/strek/ - Star Trek ★

>>22958 (OP)

Probably because some nigs over the years have been committing crimes in Breen territory and the Breen prisons are full of negroes. Or maybe they are just tired of being cucked by space BBC.

Breen foresaw the Feds beating the Dominion in the long-term, but knew that in case either they or the Borg came back one day the Alpha Quadrant would benefit from a more competent Federation. So they nuked nig city in an effort to make sure the space commies would be better than dead weight in the next existential war.

>>22962

It's not, though. The only way you can get that kind of viewing angle on the Golden Gate bridge, looking toward downtown, is from somewhere on Angel Island, or some nonexistent island between there and the Marin headlands. Either way, you're NORTH of SF, not east of it.

Breen seems like they used a lot of restraint. Could have easily destroyed Earth.

>>22959

Were the Breen secretly the Space KKK?

Starfleet probably stored important equipment or personell in this Oakland and hoped they had enough human shields to dissuade the Breen.

>>23401

>human shields to dissuade the Breen.

The fuck does the Breen care about humans let alone earthnogs.

>>23402

Hard to say.

But it is quite obvious that Starfleet is the military arm of a Communist dictatorship that may have some delusions, or at least interest in spicing up its propaganda.

>>23404

>But it is quite obvious that Starfleet is the military arm of a Communist dictatorship that may have some delusions,

That's not in dispute from me, what I'm saying is why would the Breen care about a bunch of earthnogs being used as human shields, they'd just as likely fire away regardless since they're not big fans of hyoomans, they sure as shit won't suddenly go "Oh noes, Starfleet put a ring of dindus around something we want to blast at, I guess we'll cancel the war, and go home and really really realllly reflect on our internalized space raycism. "

>>23405

This reminds me. DID the Breen ever suffer any sort of consequences for allying with the Dominion and wrecking shit on behalf of the Founders? DS9 can't tell you because the war ended literally in the last episode, and I can't recall if they ever got mentioned in Voyager, but somehow I REALLY doubt it.

>>23405

True it may not affect the Breen, but the mass murder of dindus may be used as propaganda for federation worlds less keen on the war.

>>23415

Nothing really. Everyone was too shit scared of them to pick a fight further or push their luck.

>>22960

Wow this is actually good.

>>23415

Losing their ships?

You have to understand that prior to the dominion war, the Federation knew nothing about the Breen. Feds just assumed Breen are a bass-ackward culture because the size of the Breen territory is so tiny compared to the Federation, and because all anything ever saw were occasional tiny Breen raider or pirate ships.

By the time of the Battle of Cardassia, Breen ships outnumbered both Jem Hadar and Cardassian ships, and it wasn't until the Cardassian ships switched sides that the tide was turned. So lets assume the combined fleets of Cardassia, Jem Hadar and Breen, were on equal footing as the combined fleets of Klingons, Romulans and Federation. Using simple principle of equivalency we can then guess with some certainty that the Breen fleet was roughly as powerful as the Federation fleet the Romulans and Klingons being as powerful as the Jem Hadar and Cardassians. And while its known the Federation committed every available warship to the fight, it's still a mystery as to how many ships the Breen held back.

That kind of scared a few people.

Breen space is 1/1000th of Federation space, yet they command an equally powerful fleet.

You don't walk up to a seven foot tall, several times held back, muscle framed schoolyard bully and try to criticize him.

>>22958 (OP)

What if the Breen are space niggers? Like they left Earf during ENT and ascended to Yakub status. It could explain why they wear the mask, so no one on Earf suspects they are from Earf.

>>23445

I need to copypasta the post Dominion War scenario again and how fucked the Federation was. The Breen at the very least were a strong Regional Power. It appears more though that they have a strength that rivals a Quadrant Superpower. Also Federation Space is extremely large but their fleet is actually tiny for their size.

>>23462

Well, several times it was plainly stated that the Federation was stretched very thin. They were basically the 1800's English Empire, planting their flag on every single speck of rock they landed on, with no real expectation of being able to defend them from their homeworld, because supply lines were weeks or months long. It doesn't help that they spend much of their resources helping out planets that contribute very little (like Space West Virginia). Did Bajor have even a SINGLE military vessel? And they were considering bringing them into the fold? This is why they have problems.

