- cross-posted to:
- 3dprinting@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- 3dprinting@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
Great… can’t wait for politicians to use this as a way to pass “common sense” legislation banning 3D printers.
3D printers are even less useful here though. The rocket bit can be replaced with a cardboard tube and some balsa fins. The important parts are the active control and circuitry.
But I guess logic doesn’t really enter into the conversation anyway.
Aren’t they already doing that due to their hysteria over “ghost” guns?
I learned from Mario that ghosts can only harm you if you look away. They never had guns, but I guess the same applies for that.
I thought Luigi was the one with ghost gun
Luigi was with me and he didn’t have a gun
You don’t need to ban 3D printers. Restrictions and licensing requirements for making, using, owning rockets and guidance software are enough.
This already would fall under an FFL for legal citizens anyway. As is the nature of the internet though, this open design will be preserved and available for those who seek it.
Being in that category just prevents it from being sold. It’s not illegal federally to build your own weapon without a FFL.
Is that the same rule for destructive devices? Genuinely curious - I know privately made firearms have different rules.
No, for a destructive device you have to file a form 1.
This wont scare the think of the children crowd at all.
I don’t know, rockets are pretty phallic.
They are not afraid of the phallus . They fear the vginy.
deleted by creator
It’s vibe coded lol.
Well, it is supposed to go boom
There’s an anecdote that comes up in software about people working on missile software not caring about memory leaks because it’s going to explode anyway before that becomes an issue.
Who cares about bugs in your software if it’s a hobby project that’s going to blow up anyway.
Also, including Claude doesn’t inherently mean vibe coded, it can be for writing tests, small components, or debugging.
Claude writes better code than most humans and a lot faster
I disagree about better code. Claude has been pretty bad at understanding external context and deriving why you’re doing something from the implementation. This can result in wonky structure that you need to fix, or at the very least tell Claude to redo over and over untill it looks clean and organized.
No matter how mad this makes people, its still true.
What makes the code actually useful in most cases however, is enough understanding of the program to modify as its needed. That’s where LLMs fall flat. Even when the code works, its terrible at adjusting the code to fit a specific use case. Dont even get met started on usable documentation or maintenance.
Using an LLM to write tests and small components is still vibe coding.
Wikipedia says:
Vibe coding involves accepting AI-generated code without reviewing it,
If you are using LLMs to write e.g. small components, then you are typically understanding the structure of the program, and reviewing it.
There’s nothing inherent to small components to suggest that you have to review them. If they’re small, it’s easier to tell yourself that the LLM probably got them right and you’re justified in not checking.
Listen to me. I do code for a living. Nobody want to write HTML
Bro, if I don’t have to sit there for a half hour banging out code to map structure A on to structure B, I won’t. I’ll let someone else write it and spend 5 minutes to check that the code is clean and it works
Vibe coding is you not reviewing what the model outputs. I read every line, often give feedback and tell the model about patterns I want to use.
I probably write like 60-70% of the code myself.
Tests should be written from requirements. Using LLMs to write tests after the code is written (probably also by LLMs) is a huge anti-pattern:
The model looks at what the code is doing and writes tests that pass (or fail because they bungle the setup). What the model does not do, is understand what the code needs to do and write tests that ensure that functionality is present and correct.
Tests are the thing that should get the most human investment because they anchor the project to its real-world requirements. You will have tons more confidence in your vibe coded appslop if you at least thought through the test cases and built those out first. Then, whatever the shortcomings of the AI codebase, if the tests pass you can know it is doing something right.
Honestly, never been on a team that stuck to TDD. As you test your stuff, and understand whatever libraries and apis you’re calling you modify your implementation as you go.
For public facing methods, especially ones called by customers, having pre agreed upon tests matter more but usually that’s at the integration test and system test level. I usually use AI for unit testing and read what was written. Tests end up being a lot of writing harnesses and setting up mocks that you delegate to the model and if there’s gaps or incorrect requirements, you change them.
I would never let the agent define the code structure. It doesn’t understand business processes or what might need to be extended or we’re instead about.
I’ve been doing software for a while, I know how to review code. I don’t vibe code, I let the model implement boilerplate and mapping functions while I do other stuff, like manual testing or talking with product. If done correctly, you can incorporate generative models into your workflows without fully handing over all control.
Notably absent… the explosives.
But sure, if you are wondering how folks out in Yemen or Gaza managed to retaliate against their oppressors for so long, this is a textbook example of how and why. What’s being proposed is collection of technology we’ve had since at least the 1960s that’s slowly made its way into civilian circulation.
Also…
Khojayev’s just-launched prototype has no effectiveness track record
I mean, we’re seeing what “just-launched prototypes with no effective track record” have accomplished on the Ukraine-Russia front-lines and it’s a decidedly mixed bag.
