Amazon drones are coming to town. Some locals want to shoot them(adn.com)
adn.com
Amazon drones are coming to town. Some locals want to shoot them
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2022/06/21/amazon-drones-are-coming-to-town-some-locals-want-to-shoot-them/
111 comments
Super clickbait title - an archery store owner joked about 'target practice' and now the locals want to shoot all the drones down. Typical classist BS about 'those stupid hicks'...
Reminds me of that time a BuzzFeed News reporter ventured away from the coasts, (allegedly) met a local who rambled about Starbucks Christmas cups, and wrote about how Christians are outraged about Starbugs Christmas cups.
Seems plausible and I don’t know why they had to venture from the coasts.
https://youtu.be/e7TVQGu14bo
Bill O’Reilly of Fox News among other prominent Christian conservatives repeatedly talked about the “War on Christmas”, which Donald Trump more recently claimed he won.
https://youtu.be/e7TVQGu14bo
Bill O’Reilly of Fox News among other prominent Christian conservatives repeatedly talked about the “War on Christmas”, which Donald Trump more recently claimed he won.
"Seems plausible" doesn't seem like a good justification for fabricating a news story, but ethics be damned when there are clicks to sell.
Who said it is?
You are suggesting the Buzzfeed story was fabricated without providing any evidence.
You are suggesting the Buzzfeed story was fabricated without providing any evidence.
Indeed. The bulk of the article is about how few local residents actually knew about the drone plan. The only real concrete thing in this article is from one man who was concerned the drones would be capturing imagery of his backyard.
If this type of delivery works and takes off can you imagine the noise pollution from all the drones flying around?
Unless you live in the countryside, there's plenty more noise coming from other sources - including delivery vans, cars, lawnmowers, etc. Drone noise is only audible when they are close. If they get authorization to fly sufficiently high(and it doesn't need to be that high) the only noise you'll ever hear is when there's a delivery next to you. Some would think that's an advantage.
At 100m high, noise varies between 50dB to 55dB, depending on drone size. That's for current drones. That is below daytime noise levels in many places.
That's not even accounting for specific measures to decrease their sound levels. Those are going to be delivery drones, after all, not racers. They can use larger, slower and specifically designed propellers.
At 100m high, noise varies between 50dB to 55dB, depending on drone size. That's for current drones. That is below daytime noise levels in many places.
That's not even accounting for specific measures to decrease their sound levels. Those are going to be delivery drones, after all, not racers. They can use larger, slower and specifically designed propellers.
> including delivery vans
I can not understand why Amazon vans make that horrible sound when reversing. Surely the croaking hurts them more than saving a few accidents helps.
I can not understand why Amazon vans make that horrible sound when reversing. Surely the croaking hurts them more than saving a few accidents helps.
Whats more likely to lose a customer?
a) the delivery van made a strange noise
b) the delivery van reversed over a child
I order less from amazon because of the noise. Probably wouldn't if a kid got run over once, but if it happened multiple times that would be a problem. Nobody else uses the noise amazon does, and I don't hear about people being run over by delivery vans ever, so it doesn't really seem like an issue.
The "croaking" reversing alarm is the white-noise or broadband type, and are considered to be an improvement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-up_beeper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018517/ "Still another alternative is the broadband beeper, a device that has the same cadence as the conventional beeper but broadcasts a “white-noise, whooshing sound,” says Thalheimer, who has no financial interest in or affiliation with Brigade Electronics, the manufacturer. He explains the sound is still readily audible behind the vehicle and is more easily localizable than a single-tone beeper, but the white noise is masked by community noise, so it is much less annoying to the public."
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/construction-technology/... https://brigade-electronics.com/en-us/products/backup-and-wa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-up_beeper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018517/ "Still another alternative is the broadband beeper, a device that has the same cadence as the conventional beeper but broadcasts a “white-noise, whooshing sound,” says Thalheimer, who has no financial interest in or affiliation with Brigade Electronics, the manufacturer. He explains the sound is still readily audible behind the vehicle and is more easily localizable than a single-tone beeper, but the white noise is masked by community noise, so it is much less annoying to the public."
