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.

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.

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.

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.

wjrii , (edited )

Rober's always seemed a little off to me, like one of those who enjoys being famous more than the stuff that made him famous in the first place. Seems like he's gotten worse, though. For instance, this video declares it "was not sponsored [by Zipline] in anyway nor did they pay for any of my travel or accommodations," despite extolling their virtues over and over again by name, and lingering lovingly on their drones and logos like Michael Bay with a car company's badge.

Smarter Everyday is also rather polished, and he's even more in bed with the military industrial complex, but (as of a few months ago anyway) he comes off like he's still actually enjoying the projects themselves and the information he's sharing. It's hard to exactly articulate the point where a content creator loses me, but I can feel it in my nerd-bones.

threelonmusketeers ,

Rober's always seemed a little off to me, like one of those who enjoys being famous more than the stuff that made him famous in the first place.

It's hard to exactly articulate the point where a content creator loses me, but I can feel it in my nerd-bones.

You've articulated my thoughts more clearly than I could myself. I've felt the same way for some time.

AstridWipenaugh ,

Destin works for defense contractors and he's never been shy about his interest and involvement in weaponry. He has a bible quote at the end of his videos. I seriously doubt I would agree with him about pretty much any politics and definitely not his personal beliefs, but he keeps his channel pretty strongly focused on the episode's subject without bringing his personal views into it. He seems to do the channel because he likes geeking out about nerdy stuff and wants to share that love with others.

I personally feel that the knowledge he's sharing is more important than knowing we probably disagree on some things. If he starts including prayer time or turns his channel into military porn, I'm out. But his channel is a positive influence for now, IMO.

Rober is different. He acts like cool science bro that worked for NASA and wants you to think he's Bill Nye or something. But he seems to be doing it for views and to push the stuff he's selling. He doesn't seem genuine. He's at risk of turning into a prank bro channel if his quality goes downhill.

LeroyJenkins ,

yeah I quite respect Destin despite being pretty opposite to him in ideology. he's able to be fairly apolitical while being very clear on his views by way of his topics and minor Bible nod on his videos. the politics are never front and center tho and the dude is actually a real real engineer that is a great science educator. the dude just really loves farm and weapon tech.

almar_quigley ,

Watch his video on when he was asked to interview Obama. It’s actually great. He also had a great vid on disinformation on the internet. He seems pretty rational after watching those.

Appoxo ,
@Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I just opened two of his (Destin) newest videos and couldnt find any quote about it in the video and channel description.
Are you sure that's up to date informationen?

smort ,
@smort@lemmy.world avatar

It’s just the book and verse number on screen, like “Psalms 3:10” or whatever. Along with a graphic of a mouse(?) in a hat.

Usually in the last 10 seconds or so of the video IIRC

Appoxo ,
@Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Found what you mean.
Yeah it's unobtrusive but the ones that should get the mesaage will receive it and the ones that do not, wont be bothered.

Good way to do it.

VirtualOdour ,

It's a really good video about a great drone project that he obviously loves, I don't get what your problem with it is? He wasn't sponsored, but still said good things about people delivering blood in inhospitable regions using clever tech and organization?

I think most of us watch his videos because we're interested in this sort of stuff

wjrii ,

I'm saying he's lying.

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

SnotFlickerman ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

This just in: Palmer Luckey is a piece of shit. This is what you bought when you paid for the Oculus Rift.

Somehow I already knew this was Anduril.

pineapplelover , (edited )

What's wrong with Palmer Luckey. I don't have much research on him but I believe Oculus was better before he sold out to Facebook.

SnotFlickerman , (edited )
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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

It was founded in 2017 by inventor Palmer Luckey with investors and founders associated with Palantir and SpaceX. 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.

This was months after he left Facebook. He left in March 2017 and opened Anduril in June 2017.

Point one against him was that he sold Oculus to Facebook. Point two is that he used his earnings from Oculus/Facebook to start a military hardware company with focus on autonomous weapons.

In other words, everyone who paid money to support Oculus ended up supporting this. This is what the profits of Oculus Rift bought: violent weaponry with more concern for profit than humanity. Great job, VR gamers!

Like seriously, though. If I buy a video game console, I shouldn't have to be concerned the profits will be used to make weapons.

Szyler ,

While I don't want to support weapons, blaming people that bought the vr headset in the past for what he would do with the money after the sale is a very bad take.
You can't blame them for not knowing the future.

