Using the term "toxic" to describe things is an issue because people have an immediate negative reaction to it and go on the defence. Wording matters a lot and I'm unsure why there's such an insistence on calling things "toxic" when other words would both better describe issues and cause a less visceral reaction.
Most people don't make a conscious decision in how they react to something emotionally, it just happens. If you want people to take what you say seriously you have to consider the PR side of things.
> If drones become a big enough problem for countries like the US, then drone factories in China will be bombed
Bombing China would be an insane course of action to take for virtually any reason.
That aside consider this: You currently have the power to buy a handful of the shelf parts and assemble your own deadly drone at home. You don't need very specialized parts to do this. Bombing drone factories would do nothing to stop the use of drones.
And making drones and drone parts for massive assaults on stationary targets in the US is not an insane course of action?
For proxy wars, super powers won't bomb each other. But if one of them is attacked by weapons from another, then they will.
> You don't need very specialized parts to do this.
So making drones and drone parts do not require any highly advanced technology or manufacturing processes? Then why weren't they widely used in the first world war?
> So making drones and drone parts do not require any highly advanced technology or manufacturing processes?
I'll understand if you aren't a hardware person, but I think you severely overestimate how complex a drone needs to be if you only intend for it to be single use (which is apparently all the rage in modern war).
You don't even need drone specific parts, the parts you need are used in all kinds of other applications...many are even in your home right now whether you know it or not.
To destroy the supply of these generic parts you would have to destroy...basically everything.
> Then why weren't they widely used in the first world war?
This statement alone makes me not take your argument seriously. You aren't arguing in good faith.
No they're exactly right: drones need cheap, powerful parts which have only become possible due to highly concentrated mass production in places like China. You aren't fabbing up integrated machine learning SOCs in a shed in Ukraine, and the cheapness of the parts depends on large unfettered supply chains. They're not "with some skill, you can build a lathe and then machine a pipe gun" simple.
In a direct conflict, no one is going to sit back and be destroyed by drone swarms: they'll bomb the industrial districts.
In war, the enemy gets a say in your plans: Iran can't beat the US directly, but it can hit energy infrastructure around the Gulf which is politically untenable for the US.
But it works the other way too: if your enemies plan is "you won't bomb the big industrial facilities so we'll just win" then you break out the fancy expensive missiles and bomb the industrial facilities. Or the power plants.
> You aren't fabbing up integrated machine learning SOCs
All the basic sensors you need for flight exist in the literal billions of Android phones produced in the last 15 years.
I'm trying to be evasive about how you'd build such a thing because I don't want a visit over a comment online, but if you understand aerodynamics you can make almost anything fly.
I think the disconnect here is people reading "drone" and thinking something super high tech and precise, whereas I'm thinking of the minimum thing viable thing to create chaos/fear for you enemy.
> I think the disconnect here is people reading "drone" and thinking something super high tech and precise, whereas I'm thinking of the minimum thing viable thing to create chaos/fear for you enemy.
Even something like a ball bearing is super high tech and precise. Any kind of modern (post WWI) technology is super high tech and precise. Giant efforts were made to destroy ball bearing manufacturing in WWII, not to mention the rest of the war machine. Including German drones.
In a total war scenario, all enemy war factories and infrastructure will be attacked, and even civilian residential areas providing workers to the enemy war effort. This is how the allies mainly fought WWII against Germany.
When you start assembling drones from spare parts from other machines, and making custom drones, then you are at small scale and drones aren't anymore the cheap, mass produced weapon.
No? Flat out arming proxies is literally the point of overt proxy warfare. Sometimes one tries to to be deniable and source other weapons, but other times it's just, enjoy quagmire, cry about it. It's like suggesting PRC going to start blowing up Lockheed plants if they ever lose anything to US munitions.
Yes, if mainland China is successfully invaded by a country being supplied with American military equipment and having their fixed infrastructure destroyed - like described in the article - you can be dead sure that they will try to destroy American military plants.
None of the super power countries will ever accept defeat in their homeland and being conquered without using all means possible to hinder it. That's why the USA has strong opinions on how the Ukraine uses long range weapons in the war with Russia.
That's borderline nonsense scenario. Superpowers aren't going to be existentially invaded via lesser proxy. We're talking about being quagmired in war of choice where proxys being supplied. Lots of escalation rungs up the ladder that run before looping into superpower vs superpower peer conflict.
The scenario being unlikely doesn't make the OP's point irrelevant: the situation you see today is because that scenario doesn't happen, and it doesn't happen because countries are relatively circumspect about the way in which their military aid is deployed for exactly this reason.
I'm not questioning relevancy, but escalatory logic. CONUS vulnerability is going to increase with mid/high end missile/drone proliferation. But skipping over proxy fight vs lesser adversaries with limited CONUS strike capabilities vs peer adversaries with significant CONUS strike capabilities is not particularly sound. Now it may get there if existential, but that's far from first run on escalation ladder.
That's the scenario of the article. He suggests putting all US infrastructure in tunnels, bunkers, and in space, to protect it from Chinese drones. I say, how about bombing the drone factories. Which idea do you think is more realistic? Have you started digging?
