Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

'Vortex Cannon vs Drone' - Mark Rober shows off tech from a "defense technology company that specializes in advanced autonomous systems". That seems bad

I've enjoyed Mark Rober's videos for a while now. They are fun, touch on accessible topics, and have decent production value. But this recent video isn't sitting right with me

The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGENEXocJU

In it, he talks about a few techniques for how to take down "bad guy drones", the problems with each, and then shows off the drone tech by Anduril as a solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anduril_Industries

Anduril aims to sell the U.S. Department of Defense technology, including artificial intelligence and robotics. Anduril's major products include unmanned aerial systems (UAS), counter-UAS (CUAS), semi-portable autonomous surveillance systems, and networked command and control software.

In the video, the Anduril product is a heavy drone that uses kinetic energy to destroy other drones (by flying into them). Quoting the person in the video:

imagine a children's bowling ball thrown at twice as fast as a major league baseball fastball, that's what it's like getting hit by Anvil

This technology is scary for obvious reasons, especially in the wrong hands. What I also don't like is how Mark Rober's content is aimed at children, and this video includes a large segment advertising the children's products he is selling. Despite that, he is promoting military technology with serious ethical implications.

There's even a section in the video where they show off the Roadrunner, compare it against the patriot missiles, and loosely tie it in to defending against drones. While the Anvil could be used to hurt people, at least it is designed for small flying drones. The Roadrunner is not:

The Roadrunner is a 6 ft (1.8 m)-long twin turbojet-powered delta-winged craft capable of high subsonic speeds and extreme maneuverability. Company officials describe it as somewhere between an autonomous drone and a reusable missile. The basic version can be fitted with modular payloads such as intelligence and reconnaissance sensors. The Roadrunner-M has an explosive warhead to intercept UAS, cruise missiles, and manned aircraft.

wylderbuilds ,

That's an absolutely awful video. Loud, obnoxious, disingenuous and not even remotely as funny, informative, comprehensive, or clever as the idiot who made it thinks it is. It's valueless content made to be ingested and served up by an algorithm.

Maggoty ,

That sounds like a solution without a problem. We already have guns that can shoot down drones and our own recon drones at every level from squad to corps.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

That sounds like a solution without a problem.

After the trading of salvos between Iran and Israel, I think its a new entry in Delusion Olympics, as we spiral into a new kind of Cold War.

We already have guns that can shoot down drones and our own recon drones at every level from squad to corps.

Anti-air defenses are notorious for being a losing gambit. It costs more manpower and materials to block an opponent's shot than it does to launch the volley, which is why threat of reprisal is still the most effective form of deterrence.

But nobody really likes the MAD end-game. So we have to build up this fantasy of an Iron Dome to convince ourselves that we can strike out without consequences.

boaratio , (edited )

Remember when he faked his first fart bomb video because he used his friends to play the part of the porch pirates? That was years ago.

Edit: My memory was a little fuzzy on exactly the nature of the incident was. See my follow up comment for a link to an article that explains what actually happened.

Geth ,

I'm sorry to be that guy but I'm genuinely curious. Source?

boaratio ,

My memory of this was a little off, but here's the source: Engadget

Theharpyeagle ,

You should probably amend your original comment to clarify that the fake part of the video was done by one of the people who volunteered to put the package on their porch, which Mark at least claims he had no knowledge of. Also worth pointing out that the known fake part of the video has been removed.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Also worth pointing out that the known fake part of the video has been removed.

Removing the fake part of my video after its attracted enough views to get monetized and I realize I might actually get in trouble for it. Because I'm a stand up guy.

The whole "Porch Piracy Revenge" craze always felt like a guerrilla marketing campaign for Nextdoor and Ring. A mix of crime-wave hysteria and suburban sadism I haven't seen since "Cops" became FOX's most watched TV show.

Nice to see yet another layer in which it was painfully contrived.

Reddfugee42 ,

I mean, one should assume every single "real" video that features "random strangers" is staged until presented with evidence of the contrary.

net00 ,

This is a common pattern in content creators. As they grow their goals shift into running a production machine that maximizes earnings, throwing away any values or standards they started with.

Just look at LTT/LMG. It's not gonna get better, so you could watch someone else who still values things other than money.

rottingleaf ,

Some children may grow to be the "bad guys" making and employing the "bad guy drones", so it may be useful for them. War is part of life.

But if you want a certain kind of atmosphere, then I wouldn't.

ChuckEffingNorris ,

I watched it with my kids and felt uncomfortable. This sort of video is not the same as elephants toothpaste.

I don't suffer through rober videos so my kids can now worry people want to drop bombs on them at a stadium.

Thanks mark.

lledrtx ,

Mark has always been icky for me. I watch these kinds of videos almost excellently - the science-tech ones; yet I avoid him like the plague.

