JDulin

One problem with these hypersonic endeavors and DOD development in general is there are too few tests (And done too slowly) to iterate. The developers do not get lots of opportunities to learn from real-data, like at SpaceX. Instead, there are low-single-digit numbers of tests with tons of political attention ready to pounce at the smallest (And most common!) failure.

It's not for "no reason" - Public education's primary purpose in the United States, other than indoctrination, is daycare for the workforce.

So school must start early enough parents can get children to school before heading to their jobs.

Yes, but as he correctly points out, none of those things were done by the local govts.

OpenAI's need for these types of "closed" deals is driven by the fact their technology is fundamentally dependent on data & compute infrastructure that only a few organizations in the world can afford. It doesn't matter how many white papers they publish making AI "open" if it costs $100Ms to train & deploy.

You could do more to make AI "Open" by working on semiconductors to bring design, test, and fab costs down by orders of magnitude or working on modeling which drastically reduces training & data requirements.

> "low-income, ethnic minority neighbourhoods have historically been over-policed so the data shows them as crime hotspots, leading to the deployment of more police to those areas."

This is wrong. They've been under-policed. And the unwillingness to not lie about that, let alone understand why that is, is why "predictive policing" is disliked. It's also why the rhetorical trick of "systemic racism" is necessary to elide the fact that racism is rare today and justify why politicians are attacking & dismantling functioning institutions rather than fix the underlying issue.

Does anyone seriously claim that suburbs like Beachwood, OH and Palo Alto, CA and Everett, WA would discover a bunch of undetected rapes, gun violence, robberies, and murders if they were "over-policed" like low-income black neighborhoods? No, they don't. Because that would be too silly of a claim to make directly to anyone who has lived in such a place.

There's a humane chain of logic we must follow here. Do we think slavery, red-lining, drugs & drug-enforcement, and the collapse of rising working class wages have hurt African-American well-being? Yes. Does poverty correlate with crime? Yes. Does poverty correlate with African-American neighborhoods? Yes. Ok, so we can admit that African Americans account for a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime in the United States without disrespecting how black communities got to this point or worrying that this simple, obvious conclusion is driven by racism.

This is trivially produced from well-done statistical research. If you control for either poverty rates or crime rates, you recover the same rate of police use of lethal force for both whites and blacks.

"Oh, well, the data sets from the past may be biased with racism"

13% of the population accounts for between 40-50% of the homicides, year over year. Alright - How large do you think purely unfounded biases account for that? Half? Even then, you have both 1) A LE agencies either falsifying or mishandling data on a massive scale, a monumental scandal in itself and 2)a population accounting for 2x rather than 3-4x their expected homicide rate. Not a huge improvement. I don't feel like the claims of "warped data" deserve this much respect because the people who make them never give the same thought to the much more obvious conclusion - The data is true, but I do.

ML is disliked here because it doesn't lie. Politicians cannot torture or cajole logistic regression to lie because it doesn't have a career, it doesn't need a promotion, it just graphs the truth. But more than this, they dislike it because it indicts them for not doing more, and more meaningful and honest things, to actually improve the lot of African-Americans in this country. The first step to doing that is being honest.

Ok. Replace the CCP and China in my comment with the other countries you mentioned. You get the exact same mechanism of degradation of your universities, you're just still trying to feel better about it by pointing out that your charity is towards other, poorer, less authoritarian countries than China.

The thing policymakers do not understand about globalism is that it takes advantage of existing institutions, necrotizing them in the process, by infecting them with incentives they were never designed to handle. Where once you had a closed system that was working well, you now have a system exposed to graft, grift, and entropy from agents without accountability for how they take advantage of it. So, these agents can find ways to leverage an institutions' own interests against the interests of the people it was originally designed to serve. Much the same way European imperialists could exploit the internal fissures of colonized peoples. Sand in the gears of a clock.

This is what happened to manufacturing in the United States. Once the American governance class became culturally and financially loyal to Wall Street, there was nothing stopping developing nations & capital from convincing them to move the entire American industrial base abroad in pursuit of higher returns, no matter the irreversible social damage it caused at home.

