Anduril Selected for U.S. Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft Program
anduril.com
anduril.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40152531
Are they really trying to repel defense companies via code of conduct edits? Streisand effect.
Edit; Looks like this all went down 8 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37418351
Edit 2: @freeone3000 ok.
It is still going on:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-foundation-event-sponsor...
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/major-nixpkgs-contributor-leav...
People don't use AirBnB because they can "Belong anywhere".
They often use it because it's cheaper than hotels. But you seldom find that in marketing material.
That's pretty much what Anduril does. "You don't have to use a Patriot missile for that!" etc.
https://twitter.com/anduriltech/status/1780987267630395454 "the prototype was delivered ahead of schedule, and on budget"
and statements like this:
https://twitter.com/anduriltech/status/1783241461976256553 "We look forward to delivering CCAs on schedule, within budget, and at scale."
And the scale part is important. The whole point of these CCA fleets is to have A LOT of them and for that they have to be relatively cheap to build and easy enough to produce in decent numbers. The quality of an individual CCA doesn't matter that much.
You can't do BIG & DISPOSABLE with the current overpriced legacy defense contractors.
On the other hand, maybe both of those companies did secure a license from the Tolkien Estate.
On a similar note, trademark issues can't apply to Bladerunner, because it isn't a vendor.
But also found this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Nexus
“ Upon the announcement of the first Nexus device, the Nexus One, the estate of science fiction author Philip K. Dick claimed that the Nexus One name capitalized on intellectual property from Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and that the choice of name was a direct reference to the Nexus-6 series of androids in the novel.”
Looks like there was a lawsuit, that was eventually settled out of court and we don’t know what was agreed.
Unless of course a new angle was provided that called into question said perspective. Which you have not done here.
Some things are quite morally clear.
What do you think about the new law regarding not issuing passports abroad? Will return or have another citizenship?
Didn't know it's fake, thanks
Typically invoked immediately after the stronger party commits such a disproportionally large show of power as to attract your attention anew to their otherwise minor long-term petty dispute.
But that is a moot question because there was no universe in which Ukraine keeps nuclear weapons. They didn't have control over the ones they inherited (KGB did), and while retrofitting them was possible... Ukraine after independence didn't have the money for anything, let alone reverse engineering nuclear weapons and maintaining them.
Also, while on the micro level it might make sense for a certain country to have nukes to protect itself from attacks, on the macro for the world it doesn't. The higher amounts of countries with nuclear weapons, the bigger the risk something goes wrong - a crazy dictator decides to do a murder-suicide pact, poor maintenance leads to radiation leaks, etc. etc.
I respect Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons to be on par with Israel and prevent the Americans and Saudis from invading them (reminder that high ranking American politicians and cabinet members have clearly and openly talked about war with Iran)... but it would be devastating to the region. Iran's regime isn't stable, has lots of enemies around (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the other Gulf monarchies), some of which don't hesitate at all to provoke and attack them. The risk of nukes flying if Iran has them is too great for the wider international community to accept it - which is why there was a deal with a carrot to get Iran to stop, which was working until the braindead Americans decided to kill it for no good reason. So now... nothing can be done to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons outside of an even more flagrant violation of Iran's sovereignty than what Israel has already done by assassinating top nuclear scientists and sabotaging their facilities.
The US isn't a benevolent force for good, it's pure old capitalistic greed and realpolitik. That lots of good has happened thanks to it is mostly accidental.
Most estimates of Iraq war casualties are in 100-600 thousand range. The one estimate putting it at 1 million is an opinion poll. There are no estimates beyond 1 mil.
But if you judge by body count, you have great examples of actual millions dead like holodomor instrumented by stalin (3+ millions of Ukrainians), Chinese famine due to mao policies (10+ millions), khmer rouge massacres (average estimate around 2 mil), etc. Something is common among them huh?
US is not a saint and everyone makes mistakes but it is thanks to its influence and role in global economy we have drastically less death.
Anyway the world is not black and white and there is a lot of nuance, however the US was still probably the most benevolent “hegemonic” power that has ever existed in human history (especially relative to its power projection capabilities)
There's a even a pretty good alt history take on this from a Russian writer in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
Imperial Germany, a nation of good people corrupted by colonial ambitions, draining the youth of Oxfordshire into the wasteland of the trenches.
It also better fits Tolkien’s personal experience and the pre Cold War publication of the Hobbit.
I suppose Ukraine’s also the modern conflict most similar to WW1 as well.
The Tolkien estate should be proud.
To put it more bluntly, Tolkein was British. He lived through WWII. What other country in the world can you think of that has, would or even can fight as the UK's "protector of freedom" in the way that the US has?
Amazingly, even in the case of the Ukraine war, which is right at the EU's border, it's America that's provided the most support. Even Korea has done more than many EU countries have.
Anduril has played a critical role in defending Ukraine, but it has not created weapons used to invade Russia or any other country.
> the same way I can see someone who is opposed to war being opposed to the usage.
Why wouldn't this person be opposed to the invading army instead? I could foresee a possible future where Aduril has done horrible things in future decades, but up through 2024, I see a lot of good done and not much to condemn.
Can you make a coherent argument for either?
It would have been more productive to actually explain in concrete terms what wrongdoing you believed Anduril was involved in rather than trying to guess at my perception or understanding of your comments.
I dunno, the U.S.' self image is pretty much Gondor, and I don't think the books lacked nuance about how much Gondor was/wasn't the 'good guys'.
I didn't know it was a character of lord of the rings. Same with Palantir (Though 'Sauron' would have been a better name for that company XD ).