My bet is that it will work ok in some cases and be confidently wrong in others.

A lot of stuff one learn along the way never gets put formally on a document, and every iteration has to be checked in the lab.

With code or math or simple text, or games, you can have swaths of documents easy to digest and readily available, you can run thousands of tests per second and you can check results right a way.

With a power converter, a ddr4 module, an fpga, you have to build the pcb, assemble it, test stuff little by little, fix thing as they break, increase power, etc.

You can take notes on stuff that has been changed , the reason for the change is usually a few words note if any. And then you find something weird and you see that there is absolutely nothing on internet about it and you have to find out on your own. At least that's my experience with hardware design.

For the important stuff that makes you lose a board or a month of work you make sure to document the reason and the solution, but it usually is in a internal document no one will (regretably) read.

If you then add mechanical stuff, thermal management, failure modes, etc. I just don't think there's enough compute power to bruteforce such a huge space of solutions, even if you don't take into account that you can't really teach the machine about hardware design apart from some open source stuff and development kits where documentation, part lists and gerbers for the pcb are available.

You would beat anyone if you could calculate a few thousands moves per second, even more so if you had a neural network that discards suboptimal moves early.

Disclaimer for stockfish in particular: Even if it's mostly bruteforce nowadays, stockfish usually has an edge because it can bruteforce with "taste" and can manage the clock very well knowing when to ponder deeper a position.

You've missed the point.

The locomotive being exhibited in 1915 was a historic exhibition, exhibiting their first locomotive, which itself was actually from 1863.

It was a history piece. It was not demonstrating new technology!

It would be like saying that the first shuttle orbiter, Enterprise, was first exhibited in New York in 2012, inspiring crowds.

It's a pedantically true statement ( it was moved to NY in 2012 ), but it doesn't actually tell you about the state of technology in 2012.

A 'small' drone droping from the sky with 1kg can be deadly.

Your 'arguments' of paper planes and human bodies are just strawmanning.

You can't fly a paper airplane a few hundred meters atop easily.

Feel free not to see it, i want to have my air space free and I would also never stand under a drone show.

>Why do people always demand strict licenses and mandatory insurance for everything

Because assholes ruin everything for everyone at scale.

> Scooters

Remember when scooters were rare, then some VC's dropped hundreds of thousands of them in major cities so drunk people could plow into the side of your car at 20MPH?

Drones themselves are one of the more wildly dangerous technologies we've really taken off with in the last few decades.

We don't make rules for the good people of the world. We make rules because there's always a part of the population that's willing to take a big'ole shit in your glass of milk and sell it to you as pure milk.

This article is a bit of a confusing mess, mostly stemming from confusion between two vastly different technologies that unfortunately share the same name. Shaheds and counter personnel quads deployed in Ukraine are vastly different technologies. Shaheds, for a lack of a better word, are essentially cheap cruise missiles which are effective because countering them currently usually requires an overly capable and much more expensive counter air missile. Doctrinally except for asymmetry of their cost, they are used much the same a cruise missile would be.

As for antipersonnel quads, Ukraine currently uses 7-8 inch ones. They are not small, quite loud and not exceptionally maneuverable. They are also extremely fragile and can be shot down by hitting just about any part of the quad. Also the thing about being difficult to detect using radars is just not true. They have a fairly large radar signature relative to their size which is also fairly unique because the spinning propellers cause Doppler shift on the rotating props. Small autocannons are already being developed for this role and in the urban environments similar systems using nets are being considered. There are also some prototypes of special rifles or rifle attachments for counter drone use being tested in Ukraine for infantry use.

The two most realistic dangers come from concealing them in shipping containers and then deploying them deep behind enemy lines (I am fairly sure this is already illegal in most jurisdictions) and targeted assassinations, where defending against drone threat is not that different than defending against other assassinations threats (concealed bombs, gunmen, snipers etc.).

I've been a bit surprised this hasn't been happening already. I don't know if the eventual trigger is going to be ICE murders or what, but with as accessible as the tech is, as much unrest as currently exists, and no shortage of people willing to inflict lethal violence via other mechanisms, I would've thought we'd have had at least a little drone violence by now.

Its not easy. Its easy for a certain amount of people, in some situation.

And just because its not easy doesn't mean there needs to be no law. No law means no conviction. There is no 'common sense law' which allows the state to put you in prision because its obvious that using some weapon in an unsave way is illegal.

And yes sometimes society adds protection to normal people so that they don't do stupd things. Plenty of 'smart' people allow others to get killed due to neglect, stupidity etc.

Btw. i'm pretty sure that having easy and quick access to a weapon is also a danger in itself. Sometimes you just need a little bit time of cooling down or talking to someone.

Guns don't scale like drones. No matter how many guns you own, you can only shoot two at a time, and only one if you care about aim.

Building an autonomous drone swarm capable of nuclear-weapon-tier kill count is far easier than building a nuclear weapon. We already know how dangerous military drones are, and those are still mostly bottlenecked by relying on human-powered target identification. Building drones to indiscriminately kill unarmored civilians is an easier task.

> You know it's easy to get illegal guns right?

Where though? It's certainly easier in some parts of the worlds than others, and surely something in the environment makes this easier/harder, I wonder if we could identify what exactly?