Helsing at Eurorust and the Oxidation of Defense
cafkafk.dev
cafkafk.dev
The statement that Anduril sponsoring a NixOS conference was inherently damaging as opposed to the reaction causing the damage, "When did defense work stop being taboo" etc.
I've worked in the US Midwest->SFBay->US West and defense work never seemed particularly taboo in my circles, moreso that the work was boring and constricting.
Traditionally cautious sectors adopting a particular technology seems like a sign that a technology is viewed as having a particular level of dependability. That's a good thing.
I suggest that the Europeans should get over their moral reservations about military industries quickly because the upcoming US administration is not likely to be as helpful as previous ones in the event that Russia decides to test the integrity of NATO.
Which of us Europeans are you referring to exactly?
Sweden joined NATO and many countries in the bloc have increased spending. In the Netherlands we sent fighter jets to Ukraine to try and help in the war against Ukraine.
This comment is just downright ignorant and condescending. I guess this is how Trump voters view Europe though?
That obviously doesn't represent most Europeans, and of course there are many Americans that hold similar views. But I do also think it's true that Europe still hasn't really "woken up" to the scale of the problem on their hands.
On spending, most nations that don't directly border Russia are only barely meeting the goals they set forth a decade ago and they're doing so at the last possible moment, to say nothing of the complete inadequacy of that goal given the largest war since WWII is now happening at their doorstep.
Depending on the day and topic, a lot of things look all one way depending on who's commenting on them.
There's a good quote in the Economist story on autonomous drones that's also linked from the front page [1]. The idea that you can ethically shun defense work is itself a privilege and a luxury that many people throughout the world don't enjoy.
“It’s the best feeling to see your drone enter a tiny opening in an enemy trench,” says Denys, an engineer at The Fourth Law, the Ukrainian firm which makes these autonomous drones. “I used to be a pacifist, but Russia’s war has stripped me of that privilege.”
As long as there are countries like Russia, there will have to be a strong defense industry. The leaders of such countries understand nothing but violence, so unfortunately, violence it is.
> Helsing has a contract making German Eurofighters able to detect radar lock-on (which indicates the aircraft may be being targeted by AAW, Anti Aircraft Warfare). This could help make German Eurofighters more “survivable”, which includes the ones that carry Nuclear Weapons for deterrence. They argue this helps ensure German nuclear deterrence isn’t nullified by AAW, ensuring peace.
Germany does not own their own nuclear weapons. It may host US/NATO nuclear weapons, but they're not German. Perhaps this German fighter was destroying an unoccupied bridge to stop the advance of enemy troops that were about to kill and rape a village of citizens. Does this now make the plane "good" and no longer "evil"?
> Autonomous drone flight control systems for Ukraine, including “GPS Denied” option (navigating while GPS is being jammed). It was impossible to confirm IRL whether or not this is purely reconnaissance or navigating and dropping payloads on targets. However, it is likely part of a kill chain, as even SIGINT will likely be used for e.g. artillery fire.
Perhaps this will also be used by the civilian aviation industry which currently suffers the same GPS interference. Would the author prefer a precise artillery strike that disables an opponent or imprecise artillery that may destroy kilometres of land and housing and ancillary buildings (and potentially innocent lives)?
Correct, but some of them are part of the so called 'Nukleare Teilhabe',
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing ,
meaning we are not only entitled, but even mandated to shoot us into our own foot with them, just in case...
Which was the case since the days of the F-104G Starfigther, F-4F Phantom, MRCA/Panavia Tornado, and is now with the Eurofigther.
Which was also the point of controversy from several points of view. For one, the range of the aircrafts, loaded with these free-falling 'firecrackers'. (See shooting into our own foot abvove... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb )
For another, the unwillingness(for some time, got resolved) of the USA to make sure the avionics of the Eurofighter get the necessary codes for integration. "Nice plane you got there, but wouldn't you rather wanna buy the superior F35?" (To shoot yourself into your own foot with our own firecrackers, just in case?)
Let's leave the politics aside for a moment, but is there any benefit to even be on the "bleeding edge of software engineering"? I would assume these engineers are measured by reliability of their product instead of a techstack that looks good on a resumee?
You go look at older companies shipping product.zip.3 files around from someone's desktop and then it all comes in to focus.
Whether Rust is mandatory to create defense Tech, that decision might have been influenced by many factors that apply also to any other start-up (time to market, access to talent, maturity of the ecosystem, skill distribution in founding team, etc)
The bleeding edge of your discipline is use of these I-beams, they enable you to build a comparatively elegant bridge which is far stronger and yet is less easily damaged by the elements than the iron bridges.
