In other news today...
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Diffuse reflections will indeed spread out the energy rather quickly. But even a small specular reflection (which will stay much more focused) will be enough to give you a very bad day. Hitting a moving drone will be difficult enough as is, so you won't be able to guarantee that you wont hit one of the shiny parts, even if you could identify those.
Even the best laser's beam will spread out slightly as it travels. At several hundred feet, the beam size will likely be several inches, which means that unless the reflective surface is large, it can't intersect more than a small fraction of the beam's power. Then, depending on how well it reflects (as opposed to diffusing) the light that hits it, and its orientation relative to both the beam and the viewer, some fraction of the light that hits it will be reflected toward the viewer, and that light will spread out further on its way to the viewer's eye, reducing the intensity further.
That said, it only takes a very small fraction of a 1W laser beam hitting your eyes to make a pretty bad day for you. I wouldn't want to be around when someone's shooting one at a flying mirror.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
This is pretty cool:
They used a neural network to adjust the intensity of lights to determine which ones get reached for first?
Sounds to me that they could have skipped the amoeba part outright...
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
This is pretty cool:
Indeed, but the problem is only “very hard” if you need the actual solution and not approximate ones.
Note how the name is biologically inspired, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZnvRXRsHHg
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Agreed. But I don't think lasers are going to solve this one in a satisfactory way. If you're dead set on shooting the drones down, I'd guess that developing something that goes into a conventional gun and isn't dangerous on the way down is going to be much easier and cheaper than any laser-based system.
Scale this up:
Those are super fun.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Agreed. But I don't think lasers are going to solve this one in a satisfactory way. If you're dead set on shooting the drones down, I'd guess that developing something that goes into a conventional gun and isn't dangerous on the way down is going to be much easier and cheaper than any laser-based system.
Scale this up:
Those are super fun.
Yon appears to be an air-vortex cannon. The travel speed is low, that'll complicate targeting. In other ways that'd fuck a drone right in the principles of flight.
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
"You're holding it wrong!" now repeated by doctors:
And make sure to give your thumb some rest, so you don't end up like this 2015 case of "Candy Crush thumb":
Hmm, I should watch out for that. Not because I take selfies but because since after the 4S every smartphone is just too big to be comfortable on your fingers.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Hitting a moving drone will be difficult enough as is, so you won't be able to guarantee that you wont hit one of the shiny parts, even if you could identify those.
Not really. They're slow, they're rather large and thus prove no big problem for a proper tracking software.
I mean, there's mosquito tracking and zapping software...
Is there really, though?
I’ve been dreaming of building something like that since I was a kid, but I’m not sure how reliable it would be. If you miss you just singed your wallpaper. Probably a hazard.
-
@topspin Intersecting (as opposed to outright insect-sectioning) lasers, yo. Much safer. You can put a ton of energy density right in the mosquito off of some independently safe lasers.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@JBert said in In other news today...:
"You're holding it wrong!" now repeated by doctors:
And make sure to give your thumb some rest, so you don't end up like this 2015 case of "Candy Crush thumb":
Hmm, I should watch out for that. Not because I take selfies but because since after the 4S every smartphone is just too big to be comfortable on your fingers.
Am I weird for almost always operating my phone with two hands? One holding, one using.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@topspin Intersecting (as opposed to outright insect-sectioning) lasers, yo. Much safer. You can put a ton of energy density right in the mosquito off of some independently safe lasers.
You still need quite good calibration of the individual lasers’ targeting and low latency processing / communication.
But it sounds fun.
-
@kazitor said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@JBert said in In other news today...:
"You're holding it wrong!" now repeated by doctors:
And make sure to give your thumb some rest, so you don't end up like this 2015 case of "Candy Crush thumb":
Hmm, I should watch out for that. Not because I take selfies but because since after the 4S every smartphone is just too big to be comfortable on your fingers.
Am I weird for almost always operating my phone with two hands? One holding, one using.
Not just weird. That's diagnostic. You should see a doctor.
-
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Even the best laser's beam will spread out slightly as it travels. At several hundred feet, the beam size will likely be several inches, which means that unless the reflective surface is large, it can't intersect more than a small fraction of the beam's power.
Upthread wants to shoot down drones with a laser. The beam spreading out too much would make that a lot more difficult -- actual laser cutters have a focusing lens in addition to that 1kW laser.