The_Vampire ,

I was not expecting this amount of hate over this video when I clicked on this post. The video is... normal? I don't see issues? This whole thread seems oddly anti-military, anti-tech, and anti-Mark Rober. Like, what, is this tech going to be used to murder children more effectively than bombing a school? Even if it is, why is Mark Rober at fault and actually a phony who's just shelling out for fame/cash? I'm genuinely curious what I'm missing here.

Sizzler ,

It's simply, propaganda. The issue with its audience is they are too young to realise they are being sold the next gen of weapons and it's being promoted in a positive light. If you don't understand why that is wrong then do a quick moral check in yourself.

Telodzrum ,

Maybe, but defense tech is cool.

demonsword ,
@demonsword@lemmy.world avatar

defense tech is cool

"Defense" is mostly doublespeak since this tech will be used to attack and murder brown people in the other side of the world

Feathercrown ,

The vortex cannon was shot directly at the youtubers in this video and they were fine. The attack drone is designed to take out other drones. What here is going to be used to kill humans exactly? Did you watch the video?

demonsword ,
@demonsword@lemmy.world avatar

I wasn't refering to the video. "Defense" tech is obviously a much larget topic than the video itself.

Feathercrown ,

"this tech", to me, implied a connection to the subject at hand.

demonsword ,
@demonsword@lemmy.world avatar

I meant "defense tech" as "this tech". Might not be accurate grammatically, I'm not a native English speaker

Feathercrown ,

It's ambiguous, you're good 👍

Sizzler ,

The drone hovers and goes down instead of up. A 200 mile an hour brick that if used right could go for multiple targets before failure.

Feathercrown ,

I mean, yeah, you can modify most military tech to target humans.

Sizzler ,

There is no modify, only a down button, I suppose lazers are pretty effective but they are banned right? And EMP? I think I can survive that but I'm sure someone will be along to tell me I won't.

I've pointed out that they are weapons and being presented in a friendly way, that's all, why argue when you asked the question?

Sizzler ,

Tru dat

rottingleaf ,

You do realize that it's good to give information about weapons to people who'll be targeted by them the most?

Education in new reality of war is as important as any other.

And a sword is definitely a positive thing when many other people already have swords and you are choosing whether to have one.

Maggoty ,

Are you thinking the average person is going to be buying a jet drone cannon?

rottingleaf ,

Average person isn't going to do anything comprehensively.

Sizzler ,

What use is the information in this case?

To me it can be summed up as:
Lazers can be defeated (more like we are not willing to leave our best lazer tech lying around)

Signal blocking can be defeated

So we've resorted to flying bricks to defeat YOUR drones, don't even think of using them.

Oh and just remember they are presenting them in a "drone travels up" way....

But they could do the exact opposite to an "object" on the ground. (A highly deadly "penny off the empire state")

rottingleaf ,

They'll think how to use their drones to still kill enemy's manpower.

isolatedscotch ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU

VirtualOdour ,

Lemmy is slipping into a weird form of pacifism where they're really hype about certain types of violence (punch a nazi, execute billionaires, etc) but also hate democracies working together to defend against attack because they see government as a nebulous evil and they'd rather people die than admit their edgy ideology is overly simplistic.

And yes I know the west has been involved in bad wars predicated on lies, the west isn't the only place where people lie and do awful things for personal power and wealth, democracy isn't perfect but it's a work in progress best effort to work on making things better and it's actually working pretty well really all things considered. I certainly think having tools to defend it against attack is a sensible and good thing especially something as elegant and accurate as just smashing attacking drones with percussive force. Far less likelihood of civilian casualties or ecological damage.

DAMunzy ,

But the West isn't a work in progress. We actively support genocide. We are the baddies that live on the backs of the rest of the world. We currently do this. Actively.

VirtualOdour ,

That's such a simplistic and idealistic world view, you really think the rest of the world would just be a utopia of mutual love and respect if it weren't for the existence of the evil race?

People the world over are all just human there are lovely Americans, lovely Arabs, lovely Chinese and Japanese and Ghanaian... however there are also greedy and manipulative people in all these places, people who will hurt others to get in a position of power - this is a reality of life, things are complex and sometimes interests and established beliefs clash leafing to conflict. This happens everywhere all through history.

The world is work in progress, its a lot if hugely difficult challenges many which come with added surprises and difficulties and unintended consequences.

DAMunzy ,

I never said that everyone else is perfect. Don't strawman my words.

Kedly ,

I didnt hate the video when I watched it, but Mark's videos are heavily aimed at family friendly vibes, and this video is heavily centered around domestic terrorism, even though it family friendly dances around actually using the term. Which is a weird vibe

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

This kind of thing happens a lot. Something "negative" comes up about a popular person and everyone comes crawling out of the wood work about how they "knew all along" and "this person really is such a horrible person" and "on my god how could they do this?"