As illustrated by the Dominion being confident in re-building up their ships with only the shipyards around Cardassia, it's obvious that you DON'T need a lot of physical space to build a lot of ships. Taking apart just one gas-giant yields enough raw material to make a fucking Dyson Sphere, which would make enough starships to literally blot out the entire sky around every Federation world. A single system could rival the power of the entire Federation if they stopped pussy-footing around and actually upgraded to a Type II Civilization.

All indications point to the Breen being natively isolationist and defensive. Their special weapon knocks out other ships, which is not an offensive tactic per se. Perhaps they are what happens when a species embraces technological augmentation like the Borg (explaining the suits and weird electronic voices), but don't care to spread and conquer. Of course, this does raise the question as to why they would choose to ally with the Dominion in the first place. Maybe they elected a leader who was a warmonger? Who knows.

>>23532

Or the Breen are some mystery box jew jew shit.

>>23532

You're forgetting about human resources. You need someone to design, build and crew the ships, not to mention maintenance, fuel etc. It's true that the number of non-humans serving on Starfleet ships seems to be low (the real reason being less expenses on makeup), but afaik we don't know that it's canon - it may be that we see it mostly from soldier's perspective, and it's like in WWI the where the front was divided between the British and French and the average soldier or low rank commander would mostly interact with his own. But even in the scenario where most are humans, it would often be high-performing individuals who feel like their potential is being wasted on their backwards planet that would join Starfleet and one such person can be worth hundreds average people. The comparison to the British Empire isn't bad though.

>>23538

Breen actually appeared in ENT without the mask.

>>23561

pic.

>>23543

Cars nowadays are 99% assembled my robots; I see no reason why starships wouldn't be centuries in the future.

As for crew compliment, that's been discussed ad nauseum here. In summary, you don't even need a crew because the computer can do basically everything. Even at the MOST, you need, what, ten people for basic combat readiness? Four on the bridge (captain, helm, tactical, weapons) and the rest in engineering.

>>23568

So what you're saying is that nobody cared about them after they put on the mask?

>>23585

You need a crew to do damage control during battle. The computer can't fix the power conduit that gets destroyed during combat. If the computer runs everything with a skeleton crew then each Starship has to return to a Starbase after every encounter.

>>23591

Why not? If you don't want to just use the transporter and replicators to fix damaged components, have a compliment of exocomp drones on board. If you're worried about muh robot rights just take out the autonomous programming and have the central computer control them.

>>23599

Humans are more versatile than any computer. What if the main computer gets damaged?

>>23604

>Humans are more versatile than any computer.

I dunno man, I can tell you some real life examples of two legged oxygen wasters that I've had to deal with.

>What if the main computer gets damaged?

That's why most military and businesses usually have double, sometimes even triples or more redundant backup systems.

There are disadvantages to having a skeleton crew to be sure. In most competent organizations they usually try to crosstrain and have backups in their personnel as well to diminish the risk. And that requires a bit more people than just a bare skeleton crew. But if a new Trek series was launched that goes slightly harder sci-fi, that was based on contemporary thinking on man and machine management style. It'd be much more plausible that a ship would have a lot more automation.

>>23604

>Humans are more versatile than any computer.

Depends on the human, and depends exactly what you mean by "versatile." However, you're not entirely wrong, which is why it's useful to have humans for command crew and a few other key stations incidentally this could also serve as a nice soft-retcon for why there are officers fucking everywhere and almost no NCOs., while automating everything else. You really think all 800 people aboard a Sovereign-class are doing vital, open-ended work which requires great versatility of thought and creativity to solve? Most of what they do is press the buttons the captain tells them, put out fires caused by the exploding consoles, and just fixing shit. The first one can already be done by computer without any modification; in fact we see several instances in the shows where a single crew member is able to keep the ship functioning normally with little more than voice commands. A shipwide fire suppression grid doesn't seem to be the default for some reason, but it should be rather trivial to equip vessels with such, especially with replicators to make all the retarding foam you need. Every technician, repairman, and engineer on board could be replaced with exo-comps or a similar utility drone, nominally under command of the Chief Engineer but spending most of their time operating completely autonomously. With the level of technology the Federation has, every position besides department head and research scientist could be automated, with a complement of a dozen rather than several hundred.

>>23561

Pics or it didn't happen.

