We are getting to the technological capability/availability stage where drone based terror attacks are a real threat... Imagine a swarm of drones with 9mm handguns, flamethrowers, bombs, acid, etc... Multiple operators that can't be killed because they are far away. Terrifying!
I imagine the government has plans to prevent this like how they close airspace near big events or employing drone jamming technology around a perimeter for large events. Idk this all just scares me a bit. Does anybody smarter have a good point of re-assurance? This just seems much more capable to do large amounts of damage where the operator may still feel "safe" which lowers barrier to entry.
> Does anybody smarter have a good point of re-assurance?
I'm not very smart, but I don't think you need to worry about drones using the linked flamethrower attachment: in order to buy from the website, the terrorist needs to click the "Agree" checkbox that says "I understand that operating a drone or UAS in the US with this attachment would require a Part 107 Waiver."
This page has some information about operating drones over people: https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/operations_over... . That page says "the remote pilot must take steps using a safety risk-based approach to ensure that ... the small UAS is not operated in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another (§ 107.23)". So IIUC, I think it's likely that the FAA would deny the application for the Part 107 Waiver, and the terrorist wouldn't be able to use it.
I’m 99% sure you’re joking… but since this is the internet, I’ll say it explicitly: obviously the terrorist would check the box, never bother applying for FAA waiver, and fly the drone anyway.
Drone jamming technology? What are they doing, jamming the entire 2.4 and 5GHz frequencies? Seems like it would jam everything else nearby too. Sounds like total BS to me... If I was doing something shady, I certainly wouldn't use the default frequencies. You're already doing something illegal with the drone, why would you care about keeping inline with the FCC regulations? The entire spectrum is yours to use.
Not to mention, if the drones were fully autonomous, they don't even need to be run by a remote control.
Oh ya think? Drones with explosive ordnance have been used in terror attacks for years now. You should be scared.
But really you should be thankful you don’t live somewhere that the US feels it can drop hellfire missiles from predator drones with zero regard for collateral damage.
The terrorists have had a pretty damn good reason to start using drones. We did it first.
Anti drone technology is actually a pretty decent sized market right now and there's plenty of options. I'm not an expert, but I've got a buddy who is into this stuff and we've talked about this before. According to him, some companies are using high powered lasers and microwaves to destroy the drones from distance. Others offer ways to either mess up the drones GPS and send it off course or hack into the drone and take control of it. More than a few companies make large net guns that can be fired to take the drones down and I've heard of companies who train eagles to knock them out of the air.
I definitely think it's a threat, but I think it's a well known threat at this point and something that is accounted for for large events. I doubt it's anymore likely than any other type of terrorist attack.
Thoughtful idea, I've also been thinking about that for a long time but surprised it hasn't happened yet. I've never tried to tackle the tech but I'm guessing it must be hard to execute it with the precision necessary for good results.
I bet a large part of the graffiti scene, would see that as cheating as you would remove huge chunks of the danger. As an armchair psychologist, I know it's not the art that attracts teenage boys to graffiti.
For a glimpse into how complicated this is, take a look at how Israel has been dealing with Hezb and Iranian drones. They're very hard and expensive to defeat and fairly effective unless you're willing to put full time air patrols in the sky
It exists at MUCH SMALLER amounts. Their conclusion drawing should be based on an amount should it not? Lead from shooting my gun is not going to damage me the same as eating a bunch of handfulls of pure lead because of the AMOUNT that my body will end up processing. Quantity is so key its absurd to overlook it.
So a less functional ChromeBook? I'm struggling to find the use case for your use case. Maybe for kids education if you want them to have limited capabilities? But otherwise it is just another OS with way less software support.
As it stands, that's true. However, with the continuous advancements in WebAssembly, and if we open a store where people can install open-source software, a lot of great things could come from that.
But... why not just let people install open source software as is? Stripping down the OS to "just" the browser leaves most of the OS. At that point we're arbitrarily restricting users to apps that run in the browser for no real reason or benefit.
I have not checked out any of this, but I guess the main advantage is that you can log in from anywhere, on any device that has a web browser, and have your full OS?
Well said, that is always how I saw it as well. The sort of math problem solving we did for fun in school but all the problems require programmatic thinking and usually eventually an algorithm. I learned so much from doing Eulers. Even basic stuff I thought I would know like the best way to get GCD
Why? So massive differences in wealth look significantly smaller? By graphing this in log scale you are admitting there is an "exponentially growing delta between rich and poor" and log makes it easier to even visualize (which is insane to begin with).