I'm probably going to regret the few comments I've made in this thread ... but yeah, I really don't think that video was that bad. It shows off how engineering can be applied to defending from possible future attacks. Maybe someone could use this offensively and "promotes the military industrial complex" but I think a bullet or a bomb is a lot more economical than "anvil" and "anvil" is something folks could potentially see in real life in civilian defense applications.

I'd personally love to see more people taking an interest and inspiration from counter weapons systems rather than the mentality of "the best defense is a good offense." Not because I want to see more war, but because I think we've created some really nasty weapons and the shield and castle have long been out classed... People should be able to protect themselves.

daltotron ,

Mostly I just hate when very obviously sponsored videos don't declare their sponsorships. The entire first half of this like, 15 minute video is an ad, and then the rest of the content is made by like 3 other people. The thing he did was a big dart launcher. Now sure, that's probably just for fun, it's a scaled up version of the science kit he's selling, it's probably laudable that he didn't want to show up his co-stars or whatever, but this is a video that has no content and basically no educational value. It's trash, basically, it just has science education skin on.

Veritasium has done a similar thing a couple times, like his video on the autonomous cars. Very clearly a sponsorship, I think he only says so at the very end of the video, he totally glosses over any problems or downsides the technology has and speaks glowingly of it the whole time, paycheck please, next video, credibility is basically totally shot. I dunno, when I was a kid, magazines like popular science sold me on shit like the hyperloop. I wish they had been as forward thinking and hyped about normal trains, instead. Especially considering how many people have probably fallen for similar garbage like this due to that kind of stuff.

warlaan ,

I understand the criticism of the tone of the video, but what I totally don't understand is that some comments say that this technology was "scary".

How? You are aware that we are loving in a world where missiles can carry nuclear bombs and where thousands of those are kept in working condition so they could be launched at any moment?
A world where terrorists have successfully destroyed a building in another country with a plane?
Where school shootings are a thing?
Where there is a war in the Ukraine where much cheaper drones are used to kill much more efficiently with explosives?

I guarantee you that no one will ever acquire one of these drones to attack an individual because there are so many ways that are cheaper and easier and have been around for decades.

androogee ,

Oh, great! What are the terms of your guarantee?

Reddfugee42 ,

"or else"

VirtualOdour ,

Yeah it's very odd, it's probably one of the least scary things around at the moment - makes no sense everyone worked up about a clearly defensive measure that's far less likely to hurt anyone accidentally compaired to alternatives like spraying bullets or airburst missiles.

I really don't get what makes it scary, it's like being in a house fire when you live above a gunpowder factory but you're worried you'll drown because one of the taps is dripping

Cort ,

I think fear is fairly subjective, and to me these are scarier than bombs and guns. Bombs have a blast radius and bullets don't stop after they hit their target, which means collateral damage has to be considered before using these. If you don't have to worry about that because you're going to just drop an anvil on someone's head it would make it that much easier to order someone's death.

Like yeah you're probably not going to see any mass killings with these drones, but it certainly makes individual targeted killings easier.

warlaan ,

Name one situation where this device makes killing someone easier than it already is.

You think that this device is considered less lethal than the knee that killed George Floyd?

Do you think the police officers who shot a civilian in the back several times or who shot a man in his car when he told them that he had a licensed firearm in the glove compartment were thinking rationally enough to be worried about collateral damage?

These drones are too expensive and unwieldy to be used in situations like that, so they could only be used in a premeditated killing. So let's check these out:

A civilian wouldn't use them, because attaching a bomb to an off the shelve drone is much cheaper, and you can buy everything you need without raising eyebrows.

When the government kills one of their citizens they don't kill them on the spot. They put them on death row for years, kill them with an injection and then watch John Oliver make an episode on the people and companies that were involved.

When they kill people in other countries collateral damage is not really holding them back. And also: they already use missiles with blades instead of explosives.

I really can't imagine a situation where these drones would make things worse than they already are.

Snapz ,

Weird topic for a channel aimed at children

Sorgan71 ,

Its just a gun. Chill out

CylonBunny ,
@CylonBunny@lemmy.world avatar

All of the people here saying Backyard Scientist is better should check out his latest video.

lud ,

Why did they name a canon the same name as a flashlight OS?

^/s

EarMaster , (edited )

I haven't watched any of his videos since the second glitter bomb video. He was looking for people setting up glitter bombs as a trap and sent one to to someone who never had the intention to do ao. As consequence he sent some embarrassing postcards to the person's neighbors and claims to have submitted the address to Scientology recruitment.

DontRedditMyLemmy ,

If you remember the details (and how to structure a coherent sentence) please post again!

