the problem is you don't know that 'If it is a false positive, probably they just ignore it.' -> 'probably' is a fucking optimistic view. AND how the hell do you know this is a false positive ? some algorithm tells a soldier that this person is probably a terrorist - what happens then ? do you think they bother to verify this by spending more money ?
In my opinion it is most likely that, the people using this software send the output of this algorithm as a recommendation up the chain and some idiot decides to be 'safe' and recommends execution. because they don't have any accountability. I don't think you would be this relaxed in your opinion if these f-ing drones fly over your head - it is just that most people in the US do not care what happens to some idiot in Pakistan.
from the reports disseminated by the state department they are not even sure how many people they killed ? it is reported as between 2500 and 4000. Isn't this insane ? I have no idea in my mind that US is killing people indiscriminately using drones - and the word is not probably - it should be 'definitely'. i'm sure drones are turning people into terrorists more than they are killing terrorists.
don't tell me this is a bs assertion before US can give the name of every body they killed with a drone and the justification of it.
AFAIK for such decisions human information/intelligence is required. And there are often screw ups/bad decisions. No need for bad machine learning algorithms for this.
Your optimism is misplaced. The USA routinely drone strikes people they have no intelligence on whatsoever on the basis of nothing more than 'they acted like a terrorist', these are called signature strikes, i.e. they matched the "signature" of a terrorist.
Organisations that do this so frequently there's jargon for it are absolutely not going to be slowed down by requiring human intelligence (which is itself full of false positives and duplicity, see how random people were sold to US soldiers as "terrorists" to collect the reward money).
this is the biggest weak point of using git in my opinion. if you are not in the habit of using these undo/remove/fix operations in a regular basis, these commands slip away from you...
however, you can also look into this as a safety feature :) removing stuff is dangerous work in version control and thus, maybe, it's good that every time you have to do a dangerous thing, you need to refresh your memory by checking things. doctors and pilots started using check-lists that they go through before operations so that they don't do any mistakes and it seems to be decreasing the number of 'unforced-errors' so to speak... maybe this non-intuitive syntax also helps git in preventing committing simple errors...
that is awesome in its complete disregard of reddit :) and a death sentence to itself if it gains popularity as reddit-admins will have to ban the accounts/discard the content :) so it's not that secure a storage idea...
even in a simulation ad to give a use case, the drones are used to target a small village in the middle of a desert. it's somewhat obvious what the use case will be: don't send troops in so that US troop loses can be limited and in the meantime we can continue to kill all those pesky insurgents in 5-6 hut villages...
Those "pesky insurgents" are managing to kill a lot of people from their "hut villages" and oh by the way, are funded by some of the richest and most powerful nations on Earth. So don't let the "huts" confuse you, there's still capable forces inside waiting for the opportunity to further their agenda.
Also, the battlefield may be comprised of "huts" but the fighters are living in cities and using technology far beyond "hut level" throughout the world.
These "pesky insurgents" have also managed to export their agenda around the world (beyond the borders of their huts), and using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)
> using technology have slaughtered thousands of civilians (sound familiar?)
Yes, yes it does. What's the count again? Them: 5000, US: 100,000? Why take an eye for an eye when you can take 20 eyes for an eye? Maybe with this technology we can get that up to 40 or 50! Hoo-rah! /s
"Them" Who is them exactly? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? FSA? ISIL? Al Qaeda? the dozens of tribal militia funded by both (all) sides ... the list could literally go on forever and so can the casualty count - speaking of...
5K is a ridiculously low number considering the documented casualties on all sides in the last (roughly) two decades of warfare (although it shouldn't be limited to this timeframe).
I was counting U.S. civilian casualties from Al Quaeda on 9/11 against civilian casualties in Iraq + Afghanistan with all figures coming from my highly imperfect memory. There are a number of obvious reasons why this comparison isn't entirely appropriate, I can think of a number of more appropriate comparisons, and you can probably do a better job than I. But before you rise to the occasion, let's re-focus on the core argument.
My claim: We (the US) are unmatched in our ability to "export our agenda" by "using technology to slaughter civilians." Terrorists do the same thing just on a much smaller scale. A direct comparison is appropriate, as is dismissing their relative contribution to the civilian death toll by calling them "pesky hut-dwellers."
I trust independent reporting which in this case is plentiful. No need to rely on "propaganda" from either side, thankfully I can (and you can to) easily find reports from the ground by actual citizens, and reports from news agencies around the world not under the influence of the US or it's allies/adversaries.
U.S. President George W. Bush said "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
This doesn't look at all decisive to me ... there's absolutely no way those little drones can pack the fire-power shown in that simulation.
The bigger question is why don't we try some bridge building first?
Are we sure that the drones themselves will be carrying payloads though? Just judging by the video and also just thinking about logistics of accurately bombing something from that airframe plus general sizes of ordinance, it looks more like they are lasing targets for some kind of guided ordinance launched from another platform.
The key benefit here is for them to be sent out to autonomously seek and 'destroy' without having to waste man-hours trooping through the bush looking for a target that may or may not be there.
having this sort of income inequality between partners is a big problem. it changes how you look at the business. it seems to me you've already at a point where you have to find a job.
what I recommend is this: discuss the situation with your partner. you need to find investors - it is as simple as this. if you cannot find one, ask for your partner to invest in the company some money if you both still believe in your business model. it doesn't make sense to to forgo your salary when you don't have any money in the bank - what will you eat ? grass ? if you can't raise money or not willing to invest your own it means that your expectation for a viable business is gone. if that is the situation call it quits asap. it doesn't make sense to try to go another few months and lose more resources and acquire debt - find a job and try your hand again in future when you're financially more stable...