Also the argument itself doesn't make much sense and can be strawmaned to "you pay taxes, therefore you are a complicit in the murders of your military, therefore you are a bad person".

kerrigan778 ,

He's a "libertarian" who loves and fundraises for Trump

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.

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.

Tramort ,

The breathless enthusiasm for the military industrial complex while dropping scary descriptions of terrorism that hasn't happened gave me exactly the same impression.

I hate this kind of content, especially from someone who seems like a pretty genuine person.

Please Mark: be a bit more critical.

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Mark is not a genuine person he is a pretengineer. He can barely make a functional robot.

Backyard Scientist and Sripol however are the real deal.

pineapplelover ,

Didn't the guy work on the Mars Rover at nasa though?

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Probably on some design stuff. If you look at his videos he never makes anything impressive. Just some mediocre junior tier engineering with good video production.

This video is no different. Backyard Scientist shows up with a functional shockwave blaster. Mark puts some elastics on rocket shaped foam and calls it a day.

pineapplelover ,

I think it's because Mark wants to interest a young audience rather than building some very complicated stuff little kids wouldn't be able to do.

Linkerbaan , (edited )
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Not necessarily. Making a great product would only attract a younger audience more and make the videos far cooler. But that takes a ton of time. Way more than just painting a large cannon and strapping some elastics to it

Mark clearly tries to only deliver a minimum viable product for a single shot rather than an actually functional product.

He falls under the "shittyrobots" engineers that don't just make shitty robots for fun, but because they can't actually make non shitty robots which accomplish the desired goal of their video well. Some people such as "I Did A Thing" don't try to hide it and make it part of the content. Mark is in the twilight zone of pretending he's engineering complex stuff while not actually doing that.

pineapplelover ,

Dude was a nasa engineer. Just because he doesn't do the complicated stuff on yt doesn't mean he's not capable of doing so. I do wish he did complex stuff though.

Linkerbaan , (edited )
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Dude was a NASA engineer. This also says more about how low the bar is for NASA engineers than about Mark, as we can clearly see Mark is incapable of good engineering.

As people above have pointed out there are plenty of real engineers making real cool stuff and get views with it. It is not necessary to make a bad robot whatsoever. Hell there's a reason Backyard Scientist got featured on the thumbnail.

Stuff made here. Tom Stanton. Peter Sripol. Backyard Scientist, James Bruton, Collin Furze, and many more. These people make amazing videos about prototypes that are actually functional and accomplish the goals they set out.

Mark does not meet the list of people who make amazing inventions for their videos that actually work. He makes painted trash that falls apart when touched. He makes shitty robots not because he wants to, but because he can't make good ones. If any more people need to be triggered, Micheal Reeves also doesn't meet this list.

Snazz ,

Its pretty clear that Mark and Micheal Reeves don’t focus as much on design and iteration so much as the ideas behind their creations. The content formula for their videos is different from the other youtube creators you mentioned. If that style of video isn’t your cup of tea, thats ok.

As for the inventions themselves, I have to disagree. I think some of Mark’s creations are fairly well designed, such as the later versions of the glitter bombs.

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

They don't push any limits. They just make fun gadget that works by connecting a Pi or Arduino to some servo, and possibly connect a joystick to it. This is fine for any beginning engineer of course. But they never push any limits. The glitter bomb you mentioned is very similar. A decent engineer can make that in a single day.

Anything created by them can be made by a university student, often a first year one if they have prior engineering experience during their youth.

The other guys are desiging custom hardware, custom electronics, write custom firmware. It's a lot more than a single input > output https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPXN0QejqM0

yarr ,

If you want to see some fucking crazy engineering (and I don't mean crazy impressive...) one of his variations of his glitter bomb used 4 Samsung phones hidden in a 3d printed enclosure. If you're ever in a spot where you are building a box and shoving 4 phones inside, you have fucked up.

Theharpyeagle ,

I mean, he chose them because they already include a camera, mic, battery, gps, and the ability to record and send data to cloud storage without a wifi connection. Yeah, you could individually buy all those components and get them to work, but why bother when you can grab a few $100 phones that do the same thing? Engineering is a much about practicality as it is design and fabrication.