Obviously the former, hint: that's what PRC is doing, basically Third Front 2.0. The retardation of the second is instead of fighting an underpowered proxy with limited CONUS strike you fight a peer power with enhanced CONUS strike, see latest China Power report that suggests all west coast is open to PRC conventional global strikes. In the mean time, PRC IS hardening and digging, (and distributing) - corollary to that is they aren't sunk cost in US naval/airforce model that requires physical sanctuary and can in fact build out entire survivable underground prompt global strike complex with high end rocketry, i.e. you can shelter TELs but not carriers (maybe b21s).
The real answer is of course, do as much of A as feasible and simply accept/recognize technology has made fortress America increasingly obsolete. CONUS vulnerability is baked into the medium term tech stack and will increasingly constrain US expeditionary model. Nevermind PRC drone factories, irbms and shaheed tier poverty moped drones that can hit CONUS is well within Monroe countries industrial capabilities, and the techstack is only going to get more commoditized with time. It's not just PRC US has to worry about, it's general global tech uplifting/proliferation. So what can US do to protect CONUS... harden CONUS at extreme cost... and restrain itself because blowback 10-20 years from now is not some terrorist attack on CONUS soil but PADD3 refineries going boom.
> Interaction contracts into small meshes of trusted, verifiably human participants to keep the tides of spamslop at bay
This is already happening and you don't have to look far to find it.
Personally HN is the only site I browse and comment on anymore (and I'm on here less than I once was). The vast, vast majority of my time online is spent in walled off Discords and Matrix chats where I know everyone and where there's a high bar to add new people. I have no real interest in open communities anymore.
Because the internet, for all it's good, has caused society and individuals some pretty serious problems. I don't like the idea of mandatory age verification, but having unrestricted internet access as a kid was objectively bad for me and many of the people I know.
> That is your parent’s fault that it was bad for you. So don’t punish me or anyone else because you never learned control.
I think you're suffering from a lack of empathy. That doesn't mean OS age verification should be implemented or not, but that you're going to be insufferable and pretty ignorant about what's going on.
IMHO, the popularity of age-verification is due to the increasing awareness of the harms of much online activity, plus the impracticality of putting the whole burden of mitigating that for children onto the shoulders of parents. If you flippantly and contemptuously ignore those concerns, people will be happy to ignore your concerns.
And since you brought it up: honestly, I wouldn't feel bad "punishing" you with this policy, just because of the attitude displayed in your comment. It's needlessly aggressive and making contemptuous assumptions. Your comment actually shoots your position in the foot.
> Look in the mirror as well. You started with the “punishing you just because”.
You actually introduced the "punishment" framing, which I think was unhelpful so mirrored it back to show that. You should also note that I scare-quoted it. And the point I was making was your attitude is harming your own advocacy.
> You’ve already rejected the advocacy why would I be trying to convince you of anything?
Dude, you need to step back and carefully re-read this thread. You have no idea what's going on, and seem to be trying to compensate for your ignorance with aggression.
You have an attitude problem, you're not going to be able to convince anyone of anything. And what's your reaction to being told about that? Show the same problem, over and over.
> Have you looked at how expensive international shipping is?
It really shocks me how bad shipping has gotten. It's nearly unaffordable to buy things on eBay from the US as a Canadian due to shipping costs, so I can only imagine just how bad it is for people from other countries.
It's probably unaffordable for anyone to buy things from the US due to shipping costs, because the Trump administration has completely screwed up everything there with tariffs and mismanagement of the USPS and more. But the US is not the world. A better comparison is how much it cost to ship things from China a year ago compared to today.
intel support has been mild to non existent in the VR space unfortunately. Given the very finicky latency + engine support i wouldn’t bet on a great experience, but hope for the best for more competition in this market. (even amd has a lot of caveats comparing to nvidia)
Footnotes:
* critical "as low as it can be" low latency support on intel XE is still not as mature as nvidia, amd was lagging behind until recently.
* Not sure about "multiprojection" rendering support on intel, lack of support can kill vr performance or make it incompatible. (the optimized vr games often rely on it)
It looked like when Intel jumped into this space, they tried to do everything at once. It didnt work well, they were playing catch up to some very mature systems. They are now being much more selective and restrained. The down side is that things like VR support are put on the back burner for years.
Good for most people but if you need that fuctiobality and they dont have it, go somewhere else.
I think there is an expectation that it should not matter, and there is a reality that it does matter, and there is lots of discussion because the expectations and the reality do not match.
Why is there an expectation that it should not matter? Is it just childrens shows? In many countries you have to put a headshot on your resume, that seems very overt that attractiveness / looks does matter. In the west there is a large idealism over practicality sometimes.
Because we figured out that grading and selecting based on merit is better for society than grading based on subjective biases. I don't know what you mean by "practicality" here.
Using the term "toxic" to describe things is an issue because people have an immediate negative reaction to it and go on the defence. Wording matters a lot and I'm unsure why there's such an insistence on calling things "toxic" when other words would both better describe issues and cause a less visceral reaction.
reply