Better raise usage fees on normal people instead

One proton vs Antiproton explosion releases 1,877 MeV (mega-electronvolts). All the antimatter they transfered would not give off 200,000 MeV

1 foot pound of energy contains more than 8 trillion MeV

So basically, it could be happening inside your body and you would never notice it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tracks at 8 km away, hits at 2 km away. Process takes seconds.

You are thinking 'not reliable' means they hit the target less than 5% of the time.

We are thinking 'not reliable' means they blow up the ship that tries to launch them.

This is a fallacy.

What happens is this. Someone makes a product with a 0.1% reliability. They sell it but warn it is not that high quality. Then someone says "If they are at least 10% reliable, it is worth it and buys the product.

Their is no evidence these are 10% reliable. Everything about it screams these are a new cheap, almost worthless missile. Particularly the use of the word 'hypersonic' to describe a missile that the US would never call hypersonic (we reserve that word for advanced, hard to hit hypersonic cruise missiles, not hypersonic ballistic missiles that are easy to destroy)

I agree it would only be a surprise first strike. But if any container ship was potentially hiding a few of these, think of the chaos it would cause in supply chains.

Addiction is neurological, not chemical. Addiction is the consequence of the rewards centre of the brain becoming dependent on stimulation and that can be from anything.

Do try to make an effort.

Doesn't have to be a credit card. A class III user digital certificate requires a verification firm be certain of a person's identity through multiple proofs. If an age verification service issued such a certificate, but anonymised the name the certificate was issued to to the user's selected screen name, you now have a digital ID that proves your age and optionally can be used for encryption purposes to ensure your account is only reachable from devices you authorise.

Or some other Weekly World News cast member?

And those come with warnings, legal penalties on vendors who sell to known addicts or children, legal penalties for abusers, financial penalties to abusers, etc. There are cars which have their own breathalisers.

So, no, society has said that the responsibility is distributed. Which is correct.

It is possible to verify age to the same degree (or better) than any "age verification service" without any sort of privacy invasion.

A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".

*goes off grumbling and looks for anyone he can shout at to get off his lawn.

It is legitimate for any service that constitutes a "common carrier" to be free of consequences for what it carries. But Meta do not claim to be a "common carrier", and that changes the nature of the playing field substantially. As soon as a service can inspect messages and moderate, it is no longer eligible to claim that it is not responsible for what it carries.

Your counter-argument holds some merit, but runs into two problems.

First, society deems any service that monitors to be liable. That may well be unreasonable at the volumes involved, but that's irrelevant. Meta chose to monitor, knowing that this made it liable in the eyes of society. There are, of course, good reasons for that - mostly, society is sick and twisted, and criminality is encouraged as a "good thing" and "sticking it to the man". This is a very good reason to monitor. But Meta chose to have an obscenely large customer base (it didn't need to), Meta chose to monitor (it is quite capable of parking itself in a country where this isn't an obligation), and Meta chose to make the service addictive (which is a good way of encouraging criminals onto the scene, as addicts are easy prey).

Second, Meta has known there's been a problem for a very long time (depression and suicides by human moderators is a serious problem Meta has been facing for many years at this point). Meta elected to sweep the problem under the rug and create the illusion of doing something by using AI. If a serivce knows there's a problem but does nothing, and in particular a very cheap form of nothing, then one must consider the possibility said service is not solving said problem because there's more money to be made by having the abusers there than by removing them.

Can one block every criminal action? Probably not, which means that that's the wrong problem to solve. Intelligent, rational, people do not try to solve actually impossible problems. Rather, they change the problems into ones that are quite easy. This is very standard lateral thinking and anyone over the age of 10 who has not been trained in lateral thinking should sue their school for incompetence.

You are correct that it is far more difficult to shoot down 500 missiles. But the article is not talking about them as a low tech, mass attack.

Instead they are presenting them as an advanced attack that is cheap and the US cannot defeat because we do not have things like it.

It might be an effective missile - in the right circumstance. But I did not say the missiles were worthless. I said the article was a bunch of propaganda and countered it.

As for your points (which were much smarter and honest than the article):
1) The US does not only use fancy stuff that is a million a pop. The Phalanx shoots down missiles with bullets costing dollars per shot. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/w...
2) The US uses some weapons designed to take out a bunch of close missiles with one shot.
3) Much of the US anti-missile technology is to make sure the missile MISSES rather than hits. Chaff, moving the ship, flares, and other electronic counter measures are very effective. Now a days they are making drones designed to attract missiles. And this thing can in no way target submarines.

No they cannot do a 180 degree turn after their initial burn is done.
These missiles cannot fly low, after the initial burn they become almost ballistic.

You are correct that a 7 mile away missile takes about 7 seconds to hit it. US ships can easily do it in 3 seconds.