>>23609

>>23606

There have been more than a few episodes where the ship hits some kind of anomaly and everything goes dark. A computer with drones won't be able to necessarily won't be able to fix it. Automation means you can probably cut the crew sizes in half but also consider having enough personnel for each shift 24/7. I don't see how extreme automation ever works out in the end. This whole fixation on removing humans seems to be a uniquely Anglo thing too. Germans would figure out how to make everyone more productive with AI and robotics.

>Sir, the dildo nebulae just discharged a massive energy wave that knocked out every system on the ship!

The human crew wins every time in that scenario and that is one of Star Trek's favorite episode setups too.

>>23611

>This whole fixation on removing humans

Read the following parts again

>There are disadvantages to having a skeleton crew to be sure.

>requires a bit more people than just a bare skeleton crew

The post in >>23609 also never mentioned removing humans altogether.

> I don't see how extreme automation ever works out in the end

Maybe because no one suggested automation to the extreme degree you're talking about. The "fixation" seems to be on your end, not even sure what the anglo and german comment means. But if you want to go that route, I have worked and still work in industrial type places, and I can tell you that it's not limited to what you think are 'anglo' countries. But putting in more robots and automation though not 100% removal of humans since to be blunt, that's fucking retarded and neither of the post you replied to suggested such a thing. Robots still needs mechanics and service techs at the very least because they need fixing and re-calibrations. But putting in more robotics to go along with humans, that idea and implementation is already everywhere at this point.

>>23612

Because robots replacing everything is a transhumanist meme coming mostly from the Anglo countries.

>>23609

>Most of what they do is press the buttons the captain tells them, put out fires caused by the exploding consoles, and just fixing shit.

Frankly that's a lot of what modern manufacturing places are like. Well minus the exploding console, most of the time. :^)

The consoles are actually fairly safe, some of them I can even see serving as inspiration for design elements in Trek ships. I'd say the most unpredictable elements are predictably the human staff. Some are shining examples of human ingenuity and hard work. Some are barely above welfare leeches. Some are outright private Pyle basket case or very early washouts.

Christ I'd watch a Full Metal Jacket style Trek academy movie, with the latter half being a cardi war journal that the Feds don't like to talk about.

>>23613

>Because robots replacing everything is a transhumanist meme coming mostly from the Anglo countries.

And again, show me where the posts you replied to suggested such a thing, specifically the 'replacing everything' part, because it didn't.

Not sure why you keep bringing it up, but I can tell you from direct experience that anyone seriously suggesting that robots can replace everything will get laughed out of the room by actual people with working experience in the industries that uses a lot of robots and want to increase the usage of robots, and by people who have made and or fixes those type of robots for a living. What I'm telling you is even the people who owns manufacturing plants that uses robots and you'd think would lap up the pitch that robotics can replace everything, won't buy it because it's outright fucking retarded in real world practice.

>>23615

This is because our robots suck ass. But Trek has superior robots, that can in fact do MORE than humans, such as Data and holograms.

In any case, because the original POINT was that you can build a exponentially more ships than the Federation has using just the resources from one gas giant, nix the crew entirely. Nix the entire IDEA of survivability entirely. Just make a hundred million ships that are nothing more than Defiant-sized autonomous kamikaze shuttles, loaded with 100 isotons of the cheapest explosive, with just enough computer power to home in on the nearest Federation/Klingon/Romulan ship and (maybe) dodge some of the incoming phaser fire. If a fraction of a percent hit their mark, the battle is won and you've taken zero casualties.

This is the kind of battle tactic that makes sense when you have basically UNLIMITED resources, UNLIMITED energy reserves, and UNLIMITED capacity to transmute base elements into any substance or device that is known.

>>23671

>But Trek has superior robots,

That is true (though our universe console technology does not explode at the slightest hit most of the time so advantage:us on that one at least), actually it can be a detriment since in the Trek universe they give unneeded shit like really advanced AI, to what should be a disposable machine. Not Data or the EMH, but something like an exocomp should not have given that advanced of an AI. Then again those exocomps do look adorable.

>Just make a hundred million ships that are nothing more than Defiant-sized autonomous kamikaze shuttles,

The few times I will cite a VOY episode, but they actually did an ep that touched on what you're talking about.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Warhead_(episode)

It wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch, but technically they did somewhat touch on the idea.

