Wanting and being interested are not things in physical reality. We are also talking about an organization and not some aspiring teenager.
If someone wants something , the only measure of their interest and desire is how much resources and time they allocate to it. We’re not measuring Sam Altmans deepest desires and fantasies here
wanting to be good at something is not exactly the same as being interested in getting good at something, which carries the additional, nuanced, connotation of investment (or willingness to invest) towards this goal.
e.g. many people want to live an active healthy lifestyle, but fewer are actually interested in doing so.
> wanting to be good at something is not exactly the same as being interested in getting good at something
Are you sure? I've never heard of that difference. To be sure, I checked the definitions for each, and could find no such distinction. Maybe you could provide me with better sources than the ones I found?
In the two test launches shown in the video, the "missile" doesn't fly straight nor does it demonstrate ability to be "guided" by the launcher towards any particular target.
It's also incredibly slow. There are children's rocket kits that fly significantly faster than this.
Yeah, neither article nor the video itself talks about "accuracy" AFAIK, which seems like a kind of important thing in this whole concept, otherwise it's just a "horizontal rocket launcher" which is cool I guess, but not so close to a MANPAD.
The video is also cut in a way so you cannot tell that the launch seems to have been a complete failure? The rocket is vertical at the last frame: https://i.imgur.com/e2Kld6I.png
> Yeah, neither article nor the video itself talks about "accuracy" AFAIK, which seems like a kind of important thing in this whole concept, otherwise it's just a "horizontal rocket launcher" which is cool I guess, but not so close to a MANPAD.
Yeah, it seems to be trying to hew too closely to the conventions of existing missiles.
A way more practical home-made "MANPAD" would probably be more like these Ukrainian drone interceptors: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/10/what-are-the-ukrain.... 200 mph and 3 mile range is not bad, and definitely better than whatever the OP is.
The engine and the warhead are two of the biggest challenges in making a missile, in large part because anything high performance is also going to be spectacularly dangerous to manufacture.
I frankly would care little about the speed; it can always be improved with a better propellant. I would care about a cheap ability to guide the rocket. If it's there, it may be consequential for a real (para)military application.
(A quadcopter is perfectly guidable, but it must be slower than a rocket, and costs more than $96.)
The US per capita GDP is 90k now. This means its 5% per year. Not really a luxury when people spend all day on their phones. Heck, you'd call walmart groceries a luxury because they are more expensive. Both are needed in 2026.
Unfortunately your attack plan was discovered when an AI system connected to speaker outside flagged a private conversation you were having as a domestic terroist risk and a swarm of Amazon Secuirty (tm) drones have to been dispatched to paint the concrete with your brain before you even get to the data center.
reply