That said, it only takes a very small fraction of a 1kW laser beam hitting your eyes to make a pretty bad day for you. I wouldn't want to be around when someone's shooting one at a flying mirror.
Essentially, yes. But I'm also worried about things that act like partial mirrors at these energies. I'm also too lazy to do the math, though.
The other argument would be that instead of developing a specialized drone-shooty-laser thing with a bunch of different sensors (that is also like to fail when there's stuff like ... fog), you could do something more reliable. Let's say ram drones with other drones. It's probably cheaper, more reliable and its failure modes don't include blinding random people or setting stuff on fire because somebody polished the surface of their drone or something.
-
@cvi Yeah, so far shotguns, net guns, air vortex cannon have all looked better than either a multiple or single laser system. Birdshot onna turret seems best, all in all. Maybe a coiled wire load could do something.
Probably can exclude sensing difficulty as a constant, or at least lump it in with the number of turrets, as impact on reliability. A shotgun load is limited by safety concerns. Mitigating laser safety concerns by increasing turrets increases reliability concerns. Net gun and air vortex transit times are far worse than shotgun transit times. A directed supersonic shockwave... would be nice, maybe utilize the Munroe effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
-
@Cursorkeys said in In other news today...:
If you want to use just batteries then you need a totally different kind of system.
How about a charged particle beam?
@anotherusername said in In other news today...:
Then, depending on how well it reflects (as opposed to diffusing) the light that hits it, and its orientation relative to both the beam and the viewer, some fraction of the light that hits it will be reflected toward the viewer
If you are trying to specifically send the beam where it came from, you'd probably use a retroreflector. Though that has the downside of bouncing three times, so more energy is passed into the drone.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
How about a charged particle beam?
Electrolasers are awesome, if it wasn't for the extreme cost of a high-power UV laser I'd love to try and make one:
-
Hey all you idiots talking about exotic ways to bring down drones, you're being complicators.
They're flying Wi-Fi hotspots with a root shell on telnet. You can just log in and either shut them down or seize them for yourself.
-
@TwelveBaud said in In other news today...:
Hey all you idiots talking about exotic ways to bring down drones, you're being complicators.
They're flying Wi-Fi hotspots with a root shell on telnet. You can just log in and either shut them down or seize them for yourself.
So you're saying we should be looking into something more like directed EMP?
-
@TwelveBaud said in In other news today...:
Hey all you idiots talking about exotic ways to bring down drones, you're being complicators.
They're flying Wi-Fi hotspots with a root shell on telnet. You can just log in and either shut them down or seize them for yourself.
Cool talk though, thanks for the link!
-
And this is why sending all the information to clients and relying on the client side to only show what the user should know is a BAD IDEA.
-
@izzion The fact that it's so pervasive implies there must be a reason. My guess is on the dev's side; they already have a render engine, why not let it do the work?
-
@kazitor said in In other news today...:
@izzion The fact that it's so pervasive implies there must be a reason. My guess is on the dev's side; they already have a render engine, why not let it do the work?
It might not even be the games' fault really: for the enemy to be rendered it needs coordinates broadcast to all players who should theoretically be able to view him (whether they can notice him due to camouflage or shrubberies is something else).
Depending on the cheat you could have a big bright "Enemy here!" spot on your radar and in-game world which is enough of an advantage in a game where you need to kill your opponent before he can kill you.
From the article it's not clear if it's something like this or whether they were actually connecting a second time to the server (the second time being through a VPN):
[..] Radar Hacks reveal detailed server information and send the collected data to an external device via a third-party VPN. In layman’s terms, Radar Hacks allowed PUBG cheaters to see all player positions via a second monitor or smartphone application.
-
@kazitor said in In other news today...:
@izzion The fact that it's so pervasive implies there must be a reason. My guess is on the dev's side; they already have a render engine, why not let it do the work?
Yeah. In UE4 there's a tickbox that says "This thing is always relevant, make sure everyone always knows anything that changes with this thing."
All of our interactable things have this box ticked.
This means that if you're all the way across the world/level, you still know that the person you can't even see just picked up a spray can and started using it on that wall that you also can't see.
I forget the reason why this is either.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
Mitigating laser safety concerns by increasing turrets increases reliability concerns.
That mostly depends on how many turrets you need to make things work. If you can make do with losing a few turrets for a while to failures/maintenance, having more of them is actually a good thing (and the complexities in targeting mostly parallelise).