EarMaster , (edited )

I'm not a native speaker, but you can easily just watch the primary source (the second glitter bomb video) and you will definitely spot the part I refer to.

Edit: I have rewritten my original comment to make it easier to understand. I hope it worked.

DontRedditMyLemmy ,

Ah, sorry for being a dick. Much clearer now.

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

https://youtu.be/a_TSR_v07m0?si=P7jdUMD8MwKqsCcJ

10:18 timestamp.

Maybe it's distasteful, but I didn't see anything majorly wrong with what he did there. Someone stole something he worked quite a bit on, so he pranked the guy.

EarMaster ,

I'm seeing this as not "just a prank". If you read a bit about Scientology and their practices you might realize that this is potentially existential for the guy. And given the audience I wouldn't want to have Scientology established as an organization you use for a prank. If he really was that bitter about it he should have sued the guy or - what a crazy thought - just let him be.

raspberriesareyummy ,

Mark Rober is a practicing mormon. And that already did not sit right with me. Christian, muslim, I don't care what religion, these people should stay away from child education programs.
Keeping your faith completely private is borderline acceptable, but please keep your symbols of faith out of your videos (white shirt for the mormons as I learned)

The_Vampire ,

No?

There are crazies in every religion, and even agnostics and atheists have their fair share of crazies that go too far. It's also not a great idea to just not expose kids to religious folk (even if that was conceivable, which it's not given how many people are religious) and it's not a great idea to demand they keep it private. Preaching is too far, but it's perfectly acceptable for a teacher to tell their students what the teacher believes in and to wear iconography like a necklace of Jesus on the cross. In fact, I would much rather they be extremely public about what they believe in rather than be silent about it.

raspberriesareyummy ,

I hope for your personal consistency that you then are also okay with a woman in a hijab creating educational videos for youtube.

As far as the crazy atheists go, there's a type of "atheists" that treat atheism as a belief system, but have neither tried nor have the intellectual capacity to come up with their own, original understanding of why there is no god. However, there is a fundamental difference: Every crazy atheist is on their own, there's no "atheist institution" that backs their craziness.
For cults (and the only practical distinction between a religion and a cult is just the amount of followers), that's not the case - you have a power hierarchy, sometimes more, sometimes less flat, that advocates their belief system.

It is therefore okay for a teacher - when asked(!) about it - to tell children about their personal beliefs. It is absolutely not okay for a teacher to tell unasked, or to tell children about the belief system / cult they are a part of.

The_Vampire ,

I hope for your personal consistency that you then are also okay with a woman in a hijab creating educational videos for youtube.

Yeah. That's exactly what I was saying. You are correct, I am completely okay with that.

It is absolutely not okay for a teacher to tell unasked, or to tell children about the belief system / cult they are a part of.

I disagree. It's perfectly fine for someone to give a sort of disclaimer as to what they believe in and other things like that. The issue is when they start preaching what they believe in without warning while supposedly teaching a different subject.

starman2112 ,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

This reads as borderline schizoposting

Keeping your faith completely private is borderline acceptable, but please keep your symbols of faith out of your videos

Someone just being religious is "borderline acceptable?" Please go outside. People are often religious. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people. "Keep your symbols of faith out of your videos?" What a thing to say to a religious person who isn't trying to convert anyone with said videos. Like, I'm not Christian, I'm no fan of their bible, but I'm not about to give SmarterEveryDay a dislike and a block because he puts a bible verse at the end of each video.

raspberriesareyummy ,

Someone just being religious is “borderline acceptable?”
In educational Youtube videos, yes.

but I’m not about to give SmarterEveryDay a dislike and a block because he puts a bible verse at the end of each video.
Maybe give him a dislike and a block because he gave Jared and Ivanka a platform?

I don't take issue with personal beliefs, but religion is organized belief, telling people what and how to believe. Anyone who advocates for religion has no business in any education system whatsoever.

VirtualOdour ,

He's not even in an education system he made a video on YouTube, but still you've got to recognize 'ban all Christians from any form of education system' is utterly wild?

raspberriesareyummy ,
  1. he's making educational videos on Youtube, with a wide audience. You don't have to be a teacher to be part of an education system
  2. fuck your strawman bullshit, learn to argue, here's what I wrote:

Christian, muslim, I don’t care what religion, these people should stay away from child education programs. Keeping your faith completely private is borderline acceptable, but please keep your symbols of faith out of your videos (white shirt for the mormons as I learned)

starman2112 ,
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works avatar

"Ban all Christians from any form of education system" seems like a fairly accurate summary of "Christian, muslim, I don’t care what religion, these people should stay away from child education programs."

Like, I guess we could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't want them banned, you just want them to voluntarily never educate children in any way, and that's... Still utterly wild

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •