplying the number of shares with the last trade price Europe doesn't have many of those.

I’d flip the question and ask you by what metrics Europes tech sector is performing comparatively well. Employment? Average salary? ARR? I struggle to think of a metric that’s a positive outlier.

Vacation time.

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

#264

Post by questhimay »

henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

[dead]

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

#265

Post by gandalfgeek »

Keep seeing DJI drones at local police dept open houses. They even have a "drone unit" that specializes in SAR, hazardous recon type scenarios. Given extensive existing use throughout US local law enforcement, fire depts etc, not sure if this will actually happen.

Or maybe they all mass-migrate to Anduril solutions?

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

#266

Post by dji4321234 »

bx376 wrote: post #254
dji4321234 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HAHA. DJI drones are amongst the most popular tools of war in the Ukraine conflict. Sometimes they drop bombs directly, but more commonly they're used as long-ranged lookout stations and RF-repeater "hovering motherships" for bomb-equipped one-way FPV drone operators (as well as just general reconnaissance tasks). That said, I don't think this law has anything to do with war, just simple economic protectionism driven…

https://www.skydio.com/solutions/defense

Sure, but DJI drones already weren't eligible for procurement in US defense anyway, so there's not a major net change there (barring weird edge case loopholes with third-party modifications). Skydio already got their protectionism in the federal space, this is a step beyond.

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

#267

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #193
glitchcrab wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as the idea of GDPR (and specifically cookie consent) is well intentioned, the actual laws themselves aren't great. Cookie consent is especially frustrating because it encourages the creators of the consent popups to use dark patterns to try and trick people into just accepting them.

Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary." If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.

> Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies.

There’s a different issue here: lawyers and companies are often concerned that what they deem necessary will be deemed unnecessary when challenged. So, they require cookie consent preemptively to avoid liability in case they get it wrong.

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

#268

Post by gruez »

mrtksn wrote: post #255
gruez wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks. Say all you want about "speculative public trading stocks", but I trust public markets' pricing more than private markets[1] or the government[2]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-26/what-h... [2] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/05/2…

Obsession with pricing the stock is not healthy. According to western reports, China is at least 15 years ahead of US in Nuclear for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-many-15-years-beh... Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc. US is stil ahead in some stuff but the list is getting smaller as the market caps getting bigger and people "richer".

>Obsession with pricing the stock is not healthy.

I'm not claiming it is, just that it's far more objective and far less fudgeable than the alternatives.

>According to western reports, China is at least 15 years ahead of US in Nuclear for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-many-15-years-beh...

>Or public infrastructure, or transportation, or electric cars etc.

Arguably all of those is more due to government intervention than the companies themselves. Nuclear is impossible to build in the US due to overburdensome regulations, infrastructure/transportation is impossible to build due to NIMBY-friendly planning rules, electric cars are massively subsidized by the Chinese government.

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

#269

Post by nostrademons »

beloch wrote: post #247
henvic wrote: post #28

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market...

Speaking as a Canadian, U.S. trade protectionism is nothing new. It happens all the time and frequently targets allies like Canada rather than rivals like China. What U.S. citizens should watch out for is when U.S. protectionism winds up hurting the U.S.'s own economy. e.g. Tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber may have helped out a few U.S. softwood lumber producers with good lobbyists (and Jimmy Carter), but the incr…

That's a large part of the issue, though. The narrative 10 years ago was that we were preventing Chinese from dumping low-cost crap on the U.S. market. Okay, fair enough, keep the crap out. But recent U.S. protectionism has been targeting very high-quality, best-in-class Chinese manufacturers that honestly outcompete anything their U.S. competitors bring to market. Without that competition, there's no incentive for U.S. makers to raise their technological game, and the sector just stagnates and falls behind the rest of the world.

North America has the benefit of two oceans for national defense, but the risk associated with that is one of insularity and stagnation. Ask an indigenous person (if you can find one) how well being a couple hundred years behind European technological development worked out once hostile colonists are on your shores.

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

#270

Post by [deleted] »

doublepg23 wrote: post #210
dghlsakjg wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie consent only apply to non-necessary cookies. The laws are great because every cookie consent form is essentially saying, "we as a company want you to accept a cookie that is unnecessary." If you don't install unnecessary cookies, you don't need to have a consent form.

Do you think the official EU site uses unnecessary cookies? https://european-union.europa.eu/

[deleted]
Post reply on HN