Nah, you could definitely make one. Ensure the petrol is completely aerosolized, so that it burns completely and quickly. Now it just needs to be able to burn oxygen out of a room faster than it can get in. Or it could use the burning petrol to generate coumpounds and co2 to suffocate the fire. Get yourself basically a petrol powered weedeater and replace the rope with some sort of heat dissipater. As it spin its shoots the heat elsewhere, somewhere safer.
Thats a super cool outlook! Props to him for coming up with it. I really appreciate the response, i like your insights. I pretty much agree with all of that. There is another form though, people that have struggled with suicide their entire life, and for immutable reasons will continue to stuggle with until they die. For those people, there should be a humane path. But filtering out those from the temporarily depressed seems a gargantuan feat.
I do not recall, although if i did it clearly wasnt much of a hindrance. We do seem to be in agreement on this, although i have a tangentially related question for you. Do you believe suicide should be a human right?
Ok, then we are in agreement. That is a good idea.
I think that at low levels the tech should not be hindered because a subset of users use the tool improperly. There is a line, however, but im not sure where it is. If that problem were to become as widespread as, say, gun violence, then i would agree that the utility of the tool may need to be effected to curb the negative influence
Ok, people will turn to google when they're depressed. I just googled a couple months ago the least painful way to commit suicide. Google gave me the info I was looking for. Should I be mad at them?
... so the article should focus on stopping the users from doing that? There is a lot to hate AI companies for but their tool being useful is actually the bottom of that list
They did make the comic. They might not've made the images, but they are the ones that came up with the idea and put it together. It's an expression from their mind, and therefore them watermarking it is a nonissue.
It doesn't just seem scummy, it is scummy to gatekeep art.
As long as the angle of attack is between 90°-45° between 0->50->0 % of the external light will enter. No matter your angle of attack, half of the light at least is always going to be reflected. The angle of total internal reflection is 45°, so as long as you are greater than that there wont be "total external reflection" aka no light can enter. The issue is that(barring the refraction of the light as it passes through the air/fiber medium) the angle of attack once in the fiber is still maintained, meaning it does not achieve total internal reflection and therefore passes through the cable without interfering at all(in the case of a atraight cable.
In practice, no cable is going to be perfectly straight, and i would imagine the air/fiber medium may bend certain angles enough to where they can enter above the needed angle of attack, but once inside are bent to be under the needed angle of attack. Both of those imperfections would allow this type of attack to work. In reality all you would need to fix this is to use rolling polarities with very minor error correction. On board the drone give it a 10$ thermal infared lens and a basic processor. Tell it if the cable either cannot be read or is missing while the drone is in flight, it targets the last heat signature it saw.
If an extra $20k isnt worth jail time to you, you aint broke lol