-
@Tsaukpaetra Sounds a lot easier (and cheaper) than doing visibility analysis for everything and every player server side and only sending coordinates of visible things. I think it's a reasonable trade-off.
-
Why are the computers controlling physical processes in a plant even connected to outside networks?
-
@Kian said in In other news today...:
Why are the computers controlling physical processes in a plant even connected to outside networks?
That's simple. Morons. Morons everywhere.
-
@Kian You really don't want to do a Nessus scan for such industrial controllers.
Or at least get some panic attack prevention pills before.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
panic attack prevention pills
that's a strange name for weed
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra Sounds a lot easier (and cheaper) than doing visibility analysis for everything and every player server side and only sending coordinates of visible things. I think it's a reasonable trade-off.
Well, the default of "off" makes the engine use a distance-squared number, so it's not visibility per-se, and the tradeoff is more available bandwidth at the cost of a few more cycles of calculations. Which, if you have enough idle room in your fuck cycle might just be worth it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
if you have enough idle room in your fuck cycle might just be worth it.
-
@loopback0 are you really still asking?
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
if you have enough idle room in your fuck cycle might just be worth it.
Tick!
Thanks keyboard for saying what I meant instead of what I intended, I guess....
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 are you really still asking?
I'm hoping it's a typo and not something more sinister.
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 are you really still asking?
I'm hoping it's a typo and not something more sinister.
You know, that might be something. Usually I refer to Ticks Per Second (as that's more relevant than Frames Per Second on servers). Maybe it should be Fucks Per Second, so the backronym can match its client counterpart?
Then again, saying that you get an average of 60 fucks per second is.... Wishful.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Then again, saying that you get an average of 60 fucks per second is.... Wishful.
There's a word for that
Hertz
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Then again, saying that you get an average of 60 fucks per second is.... Wishful.
There's a word for that
Hertz
Yes, yes that would...
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Then again, saying that you get an average of 60 fucks per second is.... Wishful.
There's a word for that
Hertz
-
Here's something porn did kill...
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
Oh, sure, and have to die some other, probably not as awesome way? No thanks. Going to start collecting the Sumerian hardcore on clay tablets, me.
-
It's not the stealing but the getaway which matters:
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
It makes moving a lot easier!
his collection tipped the scales at around six tons at the time of his death.
"Sorry, I'm busy. Can't help you move"
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
It makes moving a lot easier!
his collection tipped the scales at around six tons at the time of his death.
"Sorry, I'm busy. Can't help you move"
Yeah. Six tons of paper fits in about one pound of hard drive.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
It makes moving a lot easier!
his collection tipped the scales at around six tons at the time of his death.
"Sorry, I'm busy. Can't help you move"
Yeah. Six tons of paper fits in about one pound of hard drive.
If you're encoding the printed content. However, if you want to encode all the information about the fiber length and layout, pigment and dye particle locations, etc. you might be pushing it.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
It makes moving a lot easier!
his collection tipped the scales at around six tons at the time of his death.
"Sorry, I'm busy. Can't help you move"
Yeah. Six tons of paper fits in about one pound of hard drive.
If you're encoding the printed content. However, if you want to encode all the information about the fiber length and layout, pigment and dye particle locations, etc. you might be pushing it.
Well, there are patterns even there, and you'll find compression works very well on patterned things.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Here's something porn did kill...
This is why you go digital, friends!
It makes moving a lot easier!
his collection tipped the scales at around six tons at the time of his death.
"Sorry, I'm busy. Can't help you move"
Yeah. Six tons of paper fits in about one pound of hard drive.
If you're encoding the printed content. However, if you want to encode all the information about the fiber length and layout, pigment and dye particle locations, etc. you might be pushing it.
Well, there are patterns even there, and you'll find compression works very well on patterned things.
Assuming the window length is sufficient , but sure, I think bzip and maybe a couple others have a nearly unlimited window. Anyway, nobody is that into the paper their porn is printed on. Except, as I just realized, you.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
Except, as I just realized, you
Oh no! Am I being profiled?!?!??
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
Except, as I just realized, you
Oh no! Am I being profiled?!?!??
Um, yeah. Sorry. Only a little.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
Except, as I just realized, you
Oh no! Am I being profiled?!?!??
Um, yeah. Sorry. Only a little.
*turns to the left\ well don't stop! 😏