>>23675

A bomb that can think and feel and potentially question its mission isn't a very effective one. What I was talking about was a lot more dumb AI, really nothing that's even beyond CURRENT tracking or computing potential.

>>23676

>A bomb that can think and feel and potentially question its mission isn't a very effective one.

We already agree on that part, and why I wrote

<actually it can be a detriment since in the Trek universe they give unneeded shit like really advanced AI, to what should be a disposable machine.

>What I was talking about was a lot more dumb AI, really nothing that's even beyond CURRENT tracking or computing potential.

It's ackshually not a new concept, but the devil is in the details and how well it CURRENTLY works at our tech level. At the moment from what I gather the problem is not the concept when applied to one machine. Ie: an armed and mobile roomba with an anonymous gothamite holding the detonator and the only one who can disarm it is lying dead in a sports stadium.

It's when it's multiplied by many, many machines and we're aiming at autonomous navigation at a fleet or armada quantity. See: the current problem with self driving cars navigation, where the aim is for cars to not only be aware of their own location but also communicating with other cars to be able to pull off moving formations that most of your average drivers can not perform reliably or for a long duration. We're not even dealing with navigation in 3D yet, and the challenge of 2d autonomous navigation is still non trivial.

I know, with autonomous cars you don't want to injure or kill any passengers and pedestrians for obvious reasons. An autonomous armada does not have any human crew, however we still do not want it to crash into each other like drunken bees and set off their bombs prematurely, or even just crashing into each other and causing damage to each other. Even with unlimited resources from a Dyson sphere pumping out these hypothetical units, logistics is still a factor. You don't want the failure ratio to be high, as in you pump out a huge number of these units fine, but on the way to where you want them to be they crash or blow up prematurely with only one or two remaining. Unless you want to bring in a mothership and drones arrangement, but that would nullify the advantage of "holy shit there is simply too fucking many of them they're a damn swarm"

I did have a co-worker who is in engineering and heavily into automation tech, mention some time back that there is ongoing research and experiments for biomimicry for that kind of navigational AI or algorithm. Looking at how ants and flocks of birds move etc.

>>23685

>See: the current problem with self driving cars navigation, where the aim is for cars to not only be aware of their own location but also communicating with other cars to be able to pull off moving formations that most of your average drivers can not perform reliably or for a long duration

>Looking at how ants and flocks of birds move etc.

Kinda answered your own question there. "Don't run into shit that isn't your target", is a simple command to follow in the grand scheme of things.

Also, the thing that never gets much mention in Trek (what with the silly inertial dampers) is how the biggest limiting factor on the maneuvering ability of a starship is its squishy organic crew. It can't turn faster than, say, an airplane, because human eyes can't track motion that's too fast: it just blurs. But a small drone-ship can both pull off maneuvers that push the craft to tens of thousands of gees (think moving along at nearly light speed and then just coming to a stop on a dime, or dodging a hundred feet to one side in the blink of an eye) and keep track of where its going through millions of sensor sweeps per second. Every ship piloted by an organic crew will be moving at a snail's pace by comparison.

>>23708

>Kinda answered your own question there.

It wasn't a question, it's a statement of what is currently the tech level in our world. If it was as simple as you wrote, we'd all be chauffeured in our own JonnyCabs already. Believe me, there are huge players that wants autonomous cars to happen. Insurance companies have a great interest in them.

>"Don't run into shit that isn't your target", is a simple command to follow in the grand scheme of things.

In a controlled, lab environment sure. In the real world where variables are not so controlled and can constantly change? No, it's not simple at all. Look at the current state of our world autonomous car programs, every companies version still has their own problems when it comes to their systems and sensors detecting "shit that isn't your target\destination", on the fly. At this time of writing most of them are still testing only on perfect sunny weather in semi controlled environments, not in a snow filled weather conditions for example.

<ants and ducks can move without crashing ass over tea kettles, we got smaller and smaller computers that can calculate faster than them it should be easy peasy

Making biomimicry happen and ready for primetime outside the lab to industrial ready for real world condition, is also very, very far from simple.

>But a small drone-ship can both pull off maneuvers that push the craft to tens of thousands of gees (think moving along at nearly light speed and then just coming to a stop on a dime, or dodging a hundred feet to one side in the blink of an eye) and keep track of where its going through millions of sensor sweeps per second. Every ship piloted by an organic crew will be moving at a snail's pace by comparison.