I'm not trying to go up to bat for Mark Rober, I get a little bit of the ick from weaponry videos, too (and the dude clearly doesn't need my help, anyway). I just think the reaction to him is a bit overblown.

NostraDavid ,
@NostraDavid@programming.dev avatar

I just checked his Wikipedia page for his credentials. Worked for 9 years at NASA, of which 7 working on the Curiosity rover (yeah, the one that's on Mars now).

I'd say that's credentialed enough.

I too wish he did more complex stuff.

CheeseNoodle ,

Integzas pretty great too, Lots of on screen trial and error and explaining thought processes.

Cocodapuf ,

If you want a real engineer, watch "stuff made here" perhaps the most competent engineer on YouTube.

If you want to watch top quality unbiased science content, there's "smarter every day", "veritasium" and "3blue1brown". They're all great, I highly recommend them all.

If you want a good combo of engineering and science, and probably the smartest person on YouTube, "the thought emporium" will blow your mind. The projects they come up with... I never knew any of that was possible.

threelonmusketeers ,

If you want to watch top quality unbiased science content, there's "smarter every day", "veritasium" and "3blue1brown". They're all great, I highly recommend them all.

Add to that any and all of Brady Haran's channels: Numberphile (maths), Periodic Videos (chemistry), Sixty Symbols (physics), Deep Sky Videos (astronomy)...

Legonatic ,

I also had this uneasy feeling watching the video. It certainly felt a bit like a cog in the military industrial machine. While the actual content of the video wasn't exactly bad in my opinion, I don't know how I feel about pitching anti-terror or war machines to children through the lens of, "Engineering is cool!" That said, there are many more examples of that pitch out in the world in other forms. I do think Mark could be more careful especially when he is directly promoting a company in the defense industry.

bionicjoey ,

Unfortunately engineering and military have a huge overlap in the US. It's kind of inescapable. I found out recently that Destin from Smarter Every Day also worked for a weapons manufacturer before starting YouTube. These people just don't want to think about the fact that they probably have blood on their hands.

Legonatic ,

I am well aware of this overlap and it doesn't come as a surprise. I perhaps wish more of these creators acknowledged the military industrial complex and addressed what it means for their content and for the world of engineering.

wjrii ,

I don't think Destin's ever been real shy about his connections. Huntsville is basically nothing but NASA and missile companies, and he did a multi-part series where he lived on an active US Navy sub for two days.

bionicjoey ,

There's a difference between showing off a technological marvel like a nuclear submarine and not really focusing on its applications as a weapon, versus showing off a weapon and being like "it's so cool to kill 'bad guys' with this stuff"

And yeah he probably hasn't been shy about it, I don't watch his videos religiously. I found out during his excellent talk on the Artemis program. IIRC, he mentioned he helped design missile countermeasures, which is pretty tame as military industrial complex goes, but it's still participating in the amelioration of killing machines, which doesn't sit right with me. And he talked about it so nonchalantly, like he hadn't considered that the people at the end of the barrel of the weapons he was helping design obviously were the "bad guys"

I still have a ton of respect for the guy and his educational outreach work, and I don't hold it against him, I just don't get how someone could sleep at night knowing that they helped make weapons more efficient at killing people.

nooneescapesthelaw ,

He worked for the military as a missile test engineer, even did an interview with a four star general. The general described the video he was making (the interview i mean) as a weapon

bionicjoey ,

Damn, never saw that. At least the general was forthcoming about why they do that sort of outreach.

new_guy ,

If you take a look into the fitness bubble on YouTube you will see military propaganda too.
They're often competing against real soldiers/SEALS/whatever to demonstrate how well prepared they're are in the case of war.
Back in the subject of engineering, William Osman was also sponsored by the Navy (I think) one time.

kent_eh ,

The US navy did a campaign a few years ago that paid a bunch of youtubers across a wide range of video genres.

Looking from outside the US, it appears pretty weird how deeply ingrained in America's mindset the military is.

Soggy ,

The US military spends a shitload of money to be deeply ingrained.

kent_eh ,

I don't know how I feel about pitching anti-terror or war machines to children through the lens of, "Engineering is cool!" That said, there are many more examples of that pitch out in the world in other forms.

Kids have been sold military toys since forever. GI Joe, tin soldiers, toy guns, toy armor and swords, model kits of tanks and fighter aircraft...

