People know that defense contractors are defense contractors. This isn’t the Streisand effect, it’s the wanting-to-turn-down-money-from-people-you-don’t-like effect.
And the scale part is important. The whole point of these CCA fleets is to have A LOT of them and for that they have to be relatively cheap to build and easy enough to produce in decent numbers. The quality of an individual CCA doesn't matter that much.
Perhaps by reading the article you could answer your own question? And if you still have questions you can visit their webpage which has videos and pictures of many of their systems.
Which is a legitimate strategic imperative in the world of asymmetric warfare. It is not good that someone can launch a $1,000 drone that requires $10,000,000 in air defense munitions to counter.
I think the hope is that they are quicker in producing drones that integrate ("collaborative") AI of the current generation than the traditional big suppliers.
Isn't the Lord of the Rings still under copyright? How come the Tolkien estate let a bunch of companies doing morally questionable stuff use names like Anduril and Palantir?
A single word cannot benefit from copyright protection, but a character can. It may be difficult to argue that Anduril and the Palantíri were characters, and even more difficult to argue that the commercial products named after them were substantially similar. Trademark protection may be more applicable, but the Tolkien estate may not have registered (or defended) trademarks for those two names, and if they did it could be argued that a defense company is not confusable with the original material.
On the other hand, maybe both of those companies did secure a license from the Tolkien Estate.
Not an expert on IP law, so asking genuinely - is the threshold for copyright protection with respect to (unique) names whether the name belongs a character? So, Anduril and Palantir are okay, but Sauron or Aragorn would not be?
It's the character which may enjoy copyright protection, not the word in isolation. So if you write a story about a bad guy named Sauron who likes rings, you may be infringing, but if you launch a new candy bar named Sauron then it might be OK.
“ Upon the announcement of the first Nexus device, the Nexus One, the estate of science fiction author Philip K. Dick claimed that the Nexus One name capitalized on intellectual property from Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and that the choice of name was a direct reference to the Nexus-6 series of androids in the novel.”
Looks like there was a lawsuit,
that was eventually settled out of court and we don’t know what was agreed.
Aduril, "the flame of the west", was the name of Aragorn's sword which he used to defend his lands from Saruman's army. I honestly can't imagine a more respectful usage of the name.
And Anduril is also a great example of reuse / recycling, as it was reforged from the shards of Narsil, the sword that got broken in a previous war with Sauron. Although one of the shards was still sufficiently usable to cut the One Ring from Sauron's finger.
Let's not pretend this isn't a more complex issue. "Should be proud" depends on their views of the military industrial complex, and the characterization of who is the "good guys" and "bad guys" is also much more complex in the real world. The US Empire isn't some pure benefector "protector of freedom" for the world. And it's also not an evil empire out to destroy the world. So it'd be reasonable to be against the use as it'd be for it.
Anduril is largely an outsider attempting to disrupt "the military industrial complex" you speak of.
To put it more bluntly, Tolkein was British. He lived through WWII. What other country in the world can you think of that has, would or even can fight as the UK's "protector of freedom" in the way that the US has?
Amazingly, even in the case of the Ukraine war, which is right at the EU's border, it's America that's provided the most support. Even Korea has done more than many EU countries have.
You're defending one side of the position when I just said I can see both sides thinking they are right being a tennable position to hold. I don't disagre with your view, the same way I can see someone who is opposed to war being opposed to the usage.
The "other side" isn't being opposed to war. The other side is actively starting wars by invading its neighbors or trying to take their territory.
Anduril has played a critical role in defending Ukraine, but it has not created weapons used to invade Russia or any other country.
> the same way I can see someone who is opposed to war being opposed to the usage.
Why wouldn't this person be opposed to the invading army instead? I could foresee a possible future where Aduril has done horrible things in future decades, but up through 2024, I see a lot of good done and not much to condemn.
You seem to not see a possibility for opposing companies like Anduril using names from fiction and also not liking other military companies from other opposing countries but such a position is valid.