This runs to a different problme using our world comparison of combat drones. On paper combat jet technology has outpaced the human pilots. Almost similar to car racing in many ways. Yes a robotic or completely computer pilot does not have the same G forces limits as humans, but for obvious reasons most militaries do not want a completely autonomous flying weapon, or any completely autonomous weapon in general. AI or robot augmented, sure. Remote controlled, that's already happening with most of the hurdle being lag delay.

But it might be a possibility that a mothership\drone combo could happen. Hell, the future could come in the form of the Ur Quan Dreadnaught ship design, or if you're a starcraft1 fag, the Protoss carrier, or the BSG reboot Cylon battle carrier.

>>23717

>Insurance companies have a great interest in them.

Why's that? I would assume that the presence of one or more autonomous cars in an accident has the potential to really complicate liability issues. And since it's the manufacturer that gets targeted if the AI is found to be at fault in a crash, automakers would be hesitant to offer driverless cars even after technology had gotten far enough, because they would want to be very secure legally speaking before they declare any of their cars to be safe to run without direct driver input.

>>23719

>without direct driver input.

This is the holy grail that the interested parties are looking for. And for it function at an acceptable rate it can not be a mix of semiauto with auto with human only drivers, a few of the recent crashes supposedly points to the flaws of semi autonomous system. Being that the people involved just nodding "yeah yeah I totally understand it's not completely auto and I still have to pay attention", then treating it as if it's 100% when they get complacent.

The goal is to get an acceptably functional system going, and likely use a carrot of lower insurance rate if you use an autonomousmobile, with combination of the stick with hiking up rates if you're actually driving it manually because now you are the wildcard factor in the new, orderly automatic autobahn.

And yes, they definitely are wrestling with all the points you've brought up with liabilities etc. But automated cars and the system it brings about, it is a big juicy grail that still greatly interests them.

>>23717

It doesn't matter what the insurance companies want or what logic dictates; it's the consumer who doesn't want anything to do with automated cars. It will never happen in the USA because muh individual freedums, but I can easily see it becoming commonplace in big European cities simply due to population density, within the next 20 or 30 years.

>snow filled weather conditions

Humans can't drive worth shit in snowy conditions either. The point was never to create a flawless system that never makes mistakes and accidentally kills people; the point is to make a system that is better than a human driver, even by a small percent --- then it is worth it, and even the shitty driverless cars we have now are already measurably safer than humans.

>>23730

I'm sorry, but you're talking about some movie which never actually happened. That wasn't Star Trek; it was The Fast and The Furious 12: We Wuz Spacemans and Sheet.

>>23746

>The Furious 12: We Wuz Spacemans and Sheet

I can accept that description, nevertheless the weakness of mass AI/manned drones to interfering signals (enemy or other kind) is nevertheless something to consider.

The Russian military probably has several gagdets that can fuck with american drones making them all but useless for a fraction of the cost.

>>23746

>It doesn't matter what the insurance companies want

Heh, if only you knew. Did you miss this part?

< automated cars and the system it brings about

Read between the lines. New infrastructure contracts, and possibly furthering a dystopian situation where ownership and control will be attempted to further be replaced with "convenient and ready access without the hassle of ownership goyi- I mean fellow countrymen"

>it's the consumer who doesn't want anything to do with automated cars.

Have you ever tested your hypothesis? Because I've seen the possible future, and even the consumers (that yes, I actually talked to) who don't want anything to do with it, are either enticed by the tech, and or enticed and forced by the possibility of lower insurance rates. Besides, consumer space will likely be the last one to get the system despite the mainstream attention. Fleet vehicles is where the big players are really aiming at for a while now. Once that reaches a critical mass, then it's the regular consumer space in yes, dense urban areas and definitely freeway usage.

>It will never happen in the USA because muh individual freedums, but I can easily see it becoming commonplace in big European cities simply due to population density, within the next 20 or 30 years.

Buddy, pal, amigo. Everything I said about the subject does not equal = I endorse all of it's implications. But I'll tell you this. If you think it's only going to be in eurabia. You're in for a rude awakening. I already heard many of the big players repeat your exact words of "the next 20 or 30 years", and they're not aiming exclusively at the the EU urban zones.

