Server-wide censorship cannot be allowed. / This eliminates every platform I know of.

Within the I2P anonymous mix network there was an attempt, at some point around 2015, to build a system named Syndie where everyone would have to be their own censor, and servers would host content without the server operator really knowing or caring about what they host.

It failed to take off, but I’m not convinced if the reason was architecture or the main developer leaving.

Indeed, forums are almost gone. In particular, I miss one forum about science fiction, one about aeromodelism, one about electric vehicles (another still exists) and one about anarchism. An interesting hold-out in the country where I live, is a military forum, where rules say that respectful discussion is the only kind of discussion accepted - ironically, the military forum has a peaceful atmosphere. But it could come crashing down much easier than a social media company.

As for why forums disappeared - I think that people became too convenient. They wanted zero expense (hosting a forum incurs some expenses and needs a bit of time and attention), and wanted all their discussion in one place. Advertisers wanted a place where masses could be manipulated. Social media companies wanted people to interact more (read: pick more heated arguments) and see more ads - and built their environments accordingly. Not for the public good.

I think the most urgent job is getting rid of algorithmically steered social media - sites where one can’t know why something appears on one’s feed.

The keyword is “optical power”: laser light. But a drone doesn’t need laser light to fly, it needs electrical power. Payload carrying drones need considerable amounts, 1 kilowatt might be typical. There is no readily available equipment to convert that amount of optical power into electrical power inside a drone, at an acceptable efficiency (solar panels have an efficiency of ~25%).

In addition, it helps to know: these drones use a single 25 micrometer single mode fiber (the power of the fiber transceivers is in milliwatts). It is hard to pack considerable power into that cross section, the optics are complicated (optics aside, a kilowatt class laser is very expensive). When you transmit laser power over fiber, you generally benefit from using a cable made of many fibers, or a considerably thicker multimode fiber.

Sadly, the article has been written by a non-competent person.

I can claim to be a competent person and explain a bit.

At a drone’s own voltage (4…8 lithium cells in series), powering an FPV attack drone requires 2 wires of 2,5 - 4,0 square millimeters of thickness. One meter of this pair of wires weighs about 50 grams. One kilometer would weigh 50 kilograms, but would exhibit a voltage drop proportional to length, so in reality, you’d need to increase the diameter several times.

If one was into physical experiments, using super high voltage and thinner wires, this could be brought down, but voltage converters on both ends would gain weight and insulation thickness would have to increase: as you raise voltage in an electrical cable (e.g. into kilovolts) current starts arcing across air gaps and breaking though insulation. That’s why high voltage power lines have long ceramic / glass insulators. :) So building a hypothetical “330 kilovolt drone” would be the last thing anyone would do. :)

Is it shockingly lightweight?

A 5 km spool of 50 micrometer fiber weighs approximately 1 kg - but that’s a telecom spool. Drone operators use lighter spools and some use 25 micrometer fibers.

Air resistance is considerable, though. Think of a drone carrying a small bucket. And you cannot zigzag under trees - but that’s a rare thing to do even with radio control.

Glad to hear that Ukrainians have some fiber system in widespread use. Some projects to assist them are still stuck behind technical obstacles. I think their technicians put in more working hours, and had less formalities that slow down testing.

I recall that in spring, when Ukrainians found the first Russian fiber drone crashed (most people didn’t even know of the possibility), a well known radio amateur Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov communicated the design very clearly and posted photos. Obvious message: “they will soon have it working, we need to work hard to get the same or better”. The message was received - in many places, not just Ukraine.

I can confirm, it happened a few times in Kursk, I’ve seen the videos.

However, the drone in question was a reconnaisance drone (those have long flight times). Ideally, you never see a reconnaisance drone - it sees you from beyond visual range well enough.

I believe the situation in Kursk was that Ukrainians deliberately sent a reconnaisance drone to take a close look, and perhaps also dropped a few leaflets. Russians then understood that their coordinates were known, they had no shelter available and a strike might come any second - and made the gestures to indicate surrender.

It also helped that the Russians in question were conscripts - young people undergoing military training. Support for the war is the lowest among this age group.

Yes. The protocol of “how to surrender” would also be useful to add.

Obviously, one cannot surrender to an FPV drone - it doesn’t have enough battery for the pilot to check if one follows through with the promise.

Throwing down all weapons, raising a white cloth and walking towards the opposing side might be a good enough signal for the pilot however - they might go looking for another target before the battery runs out.

For the leaflet to achieve results, it must lay out a good method of how to surrender. And that’s a lot easier with Russians since they have a language which Ukrainians understand.

To Russians, one can write “go to frequency X MHz, drop encryption and negotiate surrender” or “go to Telegram channel X to arrange surrender” but no such hope with North Koreans.

Sadly, they are not proper merceneries. A mercenary fights for money, but those guys probably know their families will be repressed if they surrender.

If I was the developer of the propaganda leaflet, I would add one sentence (after double-checking with a competent social engineer):

• “you get a new identity, at home they will think you died”

To my knowledge, Turkey has also developed laser weapons, and they have seen action in Libya.

As for possibilities of fast development - when need is great, people do things faster.

But I’m skeptical of laser weapons myself. They depend so much on weather. Air defense is expected to be reliable, not “it is snowing, we can’t shoot”. They can be used, but they always need a backup option if weather works against.

The drone “motherships” are a real thing with real benefits, however. They get around line-of-sight issues (single FPVs cannot go beyond obstacles without losing singnal, but with a mothership they can even go beyond the curvature of Earth).

True.

Hunger for power would exist, but a critical feature that currently exists - the means of returning to power - would be absent.

Bribes would be a concern, so good pay and anti-corruption mechanicms would still be required.

• Because propaganda works. If propaganda didn’t work, companies would not advertise products and politicians wouldn’t run campaigns. Rich sponsors fund politicians who promise to look after their interests. Well-funded politicians run better campaigns and win.

• Because politicians are, nearly without exception, above middle class, if not outright rich. They won’t act too radically against their own class interests.

The only solution I know comes from ancient Athens. Sortition -> you hold a lottery to draw representatives. A few extremely stupid people will be drawn into parliament, but idiots are far better than sociopaths, and the current system gives undue representation to sociopaths (willing to climb over bodies if that gets them to power). If one then dislikes the idea of a considerable percentage of bumbling fools (as opposed to cunning predators) in parliament, one must feed everyone well, treat all childhood diseases and educate everyone as well as possible. As if their rational decisions were needed tomorrow.

Smash anything but a windshield. I’ve needed to violently remove a windshield when replacing it (time was running out and tool shops were closed). Wearing protective glasses and pushing with both legs is what it took to somewhat loosen it, but not immediately remove it. Windshields are a multilayer structure of plastic and glass. Side windows are just glass.

True, but there’s some more.

Over here, ice roads are opened on typical winters on several smaller bays. The instruction to drivers is:

• don’t wear a seatbelt
• if ice breaks, open your door swiftly (get out first, then think about calling people)
• if you can’t open the door, lower your window swiftly
• if you can’t lower the window, break it (the side window, not the windshield - a windshield is multilayer laminate, too strong to break quickly)

Typically, if a car sinks on an ice road, people are likely to get out. A crank-operated window is handy in such a case. But regardless of instruction, sometimes folks do die. :(

In general, I would not like to experience any sort of extreme incident in an over-engineered car. I’d prefer something from the 1970-ties, but with airbags.