I don't know what a specific war has to do with this. I really don't think you're interpreting what I'm saying correctly so I'll leave this be, because you seem to just want to figure out if I'm with you or against you where I was just making a neutral argument.
It would have been more productive to actually explain in concrete terms what wrongdoing you believed Anduril was involved in rather than trying to guess at my perception or understanding of your comments.
Do single words even fall under copyright? They can be trademarked and that's why there's only one Mickey Mouse, but you're not going to trademark every proper name in a book you wrote...
Copyright protection of characters is not harmonised at the international level (https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698), and is a very contentious area even within specific jurisdictions.
Like, in the US, there are some tests, like "character delineation" and "story being told" test for protection to exist: how well developed that character is (Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.), so cannonfodders are not protected, main characters could be. In other countries, that protection is much stronger, like any uniquely, identifiable character (or even titles of literary works) practically receive such a protection (like in Hungary).
But there is always a second layer of defense, like it's fair use, pastiche etc. Like in Germany, the German supreme court has decided that selling costumes of Pippi Longstockings is not within fair use (even if they do not call it "Pippi costume", of course).
So, good luck for anyone choosing such names for their products to sort this out in litigation, probably not worth the risk here. It often just takes time for the copyright holders to notice and to react...
it's not that surprising. Despite Tolkien's claims to the contrary there's a very obvious East vs West political narrative in Lord of the Rings, hence it's no accident that Palantir, Anduril etc draw from this. In fact geopolitics is pretty full of Tolkien metaphors, see the "Civlisation vs Orks" debates on Ukraine.
I don't think that's covered by copyright. I don't think authors can claim every word they come up with. You probably can't name a drone Harry Potter, but that's because it's a brand I presume.
Enforcing pax americana, even using aggressive means, is a moral cause in its own. The world under US control is more peaceful, more just and better to live in than any other conceivable alternative. Not all ideologies deserve equal foothold.
Controversial to be sure. But I'd challenge down-voters to instead (additionally?) provide a framework of their envisioned "conceivable alternative" new world order which would be more peaceful, just, and better to live in.
This is a healthy thought exercise. It's extremely easy to complain about the way that things are but difficult to envision something better. I red-pilled myself on a lot of issues by thinking like this regularly.
I'm sure that the millions of dead Iraqis, the embargoed Cubans, the millions of dead under brutal regimes sponsored by the US all over Latin America, Africa and Asia, the people kidnapped to be tortured by the CIA due to their name or watch type would be thrilled to hear about how peaceful, just and better to live things are.
The US isn't a benevolent force for good, it's pure old capitalistic greed and realpolitik. That lots of good has happened thanks to it is mostly accidental.
I don’t think the US invasion resulted in a higher number deaths than Sadam’s actions in the 80s and 90. Not that this somehow justifies how its aftermath was handled...
Anyway the world is not black and white and there is a lot of nuance, however the US was still probably the most benevolent “hegemonic” power that has ever existed in human history (especially relative to its power projection capabilities)
You'll note the genocide of the entire Jewish people was not a part of your list of great travesties (and indeed they are). But the question is not "has the US done everything perfectly ever", it's: "Can you envision a better world order than Pax Americana? What, specifically, would that look like?"
Most estimates of Iraq war casualties are in 100-600 thousand range. The one estimate putting it at 1 million is an opinion poll. There are no estimates beyond 1 mil.
But if you judge by body count, you have great examples of actual millions dead like holodomor instrumented by stalin (3+ millions of Ukrainians), Chinese famine due to mao policies (10+ millions), khmer rouge massacres (average estimate around 2 mil), etc. Something is common among them huh?
US is not a saint and everyone makes mistakes but it is thanks to its influence and role in global economy we have drastically less death.
That'd be simple if you could identify "the beginning", but normally in conflicts what happens is both sides think they're right due to some pre-existing claim.
Yes, the unexpectedly effective brute force solution to the eternal bickering siblings problem: "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it!".