>The point was never to create a flawless system that never makes mistakes and accidentally kills people

Uh ok? Don't remember myself mentioning that 100% success rate is what they're after or even possible, I do remember mentioning something about an acceptably functional rate. The rest of the stuff seems like you're paraphrasing most of the points I already listed and seems to be in agreement with, so okie dokie smokie I guess.

>>23746

>and even the shitty driverless cars we have now are already measurably safer than humans.

Well except this small detail, I do agree that the driverless cars we have now at this time of writing, are still shitty. :^)

Slightly more serious, whether they're measurably safer than humans is highly debateable and depends on the area you're talking about. A densely populated urban center with a bunch of new rapefugees who drives a car the same way they beat their camels or hilux technicals where they came from because they never saw snow? Well the odds might be even on that one as to which ones are are the shittier drivers.

>>23759

That's only a problem if they are networked, which is one way to do this type of system. The other way is each unit self-contained and simply avoiding the others via active lidar or radar. I suppose you could confuse those signals as well, but at that point it's not longer an AI-only liability; those same techniques could fool sensors on manned ships, too.

>>23763

You're a condescending /tinfoilhat/ /pol/tard with his head about two feet up his own ass. I refuse to debate with someone who thinks he can see the future and is stupid enough to take tech-company "just around the corner!" promises at face-value. Tell me again how those flying cars and miniature fusion power plants in every home, that they've been promising since the 60's, are working out for you.

>>23776

> to take tech-company "just around the corner!" promises at face-value.

Nah nigger, try some reading comprehension instead of being so eager to "debate". It isn't only the tech companies, there are other players involved. I work in manufacturing and infrastructures sector that deals with many related parts to it. Do you really have a hard time understanding that me describing the points =\= agreeing or endorsing the implications it brings. But ok dude, it's tinfoil 4U. If you really interpret me describing goals that large players are after = taking their promise at face value, seems you're being a contrarian for contrarian sake.

>Tell me again how those flying cars and miniature fusion power plants in every home, that they've been promising since the 60's, are working out for you.

Wait, aren't you the same guy who insists that the CURRENT tech is good enough, "simple" to implement according to you, and you can easily see it happening in the urban caliphate of Europe in 20-30 years. Yet when I told you that large players are aiming at the American marketplace, has said what you just wrote, it's all tinfoil and

muh poltard

Nigger those are your own words you're "debating".

>>23746

>it's the consumer who doesn't want anything to do with automated cars

Actually the market for automated trucks is huge and could revolutionize online retail.

>big European cities simply due to population density

I see you've never been to an European city.

>>23778

You don't understand. Europe has a political climate where the government can and will impose their socialist agenda onto the people for a greater good, whether they fucking want it or not, whether it's profitable or not. The USA has never done things that way, and never will. That's why it lags behind on literally every public sector: healthcare, education, support for homeless/veterans/elderly, employee protection, infrastructure, rights for [insert minority group here]. You name it. How could you possibly think this is any different? There is no profit in these systems right now, and likely won't be.

>I work in manufacturing and infrastructures sector that deals with many related parts to it.

Sounds like you work on a factory floor, and think that gives you the same insight and foresight as your CEO. Get outta here. Managed to shove your head another foot deeper up your own ass, I see.

>>23825

European cities are denser than US cities. This is simple fact. They are also more comfortable relying on public transportation, which a system of automated vehicles would arguably be. This is also simple fact. What part didn't you understand? I'll attempt to explain it again.

>>23840

>The USA has never done things that way, and never will

What is the military and militarism. Europe does socialism because Uncle Sam pays the defense bill but this will have to change.

>This is the kind of battle tactic that makes sense when you have basically UNLIMITED resources, UNLIMITED energy reserves, and UNLIMITED capacity to transmute base elements into any substance or device that is known.

Something that only happens in a communist food starved fevered mind. Because logistics still matters, you nigger. By the way if a faction actually does possess UNLIMITED energy reserves, they'd just as likely just beam the bombs to the target.

>What I was talking about was a lot more dumb AI, really nothing that's even beyond CURRENT tracking or computing potential.

So you started with that.

> "Don't run into shit that isn't your target", is a simple command to follow in the grand scheme of things.