Sizzler ,

Kids love to fight, adults realise there are better solutions.

riodoro1 ,

Ive turned this shit off after 30s. Fucking military industrial complex propaganda. Remember, they’re gonna bomb your stadiums from drones (maybe) so forget about all other problems of our society and masturbate to our defensive abilities (that we would never ever use to kill innocent kids in the middle east).

Smokeless7048 ,

yea, thats about how far i got. Last thing we need is more fear of something that likley wont happen...

Why have a drone drop something off, when you could bring in something much larger in a backpack

Dark_Arc ,
@Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg avatar

Gee, I don't know, because you can fly a drone (or multiple drones) around security?

VirtualOdour ,

Such a weird take, I just watched a program about education resources, was that bad because they didn't also cover all other problems our society faces?

Spedwell ,

I think it's more the dual-use nature of defense technology. It is very realistic to assume the tech that defends you here, is also going to be used in armed conflict (which historically for the US, involves in many civilian deaths). To present the technology without that critical examination, especially to a young audience like Rober's, is irresponsible. It can help form the view that this technology is inherently good, by leaving the adverse consequences under-examined and out of view to children watching this video.

Not that we need to suddenly start exposing kids to reporting on civilian collateral damage, wedding bombings, war crimes, etc... But if those are inherently part of this technology then leaving them out overlooks a crucial outcome of developing these tools. Maybe we just shouldn't advertise defense tech in kids media?

fruitycoder ,

I mean they're have been drone attacks already. Like it has already killed people, with Ukrainian forces uses them and the Houthis attacks in the Red Sea.

I mean its like they are comparing SciFi tech for warfare, though some people like that too shrug

CarbonIceDragon ,
@CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

Is it just me, or does that discussion of the various ways to counter drones, kinda miss the obvious of just shooting them with a conventional gun?

SendMePhotos ,

You'd think that a bot could target it, but some drones are just super agile

Not saying they'd dodge a bullet or shell, just saying that they're hard to aim at

CarbonIceDragon ,
@CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

If you can target them with a laser though, why would a gun be much different? I know there's dramatically more travel time, but bullets are still extremely fast, and even if one shot misses, something like a machinegun with a computerized control system seems like it ought to hit the thing before too long? Maybe the risk of missed shots causing harm might be too high for populated areas?

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

The issue is drone speed. They can go 200mph+ in less than 4 sec. If they’re trained to outmaneuver incoming ammunition/lasers then I’d say good luck hitting one. It’s very much like trying to swat a fly. Not impossible but difficult enough.

BestBouclettes ,

I suppose that depending on the location you might not want to have stray bullets landing at random, also depending on the size and the speed of the drone it might be hard to target.

Carrolade ,

Been tried quite a bit now in the Russo-Ukrainian theater. Not as easy as it sounds.

Anyolduser ,

We've had that technology since the 70's, it's called the Phalanx system and it automatically defends naval vessels against incoming missiles.

To do this the Phalanx fires 4,500 rounds per minute. While it only has to fire for 1-3 seconds per incoming object, that's still an ungodly number of rounds, each one about the length of your hand.

To do the same with a human operated firearm would take such a degree of luck that you may as well pray for the incoming drone to get struck by lightning.

CarbonIceDragon ,
@CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

I didn't really think human operated, I was imagining something pretty much exactly like phalanx, but with a much smaller caliber and turret size owing to the small size of drones. Like a phalanx type software controller mounted to a small turret with a small caliber machinegun or automatic shotgun type weapon.

Anyolduser ,

There are enormous downsides including mechanical reliability and weight.

Raytheon is already selling a system that assists a human operator in drone targeting, then knocks them out with a laser emitter. The whole thing fits on the back of a Polaris off-road vehicle and runs on electricity. That means the ammo is a gallon or two of fuel.

glimse ,

Don't forget that projectiles have to obey the laws of gravity. Firing a couple hundred rounds over a stadium in a busy city doesn't seem like a great idea

kbin_space_program ,

You're approaching the issue incorrectly, because you're omitting cost.

For example: Russia is using suicide drones that cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each.

It's not economically(or logistically) viable to fire a few hundred rounds of ammunition at every drone.

Firing a several thousand dollars worth of bullets at a missile works because the missile is at least several hundred thousand.

Anyolduser ,

That's why Raytheon developed a laser based anti-drone system. Electricity is cheaper than bullets.

catloaf ,

It's a lot less portable, though.