Typically invoked immediately after the stronger party commits such a disproportionally large show of power as to attract your attention anew to their otherwise minor long-term petty dispute.
It's a rather large leap imo to actually respect the terminology of 'Defence' in that regard, completely ignoring their obvious engagement with offensive action.
I am saying this as the "other". I am Russian (though not living in the country anymore). My country has started an unforgivable war of aggression. It is my imperative to do anything I can to remedy this.
The law is not there yet, the document was fake. But still it is possible. I can’t return, and I won’t be able to get a citizenship of the country I currently live in. Guess I will live as a stateless person.
One can go as far as to consider defense a moral imperative of free nations. Who knows whether Russia would have ever dared to attack Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes?
No, it would have not. Even under their super optimistic plans they expected to capture Ukraine within 3 days, which was still plenty of time to launch nukes
But that is a moot question because there was no universe in which Ukraine keeps nuclear weapons. They didn't have control over the ones they inherited (KGB did), and while retrofitting them was possible... Ukraine after independence didn't have the money for anything, let alone reverse engineering nuclear weapons and maintaining them.
Also, while on the micro level it might make sense for a certain country to have nukes to protect itself from attacks, on the macro for the world it doesn't. The higher amounts of countries with nuclear weapons, the bigger the risk something goes wrong - a crazy dictator decides to do a murder-suicide pact, poor maintenance leads to radiation leaks, etc. etc.
I respect Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons to be on par with Israel and prevent the Americans and Saudis from invading them (reminder that high ranking American politicians and cabinet members have clearly and openly talked about war with Iran)... but it would be devastating to the region. Iran's regime isn't stable, has lots of enemies around (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the other Gulf monarchies), some of which don't hesitate at all to provoke and attack them. The risk of nukes flying if Iran has them is too great for the wider international community to accept it - which is why there was a deal with a carrot to get Iran to stop, which was working until the braindead Americans decided to kill it for no good reason. So now... nothing can be done to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons outside of an even more flagrant violation of Iran's sovereignty than what Israel has already done by assassinating top nuclear scientists and sabotaging their facilities.
Is your goal to support the idea or not? Universal acceptance of a moral perspective throughout history would typically be considered justification to continue accepting that perspective.
Unless of course a new angle was provided that called into question said perspective. Which you have not done here.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40152049
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40152531
Are they really trying to repel defense companies via code of conduct edits? Streisand effect.
Edit; Looks like this all went down 8 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37418351
Edit 2: @freeone3000 ok.
It is still going on:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-foundation-event-sponsor...
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/major-nixpkgs-contributor-leav...
https://twitter.com/sridca/status/1767602500461375721
https://twitter.com/anduriltech/status/1780987267630395454 "the prototype was delivered ahead of schedule, and on budget"
and statements like this:
https://twitter.com/anduriltech/status/1783241461976256553 "We look forward to delivering CCAs on schedule, within budget, and at scale."
And the scale part is important. The whole point of these CCA fleets is to have A LOT of them and for that they have to be relatively cheap to build and easy enough to produce in decent numbers. The quality of an individual CCA doesn't matter that much.
You can't do BIG & DISPOSABLE with the current overpriced legacy defense contractors.
People don't use AirBnB because they can "Belong anywhere".
They often use it because it's cheaper than hotels. But you seldom find that in marketing material.
That's pretty much what Anduril does. "You don't have to use a Patriot missile for that!" etc.
On the other hand, maybe both of those companies did secure a license from the Tolkien Estate.
But also found this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Nexus
“ Upon the announcement of the first Nexus device, the Nexus One, the estate of science fiction author Philip K. Dick claimed that the Nexus One name capitalized on intellectual property from Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and that the choice of name was a direct reference to the Nexus-6 series of androids in the novel.”
Looks like there was a lawsuit, that was eventually settled out of court and we don’t know what was agreed.
On a similar note, trademark issues can't apply to Bladerunner, because it isn't a vendor.
The Tolkien estate should be proud.
