this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
259 points (98.1% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6615 readers
553 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Not sure about pricing.
r*ddit

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I have a vague memory from the late 90's during the dotcom bubble where there was this site where you could pay, log in, remotely control an actuated hunting rifle, and shoot an animal. It was deemed legal as it was legal where the actual shot was fired.

By the same logic I would think this idea would be legal as well.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 month ago

I vaguely remember this! But I also remember it as anyone could control the video camera, so it could move in one of four directions but you could only move it once every so often.

The gun could only be fired by someone who paid for it.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago

By the same logic I would think this idea would be legal as well.

That's a thought, though I'd also point out that this might involve international law, and there might be different doctrines involved in international law.

Also, international law on involvement in warfare is fluid. I remember reading an article pointing out that if you go back, to, say, the pre-World War era, the obligations on non-involved parties were generally held to be much stricter -- like, doing something like having preferential arms export policy to one party would be considered involvement in a conflict. When Switzerland, earlier, refused to export Gepard ammunition to Ukraine, that's not really in line with the present norm, where countries often do provide arms to countries and consider that to be separate from being directly involved, but it does conform to historical rules on neutrality.

kagis

Not the article I was thinking of, but this is some related discussion:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735/3

International neutrality law governs the legal relationship between countries that are not taking part in an international armed conflict (neutral states) and those that are engaged in such a conflict (belligerents). The international community developed the principles of the international law of neutrality in an era before the Charter of the United Nations (U.N.) prohibited using force as a tool to resolve international conflict. Scholars have described the law of neutrality as an “old body of law” with a “slightly musty quality” that does not always translate to modern warfare.

Russia and Ukraine are engaged in an international armed conflict and, thus, are belligerents. Under traditional conceptions of neutrality, sending “war material of any kind” to Ukraine or any other belligerent would violate a duty of neutrality; however, some countries, including the United States, have adopted the doctrine of qualified neutrality. Under this doctrine, states can take non-neutral acts when supporting the victim of an unlawful war of aggression. For the reasons discussed in an earlier Sidebar, Ukraine has firm grounds to contend that it is such a victim and is acting in self-defense. Under these circumstances, arms assistance to Ukraine would generally be lawful under the qualified neutrality doctrine, provided that Ukraine complies with other legal frameworks governing the conduct of hostilities.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

How much bandwidth did it need? The 90's seem early for a live video feed.

Also, man, that's a whole new meaning to the Wild West era of the internet.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Tbf, a frame every few seconds was considered "a live video feed" in the mid/late 90s.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I remember the numerous demonstrations of companies trying to make the video-phone happen as a business and domestic device and they certainly considered that a couple 120px frames per second in black and white made for impressive life like video.

The audiences generally weren't too enthusiastic for some reason.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That would make sense, but I really hope you're not trying to shoot a deer based on a 3 second old image.

[–] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My cousin and I used to watch fairy/leprechaun/wee-folk cameras in Ireland. Never saw shit. Starting to think there weren't any.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

You just gotta watch longer bro trust me bro the wee folk are there bro

[–] cfi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

Looks like that gave a tiny black-and-white image with a lot of latency.

For the purposes of OP you'd really want pretty good quality and tiny latency. Otherwise you're kind of just spraying bullets randomly.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hilarious to imagine needing this much interface to control a drone.

[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

All you really need is one of these bad boys

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Well, some sort of screen probably couldn't hurt.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Off-brand controller. No screen. Drone only. No items. Final destination.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago

Hmm, I wonder how much navigation you could do by sound if the props were filtered out.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

You get a map and a stopwatch.

[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago

Let's just not tell anyone.

[–] lowered_lifted@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

when that homophobe wrote Ender's Game he intended it to be an example of something bad bro.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from the classic sci-fi novel Don't Create the Torment Nexus."

We will see a model of humanoid battle bot called terminator in the next 50 years.

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I would pre-order and I have never pre-ordered. I would even purchase the larger drone DLC.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you look closely at the back of the chair you'll see why even FOBITTS flying drones have a 25% casualty rate.

[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Bruh you trying to get suicided by the Boeing hitman or what

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

So long as drones are a correctly priced as a premium item I don’t see the problem.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I will pay you $10/hr for the opportunity

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Stfu and take my money!

Figure $20/hr and I'll pay an extra $10 every time I get a kill.

But I want the 10th kill free!

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yes, which means you should do it

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Literally how those little blades drones in Half-Life 2 worked.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I would like a much more plush chair, so I can stop typing, lean back and bring my fist to my mouth, Antonio Banderas-style. Pink adjustable cushioning with total customization.