Replying to an earlier post

Objects are carried by UGVs, they can carry 200-300 kilograms while being pretty small, small UGVs can carry up to 100 kilos with size of ~1m in every dimension. Unless you can explain to a very expensive and smart robot what you need to rotate and where and how to operate tools given, you’ll need a very competent pilot for these robots which with high probability would still be worse than dumbest of humans because they lack agility and require a lot of supportive infra to operate. Rich nations probably would try to make humanoid robots (like they did with robodogs) with questionable success.

Replying to an earlier post

You don’t really ’need’ to open the door, it’s enough to destroy all exits. Question is how cheap you can make biped drone and how cheap you can make a small rover capableof moving 10-15 kilos of explosives. Rover can be made as cheap as <$500 or so.

Artillery includes rocket artillery, but even ‘regular’ gun artillery can shoot for tens of kilometers with specialised shells, while being mobile at that.

anecdote

I’ve been of the opinion that arty is basically guns but big nothing special about it, but whitnessing modern artillery piece work changed it considerably, while yes they are just big guns, but they are big guns. Like you feel it in your bones when it shoots.

Replying to an earlier post

With drones on your side you dont really need exits and artillery is one of the main casualties of drones because even fiber optics drones are now up to 50km in range. Rover drones currently have problems with 1 meter ditches because they can’t cross them. The question is always logistics and having a drone that can cross hard terrain is always better than one that can’t. That’s why hover drones are so effective. They are cheap and able to traverse every terrain in a big radius of operations

Replying to an earlier post

Well, you actually need exits unless your plan always was ‘die in a bunker without exits’.

hover drones aren’t all that cheap and require either very good crpa gnss antenna, or some kind of visual inertial odometry. Or you’ll get althold at best, which isn’t really hovering more like flying with the wind. Flying drones are effective because they are cheap, hovering drones (the multi-use ones) are prone to dying to kamikadze drones, they are big, loud, hot, and not very good at transporting things compared to rovers (logistics as you mentioned), one successfull delivery by rover compares to 10-20 deliveries by flying drone.

Still not clear to me how exactly flying drone superiority when traversing hard terrain = bipedal robots are a good idea.

Replying to an earlier post

Here is the real answer. You can annihilate the living hell out of somewhere with drones, missiles, nukes. But unless you have actual boots on the ground defending the position you’re in, that is not claimed territory.

Humanoid robots controlled by humans or AI, can defend territory until human troops secure an area and setup defenses.

Now let’s get going with that EMP!!!

Replying to an earlier post

You have no sense of wonder or imagination, do you? We have been making robots for decades, and this is the first time we have ever made humanoid ones which is able to outperform actual humans in this way. At last year’s robot games, the highest one was able to jump was under a meter, and now they can beat the human world record of 2.45 meters.

That’s absolutely phenomenal engineering, and it’s completely reductive to equate it to completely different technologies that exist to solve completely different problems. It’s phenomenal in the same way that it was phenomenal when we created the first chess bot that a human was unable to defeat.

Replying to @⁨technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com⁩

Maybe there are better things to waste resources on than pointless clunker that nobody wants or needs.

Do you not comprehend just how many inventions are made because of progress in other technology? These balancing mechanics and pistons to be locomotive in a bidpedal fashion has previously been impossible. Now who knows what the future holds.

But people with attitude like yours will prevent all progress because you just can’t see the need? This is how funding gets slashed and you get what’s happening in places like the US.

That computer chess bot lead to other technology, you’re incredibly ignorant, it was a massive achievement in the field, how can you not see that? Because you can’t think of how it will directly affect t your life? Why would that even matter? That selfish?

Replying to @⁨Waterpumpee@lemmus.org⁩

Sooooooo you’ve got a heart transplant to get into the middle of a dense forest during a war, there’s too much flak for air support, and a vehicle would go at a snails pace.

Would you rather die because technology didn’t advance to allow a robot to be able to run through the forest at breakneck speed because planes exist? Or should we be trying to advance technology at every barrier because there’s other situations where those just don’t make a lick of fucking sense.

There’s obviously contextual situations where a plane and vehicle don’t make sense, but sure let’s inhibit progress for… whatever reason you think you’re making here….?

Replying to @⁨technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com⁩

That’s just one example, there’s others as well, but obviously you’re gonna miss that if you are biased as hell like that and can’t think for yourself.

I’m sorry that you can’t see the point because you’re too wrapped up in irrelevant details. It’s a metaphor, but of course something like that would get lost on someone who just wants to bitch about any progress.

Replying to an earlier post

Proving all this in court could give Samsung a powerful weapon moving forward. Legal experts believe the company might take sworn statements straight to the US International Trade Commission, a body with the authority to block foreign products from entering the country entirely.

Which does not help because not every country will ban them and The other manufacturers will then have less demand and therefore have to reduce their prices in order to continue selling the same amount