The Charity Consolation Prize is exactly what those businessmen and policymakers pat themselves on the back with too when they look at the destruction wrought on the American middle class ("Look at home many Indian people we've lifted out of poverty!"). Which would be great! If they were the leaders of India!

So you are right that it's driven by greed now, but it's not just "something that happens." The university system in the U.S. and Australia did not just wake up one day and decide to become addicted to Chinese money. Someone gave them a needle full of the stuff to try. It's an exploit in the system that can be closed. It's a choice.

He thought giving them a fake face would gum up their search quality and ability to resolve him. I'm saying it would basically be a null-photo to Clearview.

These problems are not due to an "administration". The rot of American institutions is deep. The competence and coherence of the entire American civil service and civil life has fallen precipitously in the last 20 years, and, in part because of their irrational fixation on this administration, people still cannot wrap theirs head around the fact that problem is in personnel and structure.

The CDC botched the development & rollout of a pretty simple PCR assay. The CDC happily participated in the 'don't test, don't tell' cover-up of the real # of stateside cases. The CDC and FDA were in territorial pissing matches with one another around test regulation. The FDA has hindered the effective deployment of tests and therapies at every turn. The entire journalistic chattering class was lecturing the American public no more than 2 weeks ago about how over-reacting to the virus or calling it the wrong name was more dangerous than the virus itself. The American economy spent the last 3 decades moving every single manufacturing facility and shred of know-how that could make PPE, ventilators, and pharmaceutical precursors overseas to save a few pennies, and wasn't stopped by the government. And we've now learned Congress was given an accurate assessment of the pandemic threat months ago and chose to... sell their private stocks.

This crisis is not going to result in happy little vision-less "to-do list" for future bureaucrats to improve upon, it is deepening the American people's awareness that the entire bureaucracy & elite class have been shown wanting and must be replaced in their entirety by massive reform of the federal civil service.

More to the point, detecting a stealth aircraft is very different from shooting at a stealth aircraft.

This radar would likely not have the location accuracy of where exactly the B-2 was to accurately engage it with a missile. Your accuracy would be limited by the rate of RF pings the B-2 is putting off, and then the margin-of-error of these RF waves and receiver.

This is one difference between the B-2 and stealth fighters like the F-22 & F-35: The latter are not necessarily designed to be invisible, only impossible to reliably hit. Their shapes and radar-absorbent paint deflect, diffuse, or absorb the high-frequency bands used in the terminal guidance of missiles. So they are hard to target. But they can be picked up at range by long-distance, long-wavelength VHF and UHF radars. These frequencies, used in early-warning radars, have too low-optical resolution* however to be any good at aiming guns or missiles. The B-2's "flying wing" shape is able to not-interfere with these wavelengths though, and hence hides from them. In that sense, this is somewhat interesting, if neutered for the reasons you mention.

*You can only localize the detection to a few sq hundred meters, even kms.

> a core problem in the United States' institutions - Defense industry dysfunction.

You missed a word.

But to answer your specific suggestion for No. 1: No, I don't think Super PACs are near the Top 10 issues facing the United States' institutions. They might be in the Top 100.

Honestly, it's just a subtle misunderstanding due to how Anduril's product path blurs the lines between the products they sell now, and the structure of their company & goals long-term. Long-term, Anduril wants to be a defense co. that bids for and wins contracts with the Department of Defense and challenges the monopolies of Lockheed Martin et al. To do this, they had to find an MVP that let them develop technology & make money in a way that could be leveraged toward that goal in the future.

Border security works well for this, because a lot of the software & hardware they will build here is dual-use for defense and border security. Furthermore, selling technology to the border patrol is probably the closest sales problem in the world to selling to the U.S. military - Same regulatory framework, sales cycle, Congressional lobbying landscape, even product review. It's a stepping stone to selling full-blown defense tech, hence the mish-mash of terms.