this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
376 points (97.5% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6664 readers
938 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Says the guy that produces AND designed the cyber truck

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Look. Just because people hope to not see it and actively avoid looking in the general direction of, does not make the cyber truck invisible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

Oh, if only... If then the owners could be invisible too... One can dream

[–] finitebanjo 16 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Let me guess, he's got an alternative to sell?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

He has Tesla's "Full Self Driving" system, which works with AI and cameras.
He probably wants to just upload his software to US fighter jets for, say, $20 million per unit.

[–] finitebanjo 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It might actually cost way more than that, changing the jet's balance and attaching things to them requires major modifications, but him selling the the systems for that alone sounds about right.

Maybe the real plan is to intentionally fuck it up and weaken the US Military. Wouldn't put it past the Trump admin.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The real plan is to claim they did it (or tried to) and pocketing that sweet DOD money.

[–] finitebanjo 2 points 4 hours ago

The least credible defense of all: "We tried (not really)."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours ago
[–] billwashere 18 points 7 hours ago

Jesus christ ... this dude is a fucking moron... if it WAS easy defense companies would be doing it already... and guess what, they aren't. Between this dickhead and Captain Brainworm the next four years are gonna SUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKK!!!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 hours ago

In the long term maybe he has a point. In the short term the other guys are often using a radar built in 1985 and displaying to a ray tube.

[–] Smokeydope 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Assuming this is OC, next time do a little better at cropping and scaling. Ypu move that plane to the far right under yhe arrow and youve got 2/3 of the blank canvas to work with. I don't expect much effort on meme post especially NDC but I would like to actually be able to read the tweets without zooming in and theres enough white space to scale them up.

[–] riodoro1 71 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

His fucking obsession with computer vision. He’s so convinced he’s right he forgot that clouds exist… and his cars plow straight into obstacles.

[–] Sylvartas 14 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, the "lidar is useless" guy whose cars are consistently crashing into things when visibility is bad is telling us that he can do the same thing with missile targeting systems... Sounds like a great idea

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, well, missiles are supposed to crash into things. The right things? Not his job.

[–] Somethingcheezie 20 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] riodoro1 21 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

And that a plane at altitude is too small for wide field cameras which means scanning the sky with narrow fov detectors.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago

And F-35s are really fast. By the time you recognize and can target it, it'll fly behind a cloud or something. So not only do you need to make a really fast rocket w/ vision-based AI integrated, it also needs to be able to detect said plane at great distances, as well as maneuver well enough to see it as it exits clouds and whatnot. That's a lot more complicated than slapping radar on something with heat tracking at close distances.

[–] centipede_powder 55 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

"It a shit design" is rich coming from the guy whos company can't get panels to line up on a car.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

"It's a shit design" Says the man responsible for this:

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

For some reason my kids love them, I just don't see it. It's unique, I guess...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 hours ago

I don't have kids, but when I was a kid I loved Spaghetti-Os and that candy that comes in a toothpaste tube but is literally just gelatinous sugar syrup. I probably would've loved the cybertruck too.

[–] Tyfud 3 points 5 hours ago

It's a simple design, like a boxcar you'd race with your dad at the local boy scouts event. It appeals to children who don't understand how airflow works and just like seeing big bulky tank like things. To them, it looks like a Tonka toy.

But in the real world, things like fluid dynamics are important.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, in comparison to some of the F-22 variants, the F-35 is a pretty big piece of shit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That VERY much depends on mission requirements. The F35 has issues, but calling it a big piece of shit shows that you're an internet troll who has no idea what it's talking about

[–] Madison420 1 points 3 hours ago

No, the designers will tell you the same. It's a compromise, it's not perfect at anything but it's very good at most of it's intended purposes. It's that old addage don't let perfect be the enemy of great.

Don't get me wrong I still think it's smiling idiot twin is the cooler plane.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Can't these things aerosolize you from beyond the fucking horizon? How helpful are those AI powered low light cameras when they're phase transitioned by a missile launched from a hundred miles away?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You'd need a camera network spanning the entire battlefield. And it'd need telephoto lenses at the very least, because stealth fighters are high and small. And it'd need to stay connected after an initial missile exchange.

I don't buy for a moment that nobody in the Pentagon has thought of this, and explained why it's not a dealbreaker in a classified report.

[–] Buddahriffic 2 points 6 hours ago

Telephoto lenses have a low field of vision. You'd want very high resolution wide angle sensors. Or maybe a combination of the two, where the wide angle cameras spot interesting things for the narrow angle ones to look closer at.

The difference between the two would be like when they went from U2 spy planes to satellite imagery, going from thin strips of visibility to "here's the hemisphere containing most of Russia".

[–] LANIK2000 27 points 16 hours ago

He's just a dumb attention seeker. Of course he's gonna shit on the most over-engineered thing in existence. Tho the context of the shitty engineering his companies do makes this even funnier. What a loser.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 15 hours ago

He isn't smart. He's just a narcissist that lives deep in the warm embrace of Dunning-Kuger

[–] [email protected] 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Bro forgor about IFR conditions 💀

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Or the curvature of the Earth

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago

Or BVR fights

[–] [email protected] 41 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

"laughably easy to take down fighter jets"

yeah all you have to do is ban the kid running the elon jet twitter. Seems easy enough to me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›