What, you think that classified military industrial complex can achieve the kinds of economies of scale that Chinese toy makers can? Dude, give me a break. China will be making these things for $100 while we make them for $1,000,000.

Ukraine has even been involved in training exercises with NATO troops. Their drone battalions have been regularly wiping out American and British infantry units in exercises, because the Americans and British just don't understand how to fight a war with drones in.

The good news on the running out of people front is that Russia is running out of people 10 times faster. The bad news is, Russia has 4 times as many people. That said, those numbers still lie in Ukraine's favour.

The equipment can be carried by other drones. Though certainly there's all kinds of risks here. A wounded soldier who will die if not extracted has a very different risk profile they'll accept than a healthy soldier going into an attack. You don't want to deliver ammo and supplies to your enemies if the supplies make it, but the soldiers don't. etc etc.

That said, Ukraine has already used a variant on this - they've used these heavy lift drones to deliver land drones that then carry out an attack. That was one of the things that made their recent advances near Lyman possible.

Ah, but you're misunderstanding. His dear orange leader has said Ukraine are bad, and it's definitely their fault that diesel prices are high. Nothing to do with said orange moron attacking Iran. His reality is invested in making sure that Ukraine didn't do anything worthwhile.

No you don't. The seller gets to determine what the product is or isn't. You get to choose whether to buy it or not.

Why would I need to? That's not the determining factor. The determining factor is whether Anthropic wants you to send those queries.

You're signing up for a contract to send data to them. They get to say what content they want sent to them.

Why not? It's their computer program. You've not paid for the computer program, you've paid to send certain content to their servers. They have every right to say "don't send us this content".

At this point, I'm willing to trust the code Claude produces more than the code that Bob produces. It's far from perfect, but it's better than many a junior dev at this point. I suspect with the next generation of agents, it'll be as good as seniors tbh.

No - we don't limit science only to stuff that has already been replicated. You're requiring a higher standard for this paper than we do for any other simply because you disagree with it.

Not quite, no. The study has put out a paper that spells out what they did, that's their "proof of bona fides" as you put it. Now if you want to tear it down, you need to make a reasoned and rational argument about something in that paper, not just shout on the internet.

Doesn't it? I mean, they've landed boosters, they "landed" the block 3 in the last launch. They've been consistently landing ships for quite a while. Reusing the ships without any refurb still seems a way off, but them making it back safely seems like they have some healthy margins just now.

No it's not. Starship is like the Airbus A330. More efficient per unit volume, *and* more efficient per flight than a plane that explodes when it reaches the gate.

And yet, making it back safely actually appears to be the smaller problem at the moment. Though I'm sure SpaceX will figure their engine issues out.

Honestly, I'd put starship as approaching the reliability of Falcon 9 at this point anyway. Falcon 9 has the occasional failure (rare, but not none). Starship is getting to the point that it fairly reliably gets up there and gets back. It has some engine outs still, but it also has the redundancy to deal with it.