fundameen

If distance was acceptable you could use satellites. I think you need to escort your drone swarm into hostile territory using something like an F-35 so the whole package can penetrate as a unit.

You might even want the drones to fly behind using a wire-guided system so they can't be jammed.

Imagine the F-35 trailing a cable that spreads out to 1000 wires. It's basically just a way of giving one F-35 a thousand smart missiles that it could never fly itself.

The basic idea is used by MIRV ICBMS. You get the whole thing into enemy territory quickly and then launch more attacks than the defense can hope to counter.

1. Fly to the edge of enemy territory.

2. Launch your F-35 towards the enemy.

3. Launch 1000 drone missiles following the F-35 (maybe from a C-130)

4. Split off drone missiles in variable sized chunks according each target detected.

Just imagine an F-35 with a dozen F-22s vs an F-35 with 1,000 flying missiles behind it.

Seems like the whole concept is outdated. Humans are a bottleneck that needs to be mitigated. Each F-35 should probably have a thousand drone missiles flying behind it, ready to swarm-attack any threat. Not just a few F-22s...

Send 20 missle drones at any fighter or 100 into any deep bunker. It shouldn't be hard or expensive to fly missiles around the world anymore. An aluminum tube, some fuel, and a computer.

The F-35 could be the swarm leader and have the big computer capable of serving its 1000 drones without any outside support.

China or Russia could build this today and the technology is only advancing.

"rich kid" not "white kid"...

No one said that professional CEOs always fail. I said it's a bad sign when one is hired. Are you arguing it's a good sign, or that tech companies do better with non-founder managers?

Any time a company brings in a professional CEO it's a bad sign.

He has not had many successes. He's had a very few out of a great many. Like literally anyone with his connections and money could expect to have. The Facebook deal was dropped in his lap by Reid Hoffman due to a conflict of interest he had.

Probably the most damning evidence of his lack of genius is when he pushed Zuckerberg very hard to sell Facebook at like $1 billion.

He also sold PayPal early in a similar situation and has pushed other founders to sell early, though I forget the specific examples.

This is very clearly not genius levels of vision. Thiel wouldn't be a famous billionaire today if Zuckerberg had listened to his advice.

There's also the fact that Elon Musk showed us exactly what a real genius could do with his incredibly privileged position in the world.

There is no evidence that Thiel is a genius.

There's a large amount of evidence that he is not. And yet people still think that because one of his hundreds of investments made a lot of money that he must be a genius.

He's just not who people want him to be. He's not another Musk.

It's got nothing to do with 'accounting' at all, it's a matter of potential. Lots of smug fools laughed at $15 billion valuation for Facebook. A few years later and it's generating more than that in annual revenue.

It seems that many people still find it difficult to comprehend what 1+ billion internet/computer users means for technology companies that are capable of scaling.