6 ms·

> Nothing brings out creativity better than a limiting environment. This is so true as a life principle! I once read a book about the development of laser gui

> Nothing brings out creativity better than a limiting environment. This is so true as a life principle! I once read a book about the development of laser guided bombs [1], and in it it talked about how Texas Instruments made the first viable prototype [2] on a shoe-string budget even though they were competing against a large government contractor with a huge budget. Because of the budgetary constraints, TI couldn't afford multi-million dollar wind tunnels for testing, so they built scale models of the bomb and dropped them into swimming pools, performing mathematics transforms on the results using the drag coefficients of water vs air. They came up with a bunch of other innovations as well, such as the shuttlecock seeker head and made a superior product that vastly outperformed the high-budget contractor. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Choice-Development-Precision-Munitions/dp/0817315322 https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Choice-Development-Precision-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paveway

makapuf 8y ago
I'd find completely awesome if it weren't for tools aimed at killing people. I'm not sure I enjoy advances in that area.
- AdamJacobMuller 8y ago
  It's just as easy to say it is a tool designed to save lives. Ultimately it's a tool, it's how you use it that's important.
  - ffxtian 8y ago
    Just as easy maybe, but fundamentally incorrect. Its mechanism of action is killing people -- choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool.
    - thomastjeffery 8y ago
      The goal of the mechanism is to kill fewer people than other available methods. Tools are, simply put, devices that increase a user's leverage. We live in a world full of tools capable of leveraging against life. We also live in a world with individuals and groups who - for whatever reasons - choose to use that leverage. We can't get rid of tools like this. They are very straightforward inventions, especially as technical knowledge increases. The simplest nuclear fission reactor is a bomb. That does not make nuclear fission fundamentally worthless, and whether you agree that knowledge about it is a "good" or not, that knowledge is not going to simply disappear. > choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool. How a tool is used does not change what it is or what it does. It does, however, define the purpose. If the purpose of killing someone is to prevent that individual from taking another life - or several other lives - then the purpose of the tool used is to save lives. The goal for perfecting a tool that is to be used for that purpose is to minimize the amount of lives taken, and damage done. That means a "better" bomb takes fewer lives, saving more. If you choose to believe that an individual taking action against the life of another has not forfeit his/her own right to live, then you might consider this tool to have no legitimate purpose. Frankly, I disagree, and hope you will reconsider.
- ythn 8y ago
  Well, the alternative to PGMs is a lot more collateral damage. Want to take out that bridge? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. Want to take out that factory? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. With PGMs you can take out a bridge with pinpoint accuracy in the middle of the night and nobody dies at all (directly, at least).
- dejawu 8y ago
  My crypto professor made a point that stuck with me: There are many many problems that are, from an engineering standpoint, really cool and fun to solve, but can only really be used to harm or kill people. Building MIRVs or cluster bombs probably scratches the itches of a lot of aerospace engineers, but you're still using your design chops to build things that end lives.

makapuf 8y ago

I'd find completely awesome if it weren't for tools aimed at killing people. I'm not sure I enjoy advances in that area.

AdamJacobMuller 8y ago
It's just as easy to say it is a tool designed to save lives. Ultimately it's a tool, it's how you use it that's important.
- ffxtian 8y ago
  Just as easy maybe, but fundamentally incorrect. Its mechanism of action is killing people -- choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool.
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    The goal of the mechanism is to kill fewer people than other available methods. Tools are, simply put, devices that increase a user's leverage. We live in a world full of tools capable of leveraging against life. We also live in a world with individuals and groups who - for whatever reasons - choose to use that leverage. We can't get rid of tools like this. They are very straightforward inventions, especially as technical knowledge increases. The simplest nuclear fission reactor is a bomb. That does not make nuclear fission fundamentally worthless, and whether you agree that knowledge about it is a "good" or not, that knowledge is not going to simply disappear. > choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool. How a tool is used does not change what it is or what it does. It does, however, define the purpose. If the purpose of killing someone is to prevent that individual from taking another life - or several other lives - then the purpose of the tool used is to save lives. The goal for perfecting a tool that is to be used for that purpose is to minimize the amount of lives taken, and damage done. That means a "better" bomb takes fewer lives, saving more. If you choose to believe that an individual taking action against the life of another has not forfeit his/her own right to live, then you might consider this tool to have no legitimate purpose. Frankly, I disagree, and hope you will reconsider.
ythn 8y ago
Well, the alternative to PGMs is a lot more collateral damage. Want to take out that bridge? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. Want to take out that factory? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. With PGMs you can take out a bridge with pinpoint accuracy in the middle of the night and nobody dies at all (directly, at least).
dejawu 8y ago
My crypto professor made a point that stuck with me: There are many many problems that are, from an engineering standpoint, really cool and fun to solve, but can only really be used to harm or kill people. Building MIRVs or cluster bombs probably scratches the itches of a lot of aerospace engineers, but you're still using your design chops to build things that end lives.