I think a harder question to answer is “Who would be interested in putting one of these into practical use?” And that gets to the real value-add of a Stinger MANPAD. Namely, the humans willing and practiced enough to use it.
Also - and again, this cannot be overstated - the model above has no explosives installed. Idk how confident I’d be around one of these things if it was actually armed.
Anyone know what the $2 propellant is?
Thanks!
That doesn’t seem to fit in the budget though??
Notably absent… the explosives.
Not my area of expertise, so please tell me if the idea is complete garbage. With that being said: Theoretically, could the LiPo Battery that’s already in there anyway be turned into an explosive payload by intentionally overheating and puncturing it on impact?
Not my area of expertise, so please tell me if the idea is complete garbage.
Turning a laptop battery into a weapon is a non-trivial endeavor. The absurdity of TSA was more their attempt to police based on weak science than the real danger of an airplane full of lithium battery powered devices.
Not really an answer to you, just writing it here in case anyone else interested is still reading along:
I looked up some numbers and apart from the practical challenges of making a battery “go boom” in a controlled way it seems like the energy density to even make this a hypothetical option just isn’t there. Even the best LiPo batteries don’t quite reach 1 MJ/kg while gunpowder has ~3 MJ/kg, and numbers only go up from there for more modern chemical explosives.
I synthesize energetics. I can make a primary explosive that is stable enough for cap usage with a solo cup. I can synthesize secondaries like RDX above (one of the more complicated common ones) in short order with a basic chemistry set and the internet to order basic reagents. None are controlled substances.
It is trivially easy to make effective shapes charges and energetics at home.
Synthesis is federally legal in the US so long as you do not assemble into a device or transport. You can do both with an SOT as an FFL.
If I wanted to, I could make a shaped charge that was point imitated and base detonated for the above projectile and it would punch through about 1.5 feet of homogeneously rolled steel.
The limit to threat is not the access to explosives, as the chemistry and processes are published freely online as easy to replicate. The drone parts and control surface actuation is by far harder and I say this as someone who has a professional background in computer science and software engineering.
It is trivially easy to make effective shapes charges and energetics at home.
Safely?
If I wanted to, I could
You’ve got enough information to try to execute the above formula. Okay. And you’ve still got all your fingers after attempting this… more than zero times?
The drone parts and control surface actuation is by far harder and I say this as someone who has a professional background in computer science and software engineering.
Absolutely. We invented gunpowder centuries before we invented airplanes.
That said… as an anecdote, I had a friend who had a janitorial position. Cleaning a particularly stubborn toilet and dumped a bunch of bleach into the bowl. His coworker came in behind him and proceeded to piss in said boil, creating a toxic miasma that forced them to exit the restroom quickly and heavily ventilate it before returning.
“I could cook up some blasting caps with the trash from a frat party” is a theoretically believable claim.
“Every time I clean up a frat party, I add a dozen shaped charges to my inventory” is not.
Safely? Yes.
Keep the reaction stirring under ice and if you see the temp rise above 15 C you dump the whole thing in a water bucket or you get a runaway exothermic reaction that is never good with a high explosive forming crystals in the solution.
If you are stupid, don’t ventilate, or are stupid stupid it will light your shed on fire and potentially kill you.
That’s why you work at lab scale, and why you always keep your reactions under the temp limits with acids added slowly.
Basic chemistry safety covers all the bases here.
My preferred blasting caps are nickel guanidine based. I can play with the crystal morphology to produce small more friction inert powder and it is an extremely simple synthesis.
You can use reloading press combined with highly suggested lexan sheet as a blast shield and wooden block to gently press the powder into caps. China sells packs of 1000 electrical ignition assemblies for $40 that you can then set off with a COTS or a clacker.
I cannot emphasize enough that working at small scale and knowing what you are doing are important, but in faster time than it takes to print the parts for that drone you can absolutely complete the reaction, do some recrystalizstion, dry your product,and be ready to mix with plasticizer.
I have this idea: Scientists some time ago, discovered they could knot light into loops.
Would it be possible to make a curved laser for laser artillery?
Certainly possible. But you’re still stuck on the r2 problem of diminishing returns at a distance. Light doesn’t like staying in a tight beam. The vortex loop is typically not much bigger than the wavelength. I don’t see much of a solution for transmitting energy long distances through air.
Lawmakers “ban 3d printers!”
Us “we’ll just something else then”
Lawmakers ban owning things!
No you see, if arms companies own all the rights regarding distribution of 3D printer tech then it is a constitutional right to produce guns with printers, if not then it is terrorism.
Violence is only the last resort, but Americans should learn to make DIY weapons in case another civil war breaks out, because it is unlikely that Donald will concede power when the time comes.
Let’s just remember the great lessons of history: Never cavalry charge a formed infantry, if the war involves Vietnam in ANY way, join the Vietnamese side, and halberds are the pinnacle of melee weapons.