A "traditional" bridge engineer can point to examples of their preferred materials which have lasted fifty, a hundred years, and say look - we know cast iron works. You don't have that, and so there may be people who say "I don't want your new steel bridge", but on the other hand, clients may be swayed by the affordable yet better looking and more capable product.
In fifty years it's no contest, your steel bridges make sense, iron bridges made by your competitors are seen as old-fashioned and unnecessarily conservative. "Didn't they have steel?" "They didn't trust it". "Huh".
Now, of course it's not always so clear whether whatever you consider "Bleeding edge" is use of steel beams in bridges, or use of flammable aluminium cassette "weather cladding" on high rise buildings (a choice now seen as unacceptably dangerous). But just because it's how things were done by your grandfather doesn't mean it's a good choice today.
In your example your bridge builder presumably has a mature and stable software build equivalent of a steel ibeam bridge design that is basically going to be the same going forward. That’s more like when people still use cobol for decades because it works than when people are testing out the bleeding edge of software.
While this article is definitely long-winded, I’m definitely on the side of pushing defense tech out of these circles.
Private defense does not care about your safety. If it was profitable to harm you (similar to private healthcare) it can and will happen. You just happen to be in a position where this is unlikely. I’m happy for everyone on this comment section, but this is not the reality for civilians who get buried in the rubble from AI-targeting drones.
Western drone development reduces the chance of you being bombed by belligerent drones far more than it increases the chance of you being bombed by allied drones.
The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else, and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that. What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
Bombing people in the name of drone development is not worth the moral cost. If you are specifically referring to anti-drone tech, maybe I can agree with some aspects of your statement.
> The AI drone bombing is coming to both the West and everyone else
I find this hard to believe because it doesn’t seem to generalize to most weapons advancements in the last 100 years. Correct me if I’m wrong, not a weapons nut here.
> and leftist tech worker objection is not going to prevent that
It is. It’s a form of pressure that can make a difference to talented individuals who have options.
> What we can prevent is Western weapons being inferior to ones developed and deployed by authoritarian and illiberal governments.
If you believe this, then your entire argument rests on the myth of the west being right, and the rest being wrong. Since this is HN I’m not going to comment further.
There are a few misconceptions layered inside this statement.
First of all, there is a <0.1% chance you'll ever see anyone actually using your company's products in their intended environment. You might see some training drills played out entirely on friendly turf. As far as I can tell, that's as close as you'll ever get. So, the idea that some dev somewhere is going to get exposed to the traumas of a battlefield is very far-fetched.
Second, every defense contractor will ask you to talk about your feelings on their product (and their customer) in your interview. They flat out tell you "we make war machines" (in marginally more flowery language) and you have to grapple with that in front of them before you even get an offer sheet.
In other words, they probably aren't worried about providing counseling, because they intentionally weed out people who would need it before they're ever hired.
I'm not endorsing this approach, nor am I suggesting it's the wrong approach either. Just my own observations.
But the little i got out of it is that defense is a good patron and nothing else matters. That Nix is a bunch of either conscientious humans or sensitive liberals (depending on who you ask, i'm on the first group if you care), and that rust was always about the missiles anyway. Did I get it better than an AI?
These are not mutually exclusive
Are they really, though? Did Lockheed-Martin sponsor the Stonewall rioters? Did any arms company threaten to cancel supply contracts if the US didn't introduce nationwide gay marriage? Did they withdraw support from anti-trans legislators? How come countries without a huge military-industrial complex also have LGBTQ+ rights - often even stronger ones than the US?
And what about people living in other countries? The US has supported quite a lot of tyrannical regimes - often by aiding overthrowing democratic governments. Those arms companies are directly aiding authoritarian governments in oppressing their citizens. Do those people not deserve the same freedoms you enjoy?
Your comment might make some sense if defense companies were actually used for defense. You know, like Japan's Self-Defense Force, which is constitutionally forbidden from using threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. But that's not the world we live in. The US military is primarily used to start wars and oppress people, and the very recent developments in Ukraine do not change several decades of history.
I'm guessing these countries already have existing ties to the 'west' and would be militarily protected by them. How many countries have both strong LGBTQ+ rights and also categorically wouldn't be militarily aided by the US/the west in case of war?
There are many small progressive countries without a strong MIC, but rely on others for protection and use their existing MIC. For example most NATO countries.
Whom are these kinds of tech conferences actually for in 2024, I wonder? For what kind of person and in which circumstances is it a good idea to go?
It was an excuse for a train trip to beautiful Vienna. Also, I met Jon Gjengset for whom I hold a lot of respect, especially his ability to think and talk and explain.