I dunno, the U.S.' self image is pretty much Gondor, and I don't think the books lacked nuance about how much Gondor was/wasn't the 'good guys'.
To put it more bluntly, Tolkein was British. He lived through WWII. What other country in the world can you think of that has, would or even can fight as the UK's "protector of freedom" in the way that the US has?
Amazingly, even in the case of the Ukraine war, which is right at the EU's border, it's America that's provided the most support. Even Korea has done more than many EU countries have.
Anduril has played a critical role in defending Ukraine, but it has not created weapons used to invade Russia or any other country.
> the same way I can see someone who is opposed to war being opposed to the usage.
Why wouldn't this person be opposed to the invading army instead? I could foresee a possible future where Aduril has done horrible things in future decades, but up through 2024, I see a lot of good done and not much to condemn.
Can you make a coherent argument for either?
It would have been more productive to actually explain in concrete terms what wrongdoing you believed Anduril was involved in rather than trying to guess at my perception or understanding of your comments.
I didn't know it was a character of lord of the rings. Same with Palantir (Though 'Sauron' would have been a better name for that company XD ).
There's a even a pretty good alt history take on this from a Russian writer in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer
Imperial Germany, a nation of good people corrupted by colonial ambitions, draining the youth of Oxfordshire into the wasteland of the trenches.
It also better fits Tolkien’s personal experience and the pre Cold War publication of the Hobbit.
I suppose Ukraine’s also the modern conflict most similar to WW1 as well.
The US isn't a benevolent force for good, it's pure old capitalistic greed and realpolitik. That lots of good has happened thanks to it is mostly accidental.
Anyway the world is not black and white and there is a lot of nuance, however the US was still probably the most benevolent “hegemonic” power that has ever existed in human history (especially relative to its power projection capabilities)
Most estimates of Iraq war casualties are in 100-600 thousand range. The one estimate putting it at 1 million is an opinion poll. There are no estimates beyond 1 mil.
But if you judge by body count, you have great examples of actual millions dead like holodomor instrumented by stalin (3+ millions of Ukrainians), Chinese famine due to mao policies (10+ millions), khmer rouge massacres (average estimate around 2 mil), etc. Something is common among them huh?
US is not a saint and everyone makes mistakes but it is thanks to its influence and role in global economy we have drastically less death.
Typically invoked immediately after the stronger party commits such a disproportionally large show of power as to attract your attention anew to their otherwise minor long-term petty dispute.
Some things are quite morally clear.
What do you think about the new law regarding not issuing passports abroad? Will return or have another citizenship?
Didn't know it's fake, thanks
But that is a moot question because there was no universe in which Ukraine keeps nuclear weapons. They didn't have control over the ones they inherited (KGB did), and while retrofitting them was possible... Ukraine after independence didn't have the money for anything, let alone reverse engineering nuclear weapons and maintaining them.
Also, while on the micro level it might make sense for a certain country to have nukes to protect itself from attacks, on the macro for the world it doesn't. The higher amounts of countries with nuclear weapons, the bigger the risk something goes wrong - a crazy dictator decides to do a murder-suicide pact, poor maintenance leads to radiation leaks, etc. etc.
I respect Iran's desire to acquire nuclear weapons to be on par with Israel and prevent the Americans and Saudis from invading them (reminder that high ranking American politicians and cabinet members have clearly and openly talked about war with Iran)... but it would be devastating to the region. Iran's regime isn't stable, has lots of enemies around (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the other Gulf monarchies), some of which don't hesitate at all to provoke and attack them. The risk of nukes flying if Iran has them is too great for the wider international community to accept it - which is why there was a deal with a carrot to get Iran to stop, which was working until the braindead Americans decided to kill it for no good reason. So now... nothing can be done to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons outside of an even more flagrant violation of Iran's sovereignty than what Israel has already done by assassinating top nuclear scientists and sabotaging their facilities.
Unless of course a new angle was provided that called into question said perspective. Which you have not done here.