Followed with your simplistic solution that have evaded all others so far. Because car companies high tech companies military and space sector never figured out the solution is to tell the car to not "run into shit that isn't your target." Wew, do you have the actual machine language code to translate and implement that, preferably on the back of a napkin that you just brilliantly dashed off in 5 minutes. For that extra flair of simplistic brilliance. Presentation is important.

>a system that is better than a human driver, even by a small percent --- then it is worth it, and even the shitty driverless cars we have now are already measurably safer than humans.

Is this the same system that you want in

>a small drone-ship can both pull off maneuvers that push the craft to tens of thousands of gees (think moving along at nearly light speed and then just coming to a stop on a dime, or dodging a hundred feet to one side in the blink of an eye) and keep track of where its going through millions of sensor sweeps per second.

Something that is a "small percentage" better than a fresh off the pirate boat somalian driving in a Minnesotan winter.

>it's the consumer who doesn't want anything to do with automated cars.

Yet you seem to believe earlier that it's nearly good enough to drive a space combat droneship that can pull off incredible maneouvers and stop on a dime. In a planetary war situation where the stakes are that much higher. Ces't what?

>It will never happen in the USA because muh individual freedums,

Why do you write the word freedom like a college communist on a macbook.

>Tell me again how those flying cars and miniature fusion power plants in every home, that they've been promising since the 60's,

They're next in line after you fix the problem of 3D navigation with your napkin code of "hey flying car, make sure you don't crash into any other airborne vehicles, and land safely only on cleared landing areas". No one brought up mini fusion power plants but since you were the one bringing up Dyson spheres, I'm sure you can come up with another simplistic solution to make that a reality too. It's after all a simplistic thing to accomplish in the grand scheme of things, amirite.

>rights for [insert minority group here].

Holy fucking shit don't jump the shark that fast, you might hit warp 10 by accident.

>Sounds like you work on

Actually I've also worked on infrastructure stuff, the last company I worked for was bought out by some euro based conglomorate however. Which may or may not be interested in some of the stuff we did testing various pilot projects, most of the ones I saw was lab condition at best, some were just really experimental, some continues to be researched and worked on. If only we had your brilliantly simplistic solutions at the time, more people could have cashed out and earn 20% on a private Tahitian beach somewhere.

Madam, your contrarian flailings are preciously hysterical. You've proven once again, OP is a faggot. If your asspussy is still weeping from getting your cuntrarian beliefs questioned, the Ezri diaper threads might be more to your comfort level.

>>23840

>European cities are denser than US cities.

No, they aren't, this is a common delusion that a lot of tourists hold, usually from seeing some abortion like Paris, or because tourists see smaller roads they think there are too many people. The continent itself has a denser population, but there are far more cities because it's not colonial city planning.

>>23840

>The USA has never done things that way, and never will. That's why it lags behind on literally every public sector: healthcare, education, support for homeless/veterans/elderly, employee protection, infrastructure, rights for [insert minority group here]. You name it.

That really isn't true, the US has more than its fair share of socialist idiocy. As the other anon said, our own military budget is gratuitously large, to the point that we've effectively subsidized defense spending for the entire Western hemisphere. This is part of what allows European countries to be so irresponsible with their own budgets. Further, you need to remember that direct public spending isn't the only kind of leftist interference; our healthcare system, for instance, while not directly government-run, hasn't been anything resembling free market for a century. Between the AMA, hospital and university subsidies, and extensive regulatory "oversight" there's an absurd amount of state interference in the industry, in some cases more so than European countries. The same is true of regulations in general. People like to shit on Sweden (and rightfully so) for being a socialist multicultural hellhole, but in a lot of ways it and other Scandinavian countries are less socialist than the US is. They have welfare and a progressive tax system, but they have fewer regulations, a lower corporate tax, and other factors that make the markets there more free in certain ways than the US counterpart. Molyneux made a pretty good video on this subject before he went full clickbait.

>>23859

There is literally statistical evidence to back this up. I won't spoonfeed you; google it yourself. European cities generally have a higher population density than US cities. This is fact, you dumb motherfucker; so why don't you actually try an argument instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself?

>>23867

I'm a bit confused because I don't know whether your usage of "Western hemisphere" refers to the geological or the political. I have to assume the latter because the actual Western Hemisphere doesn't contain much of Europe beyond Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and part of Britain and France.