Anyolduser ,

Fits on a pickup truck.

https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers

catloaf ,

Huh, only 10 kW? I thought it would be more. If it's got a big bed, you could put the generator right there too. I don't know how much electricity a consumer pickup engine provides, but it's probably not that much. A quick Google suggests consumer bed outlets are about 400 W.

legion02 ,

You're on the right track but comparing the wrong things. It's cost of the rounds vs the cost of not stopping the incoming weapon (ie lives and damages), not vs the cost of the incoming weapon.

kbin_space_program ,

Eh, the comparison is valid when the opponent can throw ten to upwards of several thousand drones at you for the cost of one countermeasure.

Tarquinn2049 ,

That works out on the water, since the thousands of bullets that missed fall "harmlessly" into the ocean. On land, we have to think about all the bullets that miss too.

Anyolduser ,

Raytheon has been making a few improvements since the 70's, like getting rid of the bullets.

https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/lasers

Dhs92 ,

Pretty sure they're self-detonating rounds

echodot ,

Those fpv drones are almost invisible until they're about 5 m out and then they hit you within about half a second. It's almost impossible to describe the speed maneuverability they have, and combined with their tiny size it's very hard to even see them, let alone hit them.

capital ,

You shoot much?

I have to think no because then you’d know how difficult it is to hit a stationary target and then be able to extrapolate that to one that moves and changes direction on a dime in 3 dimensions.

Then you’d also consider what’s happening to the projectiles that inevitably miss even in a computerized targeting system.

ShellMonkey ,
@ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com avatar

At range sure, nearby though an open choke shotgun would be pretty viable. Skeet shooting has been a thing for a while and unless it can change direction between the trigger and the pellets reaching it the drone's likely at least impaired.

frezik ,

Skeet/trap shooting was designed around duck hunting. Ducks aren't particularly acrobatic flyers. Even fat, heavy quadcopters like off the shelf DJI stuff can do some impressive maneuvers, and purpose built racing quads are wicked. If the operator tries a little to do some evasive maneuvers, or the autopilot has it programmed in, it's going to be very hard to shoot down.

Shotguns also aren't common on the battlefield. They're not that useful for typical army engagement ranges. Navy vessels do use them for boarding actions, but you usually won't find them in armies.

Sconrad122 ,

How nearby is nearby though? And, in the context of the proposed use case for defending a crowded stadium in a populated area, does this put people down range as well that could also be impaired by the pellets?

ShellMonkey , (edited )
@ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com avatar

Crowded spaces it's a problem, I was more talking to notion of just plain shooting them rather than a use case. A rifle would be dang near impossible, but a scattered spray, you really only need to stop one prop and it's probably on the ground for a standard 4 prop deal. At least mine got real screwy when a blade split mid flight.

Edit: It also could be noted that while a lot of pellets would miss, they would pose a lot less risk that a rifled bullet coming back down. The weight of an individual shot pellet is a fraction of the weight of a bullet, so less momentum, plus the don't have a ballistic spin to maintain their speed that a rifle round does. Basically someone shooting a shot round in the air would come down with about as much force as a handful of gravel once the air resistance slows it a bit.

daltotron ,

The optimal sweet spot is probably like 40 meters or something, within 20 or 10 meters and the drone is probably in range to drop a grenade or explode, and becomes much harder to hit because it's capable of making much quicker direction changes relative to where you're standing even as it presents a larger target to you as a consequence of being closer, and a whole lot farther out, and birdshot can't really cut it.

Edit: Oh I was also gonna say, for indoor spaces, it'd maybe be not a good idea even just for hearing protection, but barring that, you could just opt for something lower velocity which you'd probably pack for this occasion if you're defending a set location, and then just load what you need in like 2 seconds. I imagine most drones are going to be flying around above head height anyways, so the main worry would be debris and falloff. You can't prevent debris from the drone really unless you have a net drone or something, and the falloff on the backend of a lower velocity or frangible birdshot with less mass is probably not super consequential except maybe in the case of eye protection. Some sort of ceramic bullet or maybe even steel bbs would probably work without doing too much damage. More than a drone, anyways. It's not as though a drone that rams into another drone is a particularly safe thing, in any case.

CarbonIceDragon ,
@CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social avatar

Admittedly not, no. I was making the assumption, possibly a naive one, that a computer should be capable of understanding the physics behind bullet trajectories well enough to shoot accurately even if the target is mobile.

