• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s funny how often I come into the comments and read something that belittles the article, when they clearly didn’t read the article because they are getting basic facts wrong.

    For those while care what the article actually says, someone copy pasted it below. But let this post be a reminder that the vast majority of responses to the article are simply people applying their prejudices and assumptions to the headline.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why are you making this comment under mine? Im just pointing out that drone tech is surprisingly old and giving two examples.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because they aren’t talking about just any-old drones, it’s about how they’ve become so cheap. So saying “well, drone technology is old so it’s funny to see them calling it the future!” shows you didn’t read the article.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Youre overanalyzing my comment, I saw someone talk about drones being the weapon of the future in the 90s and my brain went "lets talk about semi-obscure WW2 shit. I dont care about shit getting cheaper, I want to talk about obscure shit.

          Fun fact early lever action rifles date as far back as the American revolution but due toa ship burning most of the prototypes were destroyed.