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

321–330 of 331 posts

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

#321

Post by ericmay »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #304
ericmay wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. This is factually incorrect. Even as recently as this past week the United States Navy has tracked down and seized Russian "shadow fleet" tankers which are operating despite American and European sanctions, and did so with Russian naval vessels nearby and despite strong protests and anger from Moscow. Hopefully Europe can step up its game and do so too. But do you know who is helping Russia besides China…

It's called rational sovereign self interest. Of course, when we do it we're aiding Russia Russia Russia but when you aid and abet terrorists in say Pakistan that's "exporting democracy."

Those kinds of things happen when you're "non-aligned".

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

#322

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

alex43578 wrote: post #315
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bel…

I think this is a strong case of a story having her side, his side, and the truth.

I think the reasonable position to take is that she was not intending to run him over, but he believed (reasonably) that she was, and so shot.

In this case, it'd be wrong to accuse Ross of murder, but it'd also be wrong to label Good as a domestic terrorist as Trump and his administration have been doing.

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

#323

Post by robomartin »

fidotron wrote: post #311
robomartin wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I simply started this comment thread to say that there's a substantial, massive, actually, difference between hobby and commercial/industrial products and here you are blowing it up into a fucking ridiculous moronic argument trying to say this isn't true.

Un-fucking-believable.

Good for you. Fuck it. You win. Happy?

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

#324

Post by leptons »

manarth wrote: post #121
glitchc wrote: post #84

This ban has more to do with how much geodetic data is being transmitted to China and less to do with the actual drone technology. People flying DJI drones are mapping the US on China's behalf, and that too with great fidelity.

> "People flying DJI drones are mapping the US" With more fidelity than, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/ or https://maps.google.co.uk/ ?

And what will they do with the maximum possible resolution a drone can provide, that they can't already do with publicly available data? I mean, if dropping a bomb is the intent, does it really matter if it's 3 inches off?

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

#325

Post by alex43578 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #322
alex43578 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 bel…

I think this is a strong case of a story having her side, his side, and the truth. I think the reasonable position to take is that she was not intending to run him over , but he believed (reasonably) that she was, and so shot. In this case, it'd be wrong to accuse Ross of murder, but it'd also be wrong to label Good as a domestic terrorist as Trump and his administration have been doing.

Sure, I’m fine with that.

The administration, as usual, is making exaggerated and bombastic claims to support a base position that’s actually pretty reasonable (driving towards law enforcement to flee an interaction is dangerous for the driver and LEOs).

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

#326

Post by IAmBroom »

dylan604 wrote: post #174
IAmBroom wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're hard to develop . That is proven by the fact that DJI is by far the industry leader, and everyone else is trailing. We're not talking about duct-taping a Go Pro to an OTS drone.

They don't need to be that hard to develop. It's not like you need a return to base feature. Sort of like wanting to learn how to fly a plane, but not take off and land the plane. You don't need to have the full feature set of a DJI drone to make it a weapon. You also don't need to worry about the battery life of coming back, so you've essentially doubled your distance capabilities, so maybe a stronger radio. Do you…

I've worked for a drone company. It's clear you have not.

Welcome to Dunning-Kruger Club. The first rule of Dunning-Kruger Club is that you don't know you're a member of Dunning-Kruger Club.

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

#327

Post by jjk166 »

mothballed wrote: post #296
jjk166 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see, you think my argument is moot because a successful sabotage or halt of domestic drone production is a victory condition for war. No, I claimed that to fubar the domestic supply chain was a victory condition of the war. Sabotage can be repaired or bypassed, halts can be unhalted. But to fuck up beyond all reason the US domestic industrial capacity, i.e. to render it so that it can not assemble basic electroni…

Silly me, I thought we were talking about the supply chain of drones. You merely wanted to argue against a straw man that literally the entire US industry was destroyed. Since for some reason that is necessary to destroy the domestic supply chain of the thing we were talking about.

Again, not a straw man. It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones. Drones are incredibly easy to manufacture, among the very easiest. It does not require highly specialized machines or exotic skillsets. Components can easily be substituted and designs easily modified to match available resources. There are tens of thousands of manufacturers in the US with the capability to produce such devices. If something happens to a random electronics factory, that production can move to a different electronics factory.

To knock out out the domestic drone supply chain, such that it can not quickly be brought back online, you need to create a situation such that none of these manufacturers are able to make drones. Of course if there is no one who can make a drone, there's no one who can make a missile guidance system, there's no one who can make fighter jets, there's no one who can make radars, there's no one who can make radios, there's no one who can make spare parts for any of these systems and more out in the field. If you still had any of that capability, you would still be able to make drones. Losing the capability to make drones means you have been completely and utterly knocked out of the fight.

Again, I accuse you of not previously thinking through what the supply chain of drones is, and thus your argument is indeed quite silly.

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

#328

Post by jjk166 »

inetknght wrote: post #297
jjk166 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh boy. Suffice to say that it definitely is useful for many things military related. Can you give a single example?

> Can you give a single example? It's not like weapons targeting needs to have high precision data. Robotics or drone planning definitely doesn't need high precision data. Nah. You're right. Higher precision data is absolutely useless to everything.

The have high precision data. The question is what map precision better than 6 inches gets you. Still waiting on one example.

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

#329

Post by sroussey »

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…

> Is that more absurd than the Hezbollah pager bombings? I don't think so.

OMG, get serious. DJI can't blow up the drones. It is in my closet, not my pocket.

Again, this is just silly. Even for James Bond! ;p

It is more "We have to do something!!" that reminds me of cities in California having moratoriums on building new housing -- who would have thought that people would want to build in order to live in a nice climate. But really was about a new kind of neighbor...

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

#330

Post by mothballed »

jjk166 wrote: post #327
mothballed wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly me, I thought we were talking about the supply chain of drones. You merely wanted to argue against a straw man that literally the entire US industry was destroyed. Since for some reason that is necessary to destroy the domestic supply chain of the thing we were talking about.

Again, not a straw man. It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones. Drones are incredibly easy to manufacture, among the very easiest. It does not require highly specialized machines or exotic skillsets. Components can easily be substituted and designs easily modified to match available resources. There are tens of thousands of manufacturers in the US with the capabil…

> It is necessary to destroy the entirety of US industry to destroy the supply chain of drones.

I was hoping you'd say that, because it cleanly proves my case. Allowing importation of drones won't destroy the drone supply chain; in your own words that would require destroying the entirety of US industry, which importing drones cannot do even if Chinese drone imports or functionality is suddenly cut off.

You've thus crushed the premise and neatly rested the case in my favor. Because you can't possibly simultaneously argue destroying the entire US industry is required and also argue all it takes is flooding and then poisoning the market with import drones.

Post reply on HN