441–450 of 454 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to read a bit more on autonomous systems and navigation, it will surely tame your hubris. Everything is simple if you don't understand it.
You have never written autonomous navigation systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you even defend against this in a terrorist use case? You can't, and you don't. That is why it is called terrorism. Safety and freedom are sometimes antagonistic goals. This is an example. Terrorism is defended against by not changing society despite the terrorism. It is violence with a political goal, if the politics do not change, the terrorism fails. Not every soft target can (nor should be) hardened, the…
Interesting, my take is completely the opposite - you defend against terrorism precisely by changing the society as the material circumstances change, so that the disenfranchised can have their interests represented and achieve a political goal without having to blow stuff up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re parked in the open because of the treaty requiring those type of assets be observable by spy satellites. The USA in turn does the same.
Nope. You are talking about the New Start treaty. 1) Russia suspended the treaty 2023, so it is not relevant here. 2) The use of hangars is not prohibited, as can be seen by the climatized hangars that the US keeps their B1 in. 3) Russia has announced plans for such reinforced hangars years ago, but very likely some dacha or yacht had higher priority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you even defend against this in a terrorist use case? You can't, and you don't. That is why it is called terrorism. Safety and freedom are sometimes antagonistic goals. This is an example. Terrorism is defended against by not changing society despite the terrorism. It is violence with a political goal, if the politics do not change, the terrorism fails. Not every soft target can (nor should be) hardened, the…
Interesting, my take is completely the opposite - you defend against terrorism precisely by changing the society as the material circumstances change, so that the disenfranchised can have their interests represented and achieve a political goal without having to blow stuff up.
(2) "Defending" soft targets I posit is just an impossible task unless society becomes so locked down that it is unrecognizable. Lots of Sci-Fi has been written on this topic, eg: 'thought crimes', 'judge dredd'.
Sticking to the theme of point (1).. The French revolution was lead by terrorists. They terrorized the aristocracy (and arguably had no other outlet): "cede power or you'll keep getting your heads chopped off." The aristocracy then ceded power. Whether society is forced to change or voluntarily changes is almost an immaterial difference at that point.
OTOH, consider if someone started blowing up libraries in the US. If the response is to shut down libraries, then the population has been terrorized. Bombings in subways were common at a point, if the subways shut down - the population has been terrorized.
In the 1960s, (US) police used dogs against voter registration organizers. To have been terrorized would have been to stop voting, stop voter registration. That terrorism was not successful.
OTOH, lynchings in the US were a prevalent form of terrorism. IE: "this is what happens when you 'don't know your place'". It worked. I recall there is data showing a large change in regional population dynamics for _decades_ following a lynching.
Timothy McVeigh could have done stuff within the libertarian party, but instead chose a path of violence. Timothy McVeigh failed, he blew up a building and that is all that happened.
The 9/11 hijackers chose a path of violence as well. The 9/11 terrorism OTOH was arguably massively successful - a huge wedge developed between cultures & religions, US society radically changed and the US government was successfully baited and began fighting wars that drained its diplomatic, military and financial power.
So, I think for repressed societies, one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In 'open' societies, the terrorist is trying to change the society in some way, through violent means (a shortcut). Changing the society in that way is achieving the aims of the terrorist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, my take is completely the opposite - you defend against terrorism precisely by changing the society as the material circumstances change, so that the disenfranchised can have their interests represented and achieve a political goal without having to blow stuff up.
(1) Depends on the society. We perhaps agree based on which society we are discussing, and who the terrorists are. (2) "Defending" soft targets I posit is just an impossible task unless society becomes so locked down that it is unrecognizable. Lots of Sci-Fi has been written on this topic, eg: 'thought crimes', 'judge dredd'. Sticking to the theme of point (1).. The French revolution was lead by terrorists. They terr…
Strictly speaking, the original, “terrorists” for whose “terrorism” in instituting “the Terror” those terms were all coined as specific terms and later genericized were Robespierre and certain other top leaders of the regime established by the Revolution; that groups overlaps with, but is not coextensive with, leaders of the Revolution; the aristocracy already had their legal power stripped before the whole head chopping thing (which was very much not limited to the aristocracy, the vast majority of the ~15k formal executions and the ~10k who died in custody without trial were commoners, and the ratio is even higher for the ~300k killed outside of judicial process during the Terror.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently, there were hundred+ drone pilots available who were spread across several timezones should the AI not be able to find their way visually. If you see some of the streaming video snippets, it says GPS fix unavailable likely due to jamming of GNSS systems and disabling of civilian GLONASS near bases. As such, Russian domestic cell carriers were reportedly used to stream video and for manual terminal guidance…
One report said the drone attack was sequential, not swarming. So perhaps only one remote operator per truck, with about 2-3 minutes between each drone launch, depending on how far the previous one had to go to reach its target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As an engineer, I am fascinated by it all. As a human, I am horrified that we democratized violence on this scale. How do you even defend against this in a terrorist use case? When a small drone with a grenade or homemade explosive is so accessible? Any Christmas market in central Europe these days is surrounded by car barriers to prevent mass run-overs, but what do you do when soon someone has the idea of dropping…
Well you can’t just throw a Molotov because in that case you’re going to get caught. You can place a drone, go home and have it drop the Molotov the next day and no one would know who did it.
A few folks on this site might know how to work around these measures. Most of us would probably fail on some subtle way. You’re average terrorist isn’t nearly as tech savvy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Wtf? You can't post like this to Hacker News and we ban accounts that do. Worse, you've been posting similar things elsewhere too (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43848538 ). I don't want to ban you because you've also posted good things, but if you keep posting ideological and/or political flamebait, and especially religious or nationalistic slurs, we will. Therefore, if you wouldn't mind reviewing https:/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wtf? You can't post like this to Hacker News and we ban accounts that do. Worse, you've been posting similar things elsewhere too (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43848538 ). I don't want to ban you because you've also posted good things, but if you keep posting ideological and/or political flamebait, and especially religious or nationalistic slurs, we will. Therefore, if you wouldn't mind reviewing https:/…
I used no slur.