• happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    Those 10,000 then fly blind into an area with high winds that creates its own weather system, can melt them, and that flings flaming particles for miles through the air. That’s playing Russian roulette with 10,000 more rounds in the gun-hubris gun.

      • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Our only other options are trans-gun, the-doohickey, or automatic rifles. Apart from the gun that changes your gender none of them are adequate for Russian roulette.

    • bishbosh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      This is a false comparison, with the trivial axiom that less than half the drones are “loaded chambers”, to use your metaphor, we could simply plot the asymptotic trend and find the number of drones at which it would be statistically impossible for the fires to not be covered. I’ve already spent all my image generation credits, so I can’t provide a visual, but trust the logic is sound.

      • The_Jewish_Cuban [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        How many drones make it statistically impossible?

        The point about fleet maintenance wasn’t really covered and “build more” doesn’t seem as logically sound to me as you present it.

        Edit: if we’re upping capacity significantly wouldn’t it also reason to increase the air fleet size of normal water tankers instead? I can’t see how this is an improvement over such a vehicle. 10k things to go wrong and maintain.