• jaemo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    TONY STARK WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS, ELON.

    IN A CAVE YOU FUCKING INBRED. A CAVE!!!

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Guy whose cars run into stopped fire trucks thinks he’s an expert on computer vision.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    In the long term maybe he has a point. In the short term the other guys are often using a radar built in 1985 and displaying to a ray tube.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      Yeah, while we are at it. Everything sucks compared to the starship enterprise. You can’t beat photon torpedoes and shields. All current military technology sucks.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        26 days ago

        Elon Musk’s next idea is to just power everything with fusion. It’s easy! There’s deuterium everywhere!

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      But also, how far can low light sensitive cameras see into the sky? Maybe a couple miles with some sort of telescopic optics? The F35 can attack from beyond visual range using its 100 mile range radar system.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        Up to the horizon (and actually slightly past due to lensing). The setting sun is a perfect example. Sure, it’s brighter than a single fighter aircraft, but as long as you have double digit individual photons to work with the game hasn’t changed theoretically, and light collection technology is right around perfect at this point.

        Continuous cloud cover messes up that calculation pretty good, though. If this kind of system was seriously deployed today we might see pre-WWII tactics and strategies coming back to exploit that. In practice, sensor fusion in all kinds of bands is the name of the game, and what will probably make stealth aircraft obsolete eventually.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          25 days ago

          Sensor fusion is another F-35 feature. Elon seems to think visible spectrum cameras are all you need. Even if you could capture a couple dozen photos reflected off a fighter jet from miles away, how could you reasonably know it’s speed, distance, and location like you get with radar?

  • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Mr richest man on earth with tesla and space x doesn’t even have an electric private jet

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    Can’t these things aerosolize you from beyond the fucking horizon? How helpful are those AI powered low light cameras when they’re phase changed by a missile launcher from a hundred miles away?

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      You’d need a camera network spanning the entire battlefield. And it’d need telephoto lenses at the very least, because stealth fighters are high and small. And it’d need to stay connected after an initial missile exchange.

      I don’t buy for a moment that nobody in the Pentagon has thought of this, and explained why it’s not a dealbreaker in a classified report.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        Telephoto lenses have a low field of vision. You’d want very high resolution wide angle sensors. Or maybe a combination of the two, where the wide angle cameras spot interesting things for the narrow angle ones to look closer at.

        The difference between the two would be like when they went from U2 spy planes to satellite imagery, going from thin strips of visibility to “here’s the hemisphere containing most of Russia”.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          The trick being that wide angle and high resolution means very high expense, and probably a lot of power and ruggedness tradeoffs. For a satellite that’s fine, for this application I kind of think a cluster of narrow-view cameras would be way cheaper and more practical.

  • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    He’s just a dumb attention seeker. Of course he’s gonna shit on the most over-engineered thing in existence. Tho the context of the shitty engineering his companies do makes this even funnier. What a loser.

  • riodoro1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    His fucking obsession with computer vision. He’s so convinced he’s right he forgot that clouds exist… and his cars plow straight into obstacles.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        27 days ago

        And that a plane at altitude is too small for wide field cameras which means scanning the sky with narrow fov detectors.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          27 days ago

          And F-35s are really fast. By the time you recognize and can target it, it’ll fly behind a cloud or something. So not only do you need to make a really fast rocket w/ vision-based AI integrated, it also needs to be able to detect said plane at great distances, as well as maneuver well enough to see it as it exits clouds and whatnot. That’s a lot more complicated than slapping radar on something with heat tracking at close distances.

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Yeah, the “lidar is useless” guy whose cars are consistently crashing into things when visibility is bad is telling us that he can do the same thing with missile targeting systems… Sounds like a great idea

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      He’s not, otherwise he would know that “low light sensitivity” cameras aren’t “sensitive in low-light conditions” but “with lower than normal light sensitivity”.

      In an imaginary world where cameras are way more expensive, he’d absolutely be pushing LiDAR in cars. The metrics he cares about are cost and marketability (cool factor), or money for short.

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      No no. See guessing objects from flat images is much better than using math and lidar. Especially if you may have a flawed llm model.

      Given how advanced our math and knowledge of radar is, it is literally stupid to use them.

      See, those, radar, lidar and math give you a 3d objects.

      Oh, wait. It is the other way around.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          26 days ago

          It’s a simple design, like a boxcar you’d race with your dad at the local boy scouts event. It appeals to children who don’t understand how airflow works and just like seeing big bulky tank like things. To them, it looks like a Tonka toy.

          But in the real world, things like fluid dynamics are important.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            26 days ago

            It also weighs enough that it cant even pull off being decent by being light like old jeeps. Sure they were literally brick shaped but they could be moved by like 4 guys with relative ease.

        • dmention7@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          27 days ago

          I don’t have kids, but when I was a kid I loved Spaghetti-Os and that candy that comes in a toothpaste tube but is literally just gelatinous sugar syrup. I probably would’ve loved the cybertruck too.

  • wizzor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    27 days ago

    Also… Fighters are fast, the point is you should fire the missile before you see it.

    • Alwaysnownevernotme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      The f-35 is built for engagements outside the horizon, like, the target is blocked by the curvature of the earth.

      Light sensitive cameras and rudimentary AI…

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        Pssh, all you need is a gravity lens to bend the light, problem solved!

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          So we use a black hole to bend space time and look into the past where it isn’t. We know where it isn’t in the past.