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

The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 331 posts

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#311

Post by fidotron »

robomartin wrote: post #306
fidotron wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, no. Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. "OK". This is why your snark is so easily detectable, you're the one that doesn't see how things have moved on. > Once again, sorry, you might want to stop, this statement shows just how little you know. There's nothing in hobby-world that even remotely compares to the requirements of commercial and industrial products. > Simple example: Nobody producing h…

> This is why your snark is so easily detectable If I argue with my wife about medical matters (she is an MD) her response might look or sound snarky to some. In reality, she would be correct in telling me how and why I would be wrong. You really need to stop, because you are digging a deeper hole with every word. You just said that 3D printers and drone are easy consumer products to develop. You truly do not underst…

> You really need to stop, because you are digging a deeper hole with every word. You just said that 3D printers and drone are easy consumer products to develop.

Basically you can't actually read then and are just imagining things to argue with while slinging insults.

I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming - you're the one dismissing the entire hobbyist field, while attempting to deflect otherwise.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#312

Post by glaslong »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #111
jadedanalyst wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. They can’t control the narrative if journalists and activists can observe brutal state violence against citizens with their pocket drones. I picked up an older DJI model in December and am super glad I did with recent events.

They'll probably consider you a domestic terrorist if you use it, then shoot you.

If they would shoot us for this, then it's absolutely worth being shot to do it.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#313

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

alex43578 wrote: post #216
leptons wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He pulled his gun out before she moved the car anywhere . He was already intending to shoot her.

You do know that’s a lie easily refuted by all the video evidence, right?

Not at all.

I watched the video from Ross's phone. At first, from that angle, it actually looks like he's lunging in front of Good's car, but then I remembered the other angle. He moved his phone from his right hand to his left hand so he could grab his gun. But the car is still traveling in reverse as this happens.

And when Good starts moving, the wheel is cranked to the right -- away from Ross. I notice something important: Ross did not back away when the car starting moving. He stood his ground. If Good was intending to run over him, all she would have needed to do was center the wheel, maybe even keep it slightly to the left. But no, she was cranked to the right, away from him. Ross didn't move at all, and didn't get run over.

From what I can see, Good hit reverse to execute a 2-point turn to leave, and Ross responded by moving his phone to his left hand so he could unholster his gun with his right.

But the fact is, Ross failed to properly act according to training. If you do believe someone is trying to run over you, the proper response is to get the hell out of the way, not stand your ground and shoot the driver. Cars aren't exactly known for stopping just because the driver is dead.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#314

Post by efnx »

tejohnso wrote: post #193
efnx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if we should be so sure that he will be gone in three years. There is no incentive for him to relinquish control peacefully. We’ll have to give him a plea bargain, or a pardon of sorts, to incentivise him stepping down. Without one his back will be against a wall (or iron bars in this case), and he will gladly escalate to stay in power to avoid incarceration.

Since when does he need to worry about incarceration? He's already been found guilty on 34 felony counts and nothing happened.

Without a plea bargain, he would have to worry about incarceration as soon as he stepped down, is my point.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#315

Post by alex43578 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #313
alex43578 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know that’s a lie easily refuted by all the video evidence, right?

Not at all. I watched the video from Ross's phone. At first, from that angle, it actually looks like he's lunging in front of Good's car, but then I remembered the other angle. He moved his phone from his right hand to his left hand so he could grab his gun. But the car is still traveling in reverse as this happens. And when Good starts moving, the wheel is cranked to the right -- away from Ross. I notice something i…

>He pulled his gun out before she moved the car anywhere

So this is a lie, by your own admission. Her car is already moving before he reaches for his gun.

--

The tactic of relocating is not a legal requirement. Failing to retreat doesn't prevent him from defending himself.

While Minnesota absurdly has "duty to retreat" laws, since he is operating as federal law enforcement he is only required to have "reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death... to the officer", and he can reasonably believe that she is trying to run him over, given she puts it in gear and pulls forward towards him, from a stop, as he's right at her bumper.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#316

Post by spiderfarmer »

shuntress wrote: post #37
spiderfarmer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no secret that VC's are profiting massively from this administration. And all comments critical of the current regime are getting downvoted on HN. Something adds up.

Saying "Something adds up" without elaboration is a dog whistle for conspiracy theory weirdos.

One of many such services: https://upvote.club/

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a business model and PR companies use them.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#317

Post by rixtox »

showerst wrote: post #285
sroussey wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. You are worried that china will remotely control my DJI mini during a war? How will it even get out of my closet to create such havoc for 26 minutes before it drops out of the sky begging me for a new battery?

I'm honestly much more worried about the fact that China has access to production lines for zillions of the things than what they'd do with existing ones, but I did make the comment so I'll run with it =). Let's put on our fun James Bond villain hats for a bit. The US has around 1.75MM drones that people have bothered to register. DJI has around 75% of that, so call it 1.25MM. This registration program is relatively…

If US and China, two nuclear powers, engaged in direct wars, drone attacks would be the least to be worried about.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#318

Post by b112 »

throw0101d wrote: post #171
b112 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of all the rest, what a saying meant 1000 years ago is irrelevant. I find it bizarre anyone is providing historical usage as if proves something. You could pick endless words and sayings in English from 1000 years ago, which are entirely different now. So what? The modern usage is quite clear.

> The modern usage is quite clear. Perhaps it is "clear", but it may have lost the lesson of the original adage. Perhaps that lesson is worth knowing.

That's not what's being done here.

Instead, the prior meaning is being used in an attempt to discredit the validity of the current meaning.

Instead of attacking the argument, it is attacking the medium. This is a logical fallacy.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#319

Post by mikkupikku »

venndeezl wrote: post #290
mikkupikku wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "lacking authenticity" I am sharing my genuine opinions and perspectives. I assume you are as well. Let's keep it civil. As for tiktok/etc, I don't think that has much of anything to do with ICE and has a lot more to do with squelching legitimate anti-zionist speech. That said, it does plausibly have a lot more to do with domestic protests than a DJI drone ban, which is hardly a blanket ban on drones, and really wi…

Nice job editing the comment I replied to after the fact.

Did I? Don't think I did, maybe to correct some grammar. I don't change the meaning of comments after writing them.

Re: The U.S. Government Just Followed Through on Its Ban of DJI Drones

#320

Post by simianparrot »

mikkupikku wrote: post #236
simianparrot wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She tried to run over a police officer.

I don't agree, but I think there is some reasonable room for disagreement. I think she was merely being reckless, and the shooter didn't earnestly fear for his life but thought he'd be able to argue he was. In either case, it should go before a jury.

First of all it's easy to sit and armchair a situation like that and in hindsight to boot. We weren't there. We shouldn't assume what the federal officer was feeling. Second, same officer _had_ been injured and had his foot in stitches from another "protestor" who had driven into him not long ago.

Driving into someone is what's considered lethal force in law enforcement. The woman got shot after consistently ignoring police commands and then enacted lethal force on a federal officer. There's no ambiguity here.

Post reply on HN