431–439 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a feature of followers of Peter Thiel Thought (and, in this case, Peter Thiel was one of the early investors).
The name Anduril means “Flame of the West”, which sounds cool as hell. But it feels a little icky to me given the ideological proclivities of Palmer Luckey and Thiel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we don’t end up needing it: enjoy the sweet pentagon money. If we do end up needing it: enjoy the adoration of the people _and_ the money. Win-win.
You’re missing a couple use cases there. Particularly the ones when these weapons, which can’t refuse an order like a meat sack soldier would, shoot at _you_. I’m not saying “don’t build weapons”, btw. By all means do. I’m saying as far as risk is concerned, this is by far the riskiest direction imaginable
Obviously they won’t, but because the problem here is that the humans do not want the machine to question them, it’s only a matter of time before the bad guys have them anyway. I’m inclined to say that it’s better the good guys (at least from my perspective) have them first.
You might disagree with the SJW fork attack on nix. But if you also disagree with the idea of Haskell powered death drones blowing up innocent little baby humans, then you might have incentive to support - or at least loudly ignore - the forking / sabotage / leftist troll op.
Me, I will take an Even More aggressive track: I honestly hope this turmoil leads to a better version of the nix syntax. Perhaps something much cleaner: A YAML based syntax that eliminates curly braces and the need for many nix functions.
Yes, I'm being a little evil >:]
It's impressive how much hardware they've been able to develop. Their "Fury", which they acquired from Blue Force, is "a single engine business jet with no cabin." It was originally intended as a target drone, something for fighter pilots to practice against. Anduril repurposed it as an autonomous weapons system. They do mean autonomous. Their slogan is "Autonomy for Every Mission". We're seeing the future of warfare…
Just remember that, unless your goal is just to kill everyone and scorch the earth, the aim of warfare is to occupy and control territory, which at some point necessitates humans to do the occupation. Nobody is yet trying to create permanent wastelands inhabited only by robots. It may become increasingly dangerous, but whether it's helicopters or some other means of transportation, you have to get humans into the lan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this does create dramatic videos, it does not represent much of an actual change. Most of these small drone operate well within the range of traditional infantry-killing weapons such as mortar shells. The tactics have changed, but the idea of an infantry unit killing another infantry unit at a couple miles distance isn't a revolution.
The impact on logistics is at least somewhat revolutionary. Previously it probably took several cases of mortar shells to inflict one casualty. Now that can be done with a couple of drones. Much lighter.
Do you think it's 1, 2, or 3 drones to get 1 kill?
Jamming and dying batteries make the odds much worse than that.
Look up how many drones have been expended in Ukraine. Then look up how many casualties there have been. Finally, understand that not all casualties ate caused by drones, and do the math.
It's impressive how much hardware they've been able to develop. Their "Fury", which they acquired from Blue Force, is "a single engine business jet with no cabin." It was originally intended as a target drone, something for fighter pilots to practice against. Anduril repurposed it as an autonomous weapons system. They do mean autonomous. Their slogan is "Autonomy for Every Mission". We're seeing the future of warfare…
If that were true, foot soldiers would have been done once the enemy had anything to kill them. And the enemy had the ability to kill foot soldiers from the earliest days of warfare.
Everything in the battlefield in vulnerable. Everything.
Being vulnerable does not make something obsolete.
What makes something obsolete is when that thing is no longer the best way to accomplish any mission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 10% success chance seems incredibly effective. I would have estimated the chances quite a bit lower. Tanks are million dollar devices, which are expensive to replace and require significant training. If they can be effectively attacked by infantry without putting themselves in significant danger, that drastically lowers the value of a tank.
We had man-portable ATGMs for decades, they didn't "lower the value of a tank". Less than 10% is not good when you consider how much does it cost in practice. Drone teams are often 2 pilots + technician + explosives technician (an incredibly risky job btw, those bastardised RPG warheads are live and sensitive) + infantry cover. At least double that if you want to strike beyond line of sight and need a retransmitter d…
ATGMs did lower the value of tanks, but not to 0. Anything that can knock out a weapons system decreases the value of that weapons system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A startup founder lying to get juicy government contracts? Say it ain't so!
I dunno, this was pretty impressive and real, maybe OP knows better and it is a ruse. https://twitter.com/anduriltech/status/1730451908794720388/v...
https://youtu.be/gwrH4EpUxvE?si=5yyu86OEDb5JGU3L
This fucking golf cart with a laptop welded to the dashboard is next generation stuff. Holy holy shit. Look at it take out those Chinese subs.
See what I mean about the marketing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just remember that, unless your goal is just to kill everyone and scorch the earth, the aim of warfare is to occupy and control territory, which at some point necessitates humans to do the occupation. Nobody is yet trying to create permanent wastelands inhabited only by robots. It may become increasingly dangerous, but whether it's helicopters or some other means of transportation, you have to get humans into the lan…
You don't have a historical or realistic understanding of warfare. The aim of warfare has always -- and will always be -- to break your enemy's will to fight. Sometimes that involves capturing and holding territory, but those are just "implementation details". In WW2 nuclear weapons were dropped on civilians and there was never any desire by the guys dropping those bombs to occupy territory.