this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
655 points (100.0% liked)

196

18178 readers
87 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 95 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't like the guy either. But it is clearly an art project, never to actually be used.

[–] Korne127@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wdym? Just ordered three of these for me and my friends :D

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Can I have one of your extras since you'll still have another as backup in case the first doesn't work?

[–] BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago

It's unsurprising that this man became a creator of autonomous weapons systems

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 58 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What are these tubes? It's boring. My suicide helmet consists of a VR headset and a Magnum taped to it. It would triger a second after I make one gramatical mistake

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 52 points 2 years ago (3 children)
[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 years ago

And gramatical too.

Just a classic russian way to go: two shots in the back of the head.

[–] Blyfh@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Don't worry, that was just an orthographical mistake. :D

[–] v4ld1z@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago
[–] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 53 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Just in case anyone's wondering. The top image is a joke article that was made a while back, not a real product.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 51 points 2 years ago

not really a joke article because the guy did make it, but it also isn't a product, it was just an 'art project' by the guy

[–] FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not a joke, he actually did make it. But it's a custom build, not intended for production, and not intended to actually be used by anyone.

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

Not intended for production yet.

[–] ggppjj@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Aww, not intended for production you say

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

Dude dumped his ill gotten facebook bucks into a murder drone company, so it's not exactly far fetched.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I figured if anyone was killed by this device it would cause a running mess of cascade lawsuits, even if it served as intended and killed the one who signed the TOS.

Then consider if the goggles glitched and activated on a false positive or if someone's kid tried the goggles on for a game.

This is why piracy deterrent payloads only extend to humiliation or stern warnings (rather than destruction of data or hardware). We can't restrict activations to perfectly just situations.

Something to think about as US law enforcement continues to kill Americans at four-plus a day.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What TOS? Did you read it?

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

In this case hypothetical, say, if they sold the working goggles as a novelty. Even for most relatively safe electronics there's a long list of don'ts that often rule out normal use (let alone typical use). Infamously VR goggles sometimes cause epileptic seizures even in people susceptible to epileptic seizures.

Some judges recognize no one reads TOS or can understand the legal language. Others (such as SCOTUS) beieve the draconion terms in the TOS are enough to absolve the manufacturer of responsibility.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

WTF are you talking about?! There is no TOS because there are no end users and this is just an art piece!

[–] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Uhhh... they're making it clear that this is a hypothetical, in which the goggles get sold to end-users.

Maybe try reading the words on your screen next time?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Inspired by the SUICIDE HELMET:

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] oatscoop@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago

The suicide helmet.

It's real, and it was used.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] spicytuna62@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

jesus you don't have to yell

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is pointless to question who someone really is. All you can do is believe and accept. Because the way you perceive someone is their true identity.

The show gets a ton of hate, but I thought it was a fun thought experiment with some interesting results.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

At first it sort of was. But then it turns into a romance cringe anime and it's all pretty much downhill from there.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Seriously, everything up to the introduction of Alfheim was fantastic, to me.

Then they just kind of... went a different direction with it. I even liked the romance story arc until they turned her into a fuckin Damsel In Distress.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Hey NAL but creating this is likely a felony.

[–] TheOneCurly@lemmy.theonecurly.page 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sounds like a skill issue. Just don't die and you won't die.

[–] germanatlas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Okay, John Kramer

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm sure creating it with the intent to sell it or distribute it would be, but if it isn't illegal to buy and use the explosives then I doubt it would be illegal to attach them to your own possessions on your own property

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] deur@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Maybe if the headset was a booby trap and wasn't an art piece. It's also not a booby trap at all.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it's not a booby trap if you don't plan to trap people with it

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is if they can be.

This would have to be in a locked cage to fully avoid liability.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

why? It's not like they're trying to hide the fact that it explodes or trick people or anything. I highly doubt what ever explosive system it has is kept armed either.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 years ago

Hm yeah good point. IDK I was just grumpy or something.

[–] CCF_100@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

Darnit, you were supposed to interpret Sword Art Online as an example of what not to do!