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/construction-technology/... https://brigade-electronics.com/en-us/products/backup-and-wa...
If a van reversed over a child but no one is around to hear it, did it really happen? On the other hand, I put up with delivery van noises constantly in my town, especially during church hours.
As opposed to the roaring diesel engines of current delivery trucks?
They will still have those. I don't imagine the drones are delivering furniture.
But a truck isn't an entire round trip for every item.
No, but it is a round trip - for your item. Unless your neighbors have ordered stuff that's arriving at the same time.
The additional distance for my item is only the distance between the last stop and my house. Usually one or two blocks, in my experience.
Probably won't even hear it over lawnmowers, sirens, and people with obnoxiously loud cars/motorcycles.
Imagine how many trucks/vans/cars stay of the road. Imagine the reduced Pollution and noise because of that.
How many drone flights would it take to replace one days work from a single truck?
I can't imagine how it's physically possible for drones to use less energy.
But it doesn't matter how many of them there are - they could be able to fly at an altitude where they don't cause meaningful noise pollution.
But it doesn't matter how many of them there are - they could be able to fly at an altitude where they don't cause meaningful noise pollution.
Saving energy is less important than cutting out human labor (drivers).
For context, the global average cost for electricity is about $0.13 USD per kWH. From wikipedia, "Over an 8-hour work shift, an average, healthy, well-fed and motivated manual laborer may sustain an output of around 75 watts of power." [0] So, from a purely mechanical perspective, a human can only output about 0.6 kWH of work per day, which is only worth about $0.08 of electricity per day. And yet, in states like California, where this test is being done, human labor costs a minimum of $15/hour, or $120/day.
Energy is not the limiting factor. We could use drastically more energy and still save gobs of money if we can cut the cost of employing a human out of the loop.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_power
For context, the global average cost for electricity is about $0.13 USD per kWH. From wikipedia, "Over an 8-hour work shift, an average, healthy, well-fed and motivated manual laborer may sustain an output of around 75 watts of power." [0] So, from a purely mechanical perspective, a human can only output about 0.6 kWH of work per day, which is only worth about $0.08 of electricity per day. And yet, in states like California, where this test is being done, human labor costs a minimum of $15/hour, or $120/day.
Energy is not the limiting factor. We could use drastically more energy and still save gobs of money if we can cut the cost of employing a human out of the loop.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_power
I think this analogy is flawed. It's more apropos to the "John Henry" comparison, but most of human labor is not of that type since the industrial revolution. Humans are not walking packages the entire distance; we've already implemented mechanical and energy advantages in the form of road vehicles.
Say someone drives a 200 horsepower car. That's roughly 1200 kWh/day of available mechanical power.
Say someone drives a 200 horsepower car. That's roughly 1200 kWh/day of available mechanical power.
Hopefully quieter than the vans driving around. Especially when they reverse.
Depends on altitude before delivery?
I’m willing to let this play out.
Depends on altitude before delivery?
I’m willing to let this play out.
Drones are much higher pitched than cars/trucks, so a lot more annoying at least to me.
The reverse beep sound is comparably annoying but not so common in a quiet neighbor.
The reverse beep sound is comparably annoying but not so common in a quiet neighbor.
I'm gonna have to side with the locals on this one drone delivery seems more disruptive and potentially dangerous than the tiny benefits it might provide.
I haven't seen any studies suggesting this is the case, and they've been testing for years. Do you have a source on this?
Noise is the only concern I'm aware of.
Noise is the only concern I'm aware of.
Has horse behavior been tested? Who's interested enough to actyally look into negative outcomes?
I fly drones of several types, and yes, horses can be spooked by them.
At the altitude these will be flying at it shouldn’t be an issue.
At the altitude these will be flying at it shouldn’t be an issue.
As soon as a package falls from the sky and injures a child … out will come the knives.