Disagree, the point is to visually show there is an exponential difference between LITERALLY EVERYONE (uber driver to Google engineer to VP) and like 100 people who have insane amounts of wealth. I agree Uber driver is not in the same bucket, but the way to fix it isn't going after VP its going after the other hump in the binomial where the wealth is being hoarded for generations.
He's using a lot of that wealth to try to get people elected that say they want to do things that will significantly increase my costs over the next few years. Does that count?
My living standard is a function of my personal wealth/income and the health of the society and the functions the government provides.
Elon Musks income (realised when he takes out personal loans against his equity), taxed at marginally higher rates trending to 100% above say $1 billion, would deliver more money to the government for schools, hospitals, transport, science, mental health etc,
That would benefit everyone and not really change Mr Musk's purchasing patterns or standard of living due to the way "propensity to consume" works at extreme wealth levels. Significant personal luxury, mansions, jets, art, yachts, etc can be had for under $1 billion per year in realised income.
So while it is true my personal wealth is not lessened by Mr Musk's success, my possible living standard and that of my countrymen is below what is possible by not effectively taxing him and deploying that money into government functions.
Not to mention the way he and other high net worth individuals use their wealth to influence elections and lobby government legislation and policy...
> The population is literally the wealthiest it has ever been. Elon Musk being more wealthy does not diminish your wealth.
That's a big claim, and the wrong metric. I don't care if everyone is wealthier than they've ever been, I care how their wealth compares to what it would be if society's wealth were distributed more rationally.
> jealousy
That's a hot take.
I want wealth to be distributed in a rational way so that I don't have to worry about the people near the bottom end of the curve having to worry about being jealous of people like me. I'm doing great, I don't have any real envy of Musk/Gates/whoever. I want all the people making less than me to feel like they can also live a good life. Framing it selfishly -- I want a peaceful, happy society, little crime, little hate, etc. The less people have to struggle just to live, the better all of our lives become.
There’s always somebody who defends this kind of absurd wealth distribution, and I never understand it.
Even if everyone is wealthier, you’re getting screwed. I’ve always wanted to ask - why are you defending the ultra wealthy? Do you think that a fairer wealth distribution mechanism would hurt your personal wealth?
Yes and no. Yes, Elon having a dollar means that I don't have that dollar. But no, Elon has most of his money tied up in stock, and that means he's not using it to raise the price of groceries or houses. He's not competing for houses in my neighborhood or groceries at my store.
The potential is there - he could sell all his stock and start buying up houses. But at least at the moment, he isn't. What he's doing at the moment is, he's driving up the price of the stock he holds, which doesn't affect my wealth at all.
I think the diagram on a linear scale makes the stark point that to Elon Musk, there is not really a difference between someone worth $499 and someone worth $499M, even though to me there is a massive difference between those people.
No, according to economic theory, the law of diminishing marginal utility generally does not apply to money. Please cite a source that says having more AUM somehow decreases potential yield. Sounds retarded. People say stuff that needs evidence then say obviously like its a source.
I think GP doesn't mean "returns" as in investment returns. I think they're talking about like... living. The utility of buying a second (or tenth) house/car/whatever is drastically lower return than the utility of buying your first one.
However, the utility of money starts to drastically increase once you reach a tipping point where it can start allowing you to wield real political power.
The graph of monetary utility may look like a logarithmic graph at first glance, but that's just because it's more like a C1 + (x-C2)^3 graph where you haven't followed x far enough to the right.
Remember when Michael Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars to be on the Democratic debate, and Elizabeth Warren burned that money down with a single zinger?
"I couldn't care less about the shock value. I just want to look at the distribution and do nothing with that information even though there is something incredibly shocking here."
> finding the one that converges the fastest is quite valuable given the cost of running GPU's at scale
Not to him, he runs the ARC challenge. He wants a new approach entirely. Something capable of few-shot learning out of distribution patterns .... somehow
You need to use it for some time to get into their higher tiers of usage. I used to also have this problem and it annoyed me greatly, but once I got to usage tier 4 it never happened again (except for o1-preview but that just wastes tokens IMO).
reply