EldritchFeminity ,

You should check out some videos of CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) in action. They're systems designed to shoot down projectiles like missiles and mortar rounds (as well as targeting small vehicles and planes). The sheer number of rounds they spray to take out a target that is moving on a single ballistic trajectory is crazy.

The closest thing I know of to what you're talking about would be hard-kill APS (Active Protection Systems). These are systems designed to protect vehicles like tanks from incoming rounds and missiles. Using radar and optical sensors, they can detect a round and predict whether or not it's going to hit the vehicle and respond in nanoseconds, firing an explosive back at a target traveling 1-2km per second. However, this isn't like shooting a bullet out of the air with another bullet. It's more like chucking a grenade at a missile to either deflect it or destroy enough of it that the pieces (still going 1-2km/s) don't damage the vehicle.

But both of these systems are designed mainly for destroying targets on a ballistic trajectory. When you throw drones into the mix, now you have a target that can react to your reaction. With slower moving drones like the helicopter ones, that's easy enough. But what about a drone that's moving at mach 2 and capable of sustaining 20g's, like a missile. Now you're talking about basically firing missiles at missiles, which has proven to be very difficult before a missile has spent its fuel and is coasting towards its target on its final ballistic trajectory.

Drewelite ,

One of the use cases is it flying around a packed stadium. Without the drone standing rather still so you can get under and shoot right up at it, there's no clear shot.

daltotron ,

These other people are pulling ya, the answer is yes, you can shoot them down, we have a full sport for it called skeet shooting. A drone can't pivot out of the way in the 0.1 seconds it takes for you to pull the trigger and for the bird shot to travel and take it out. The biggest problem is the range of the gun (which isn't that bad) and spotting the drone beforehand. The noise a drone of that size makes is not that much consider it could be like 40 or 50 feet up in the dead of night with no lights, buzz past you, drop a grenade down, kablooie. If the drone backs off or otherwise pivots to try to avoid getting shot, it probably couldn't do what it was there to do anyways.

Obviously, a big array of military industrial camera technology running in a big fence is going to be able to spot the drone pretty quick, but the video doesn't focus on the tech there because presumably that'd be too interesting and probably the company would not like that.

JoMiran ,
@JoMiran@lemmy.ml avatar

So far, US start-up made drones have proved to be useless trash when tested in Ukraine.

DontRedditMyLemmy ,

Can you elaborate? I'm interested in this subject.

JoMiran ,
@JoMiran@lemmy.ml avatar

There are a number of articles regarding this both from US and Ukrainian news sources. Here is one of the quick search results. Also, Ukraine has found the most success with modified, Chinese made, off the shelf DJI drones and regular consumer grade Chinese parts. I saw another article that said that Ukraine's aim is to crank out about 2000 drones a day using these parts.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-american-drones-failed-to-turn-the-tide-in-ukraine/ar-BB1lmFXr

VirtualOdour ,

That's just because they're much cheaper, actual American drones are much more capable but they can't afford them

fruitycoder ,

Honestly its why the US manufacturing "Renaissance" (I'll believe it when we see it) is so focused on hyper automation. We can force ethicnic groups into forced labour at the scale the CCP can nor can we force working conditions down the same with their anti union laws (and that is saying something US union laws are horribly biased towards employers).

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.

Tetsuo ,

Also a 5mn ad break to sell his kit felt much too long.

It's like 1/3 of the video.

smuuthbrane ,
@smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works avatar

That's his videos now. Get you to watch them to hype Crunch Labs.

frezik ,

This, I think, is more a symptom of YouTube no longer supporting creators. Most every big channel is looking to alternate income sources. YouTube ad revenue and sponsor inserts aren't good enough.

Thing is, I wouldn't mind it if channels could self-fund by things like this, but it's being done on top of all the ads, not replacing them.

pineapplelover ,

It does seem interesting though. I was thinking of getting one for my sister but I believe the price deterred me.

KoalaUnknown ,

sponsor block would like to introduce itself

Tetsuo ,

I think these are not blocked by default by sponsor block because it's an ad for the creator's products.

But anyway it's far too long.

Felt like a LTT video...

Feathercrown ,

Yeah, I recently learned you could enable blocking self-sponsorships too and it cut out like a third of this video.

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