In any case, the idea that the USA's military presence in Europe or anywhere else provide protectionism for Europe is… laughably naive. War is obsolete and everyone knows it. There hasn't BEEN a war since WW2; everything since then has either been a country's own internal affairs that the USA butts their nose into, political showboating that amounted to nothing, or attempted aggressive expansion. And no, tens of thousands of US soldiers taking pot shots at a bunch of sandniggers in caves doesn't count, either.

The USA is that one paranoid old man that lives up the street and fills his house with booby traps because he's afraid someone will invade, except he's somehow convinced his neighbors to also install booby traps in their houses as well.

Also, there is nothing that can convince me that Molyneux hasn't always been a complete nutjob spouting memes and nonsense. Besides, it's a non-sequitur as I specified social infrastructure, which corporate tax has nothing to do with.

>>23911

>There hasn't been a symmetrical war for a little while so war is obsolete

K.

>I can ignore reality because I don't like Molyneux

K.

>>23913

>A little while

>Over seventy years

Tell me again about ignoring reality.

>>23848

>Insults, bitching and moaning, autistic cherry-picking of tiny fragments of an entire argument to attack rather than any central premise, declaration of victory after providing no substantive argument of his own, and even referenced other threads on the board to score brownie-points with other posters

Whew, lad. You sure have mastered the art of imageboard arguments. Good on you. I mean, nothing you said carries any weight outside this board, much less in the real world, but that's okay; people like you have no meaning or purpose in the real world. The way you talk about things is still second-person; the company you worked for, the stuff "we" did, the projects you saw, and some bland and vague supposition of what you think the company that ate yours for breakfast might do with those data and resources. You're subconsciously telling me that you had little or nothing to do with any of the upper-level accomplishments of the company, have no idea what it was all about, and merely saw it happening. What did you REALLY do? What was your ACTUAL job? Middle management? Entry-level programming? Did they have you working the CNC machine? Perhaps scrubbing the HEPA filters for the clean room or working on the plumbing? When you say "infrastructure", it's clear as day that you're hiding the actual work you did. Your use of your company's worth as a measure of your own is pathetic.

Also, you failed to properly quote my post before your greentexting tirade, which means by the Law of Imageboards, you fucked up; and by calling this out, I win by default. Sorry, dude. You want to play this game, you must abide by the rules, even the ones you don't like.

>>23867

>full clickbait

Just say Donald Trump shill. Before Trump came along Molyneux was spreading MGTOW information and helping grind America to a halt and it was good work. But now he is another propagandist for the White House.

>What was your ACTUAL job?

<Hmmmm, should I break legal agreements, get myself into legal troubles and potential self dox, to try and pacify some hysterical woman who will still just go "nuh uh, no u" no matter what. What a dilemma, quite a conundrum.

But on that subject, what's yours OP? Besides all around space tactician, AI expert, large scale energy production engineer, and now remote psychoanalyst that is. The world needs your incredible insights and simple as pie solutions more than ever. Pretty sure private and public sectors are hiring for that. And having more women like you in STEM is always a good thing. Maybe look at the oaktown area. They might have an opening there in the very near future.

>War is obsolete and everyone knows it.

I'm sure they do, dear. You declared it here after all.

>>23984

Fun fact. There's a USS Donald Trump in Star Trek before Trump was elected President.

>>23985

>He expects us to believe that the work he does is so classified that he can't even provide a basic job description

You're a janitor.

>>24032

>Cook you up some ice cream

>Heating up ice cream

>I now have a bowl of room-temperature sweet milk

Thanks. You're not even a good cook. I wonder how burned your biscuits are going to be when you find out you're hate-flirting with a man.

>>24067

I don't know what's more retarded. The fact that you think cooking in the broad sense of "being a cook" or "cooking something up" necessarily involves heat, or that you don't know that the best ice cream has always been made with creme anglaise, a "cooked" custard. What a fag.

>>24032

I just thought it was funny.

And I'm not OP.

>>24121

>Mincing semantics to try to defend that guy

What are you, some kind of White Knight for assholes? All you fuckers are rushing to his defense like HE'S a goddamn woman! Don't you have anything better to do?

>Creme anglaise

I anticipated him coming back with something cliche and inane like "Baked Alaska", but this is a little bit better. Just a little bit.