Playing on the rail tracks also incurs incredible personal risk -- doesn't make it wise. Seems fair to me for the author to give their opinion that they don't believe this to be an effective form of protest. Especially given that they list their specific concerns.

Don't drones have another advantage not mentioned here -- counter-battery against operators being more challenging?

Drone pilots regularly die due to the source of wireless signals being found. Especially in the built up areas where they cannot operate from a trench or bunker. It is a challenge but there have been methods for this for a while now and it has shown. Even recently there’s been reporting that priorities of some drone teams are now purely anti-pilot activities compared to other targets.

True - and I hope I didn't give the impression that drone operators aren't taking significant personal risk, but compared to the alternatives for short range indirect fire (mortars) it seems like these systems should be less vulnerable?

Fiber wires are now the standard for most low flying drones.

More challenging than what?

More challenging than counter-battery fire against artillery, which is basically a solved problem in warfare.

But not more challenging than counter battery against teams firing Javelins or other portable anti tank weapons.Or teams using Switchblades.

FPVs are man portable guided munitions, not artillery. Pretty much all existing man portable guided anti tank weapons are better than FPVs at their job.

And artillery is better than any of them at it's job. While FPVs can score kills they have minimal suppression effects, when an FPV hits a friendly, everyone else is going to keep moving, because stopping will offer them no benefit from the next one, and the next one might be minutes out. When an artillery round lands everyone hits the deck.

FPVs don't seem anti-tank replacement -- they do seem to have a role against soft targets ie against massing infantry, c2 nodes or suppression of enemy mortars. In this role, from a distance, they seem harder to suppress than the alternative, ie mortars.

Also these are immature tech... I suspect at least some of the issues identified will be mitigated in time.

> Pretty much all existing man portable guided anti tank weapons are better than FPVs at their job.

Sure, but a Javelin missile costs more than $200K. You can have 200 fpv drones for that price.

Yeah, but it takes like two guys to carry and use the javelin. 200 fpv drones need like a company to be deployed.

If you treat dictionaries as sets of tuples union doesn’t work as expected: {(‘a’,1)} | {(‘a’, 2)} = {(‘a’,1), (‘a’, 2)} Same key maps two values.

That's not what the parent says though.

He says that sets are like dictionaries without values, e.g. a set is akin to the dictionary keys.

So, in your example the ('a', 1) and ('a', 2) are the keys (in how the parent argues about) -- it's not 'a' that's the key.

Same like you can do today:

  d = {}
  d[('a', 1)] = 6
  d[('a', 2)] = 89

We can still express that dictionary as a set of tuples, it's just:

  {(('a', 1), 6), (('a', 2), 89)}

Meant to respond to top level parent who said:

> dicts would subclass sets

Was trying to make the case as to why treating dictionaries as a child of <generic collection> with an extend/merge operation using ‘+’ rather than a child of set with a union operation ‘|’ makes more sense (to me).

Changing the behaviour of a well defined operation like union seems bad - although my case is somewhat undermined by python’s overloading of ‘+’ to mean extend.

It's AI judges, all the way down.

"Invert a binary tree on a whiteboard" I wonder if you get any points for turning the board upside down.

I wonder if their industry partners are similarly indemnified...

Self censorship is the only way the book burners can really triumph. So long as humanities' collective ingenuity continues to exceed the sum of our malevolence; I ain't too worried. Ps key base is awesome :)