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

721–730 of 742 posts

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

#721

Post by sofixa »

wyager wrote: post #719
sofixa wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDP and GDP PPP are almost irrelevant with regards to personal wealth or lack thereof. A factory making billions to its owner doesn't improve the revenues, wealth or standard of living of more than 1 person. A factory producing luxury Louis Vuitton handbags is good for GDP and the wealth of the factory owner, but is irrelevant to the living conditions of the workers. A private equity firm making wild bets is very "pr…

> A factory making billions to its owner doesn't improve the revenues, wealth or standard of living of more than 1 person... A factory producing luxury Louis Vuitton handbags... is irrelevant to the living conditions of the workers > Come on, this is Econ 101 and basic logic. You griping about luxury goods on principle isn't "Econ 101" or "basic logic". You can look at basically any material metric you like (cars own…

> You can look at basically any material metric you like (cars owned, house size, etc.) and Americans come out ahead

Rate of personal bankruptcies? Homeownership rate? Median household net wealth?

The amount of cars Americans have on absurd loans is entirely irrelevant to their personal wealth or lack thereof.

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

#722

Post by euroderf »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #503
euroderf wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see a requirement that any drone sold in (or imported to) the US (or EU) has to be flashable - without having to desolder components, or any other such nonsense. Press some buttons and load new software. An accompanying requirement would be to document interfaces to hardware subsystems (chip spec sheets would suffice). With drones, the potential for mischief is too great to let malware be smuggled in.…

Impossible, especially for drones, because it would allow people to trivially flash firmware to drones which can bypass restrictions like no-fly zones and reporting requirements which allow the FAA or other LE to answer questions like "who was flying a drone playing chicken with a low-flying Cessna"

I figured geofencing might be a dealbreaker.

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

#725

Post by ziddoap »

mike_d wrote: post #602
ziddoap wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of your point but. > data going to the NSA or something, but in the extremely limited cases where it does protections exist with oversight. They didn't build the Utah Data Center because of their extremely limited amount of data. We all like to joke about our data going to the NSA because our data has been repeatedly been caught going to the NSA.

> They didn't build the Utah Data Center because of their extremely limited amount of data. I love that people point to one of the smallest NSA data centers as if its going to prove some sort of point. Regardless, this is exactly the kind of whataboutism that I am talking about. Every government collects all the data it can. The difference is that the NSA targets foreign governments and terror organizations. The Chin…

>The difference is that the NSA targets foreign governments and terror organizations. The Chinese government targets the same but also goes after their citizens, foreign citizens, foreign corporations, etc.

Thanks for the laugh, this was one of the funnier things I've read in awhile.

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

#726

Post by kaliqt »

_xerces_ wrote: post #717
onerepublic wrote: post #622

In 2016, Tesla released the Model 3. When Chinese consumers wanted the most advanced electric vehicles, the Chinese government communicated with Tesla in 2017 about building a factory in Shanghai to produce China-made Teslas. Currently, Tesla is the highest-selling pure electric vehicle brand in China ( Model Y sales in China in December last year were 60,055 volumes ) The intense competition in the electric vehicle…

A more accurate following of the Chinese model would be for the US to insist that DJI builds its drones for the US market in the US, insist on a partnership with a US company who would then siphon off the knowhow and IP to start building competing products.

The key is to stop rent seeking. Musk pilots the most competitive companies on earth, so of course he isn't scared of China or anyone else, because a truly powerful company takes many dimensions of superiority, not just a few patents.

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

#727

Post by Tepix »

dji4321234 wrote: post #226
Tepix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those drones will be built for war, how are they competing with DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?

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…

Of course DJI drones are used for conflict, however you have to circumvent the measures that DJI has taken to prevent this, DJI is not selling them for use in conflicts.

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

#728

Post by Tepix »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #273
Tepix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those drones will be built for war, how are they competing with DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?

> DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war? As others point out, DJI can't control what buyers do (a good default). Perhaps it would be more accurate to say DJI won't manufacture drones for offensive war use. This sharply limits their usefulness to the US Military. Either way, using US Mil as an excuse doesn't make sense for a ban. They won't be buying gear they have reason to mistrust. As ever, reasons fo…

DJI can prevent you from flying near airports, they can try the same thing with conflict zones. I assumes they do this already and this check has to be bypassed.

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

#729

Post by petsfed »

shotnothing wrote: post #703
petsfed wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be getting drones built to order from a military contractor anyway, so I don't think it really matters what the leading consumer manufacturer of drones is to the US military from that perspective. They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their roll…

> They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their rolling drones, and for their submarine controls, because they just work better. Like oceangate?

The shortcoming of the control scheme was that they wired the motors to respond to the controller wrong. That is, pitch was wired to yaw and vice versa. The controller just sends signals (digital values, specifically), what you do with them is up to you.

If you don’t need accurate force-feedback, just highly reliable transmission of inputs, why wouldn’t you use the final iteration of a controller that millions of players have spent billions of hours using and abusing?

It’s not even a Bluetooth controller, it’s just standard USB. The folks who were shitting on that design decision (and not the carbon fiber hull decision), have no sense of what’s common, or even possible, on a microcontroller device.

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

#730

Post by deciplex »

toss1 wrote: post #716
deciplex wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China has OFFICIALLY one party, a massive and highly intrusive surveillance and censorship apparatus second to none in the world Second to ours. > mobile execution vans literally seizing and executing people on the street by the tens of thousand or more Absolute nonsense.

>>Absolute nonsense. Ah, I se you are one of those who chooses to chooses to ignore the facts of the world [0,1,2,3,4,5]. This is just the top results of a 0.1second search And I notice that you completely avoided my serious question: If it is so much better in China, why are you not moving there? [0] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/China-must-co... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_van [2] h…

> If it is so much better in China, why are you not moving there?

I don't speak Chinese and I'm an American citizen. "If X is so great why don't you move to X?" is such a typical retort from reactionaries to any criticism of the status quo that it's literally a meme. I'm not surprised to find this on HN but I am surprised that you lack self-awareness to the extent that you're actually doubling down on it, here.

Post reply on HN