Seems less likely than a delivery van hitting a child.
Which is unfortunately normalized at this point. It's like self-driving cars. A self-driving Waymo gets into a single accident and it's frontpage news and people are asking if we need them without thinking about the 50 other accidents from human drivers within a 10 mile radius that same day. All because the latter is normalized.
If it survives long enough, accidents from drone deliveries will become normalized too. But they have a long way to go before the public gives them that benefit of the doubt.
If it survives long enough, accidents from drone deliveries will become normalized too. But they have a long way to go before the public gives them that benefit of the doubt.
I hope that fatalities caused by drone accidents never get normalized. If they are frequent enough to be normalized then there is a problem. Drones are small enough and slow enough that fatalities should be extremely rare. Injuries might occur, but not fatalities.
The opposite should occur: traffic accident fatalities should become denormalized. Every time a pedestrian dies on the roads it should be front page news and have people demanding that politicians should do something. Seems unattainable, but I believe that they are close to this reality in Sweden.
The opposite should occur: traffic accident fatalities should become denormalized. Every time a pedestrian dies on the roads it should be front page news and have people demanding that politicians should do something. Seems unattainable, but I believe that they are close to this reality in Sweden.
Yeah, that's true. I guess I was just trying to explain why it will get a level of scrutiny that other delivery options do not. Wasn't really trying to argue that perhaps we should be looking at the other side of the coin and scrutinizing regular shipping (and driving) more.
If they're dropping shit from the sky willy nilly, we're gonna have problems long before anyone gets hurt.
Because that's what happens when a UPS truck runs over a kid, right?
Honestly if it had happened enough, yes, the metaphorical knives would be drawn by some politicians seeking to capitalize on it for their gain.
This is always what happens. Combine it with a new thing no one really seems to want and a dead kid? What do you think would happen?
This is always what happens. Combine it with a new thing no one really seems to want and a dead kid? What do you think would happen?
People will react completely irrationally as they tend to do.
Fire danger would be another.
Someone should patent a rooftop landing guide apparatus for drones that can be retrofitted on buildings. A drone would use it to visually sync with it to know where it should land, and deposit the package into a standardized climate-controlled package receptacle. Then you just need to get the packages into the building somehow.
If only there was a way to easily search for patents on a specific topic! [1]
[1] https://patents.google.com/?q=drone+landing&oq=drone+landing
[1] https://patents.google.com/?q=drone+landing&oq=drone+landing
I guess I should have looked through all 59,855 patents before commenting!
The fact that there are almost 60K patents should tell you it's not an unexplored space.
I'm aware :) It sounds like the message here is "it's probably already been done, but I can't prove it, but i don't like the implication that it isn't already patented."
The PTO will find it for you, I guarantee that :) But the ante is a non-provisional patent filing fee. (They don't examine provisionals.)
If this happens there is going to be a generation of rebel kids who specialize in finding creative ways to take these things down and steal the packages.
Bad headline, because it'd sensationalist. But, the article was okay. It gets at the clash between tech companies who are excited about testing out some new thing they think will be big, and the actual, real people who become their non-consenting experimental subjects. As a product person, I can understand the people working on this thinking it's a win-win for everybody, but I can also sympathize with any residents who think they have no reason to trust Amazon.
In particular:
> [An Amazon spokesperson said] The company’s drone “does not capture imagery from underneath when it is flying to its delivery destination and back” and doesn’t use that data for any other purpose.
I have low confidence that the spirit of that statement is true today, given all the places in that sentence that leave room for interpretation, and I have every confidence that they would gladly use a fleet of drones to capture valuable image data once it's in place and people are used to it.
In particular:
> [An Amazon spokesperson said] The company’s drone “does not capture imagery from underneath when it is flying to its delivery destination and back” and doesn’t use that data for any other purpose.
I have low confidence that the spirit of that statement is true today, given all the places in that sentence that leave room for interpretation, and I have every confidence that they would gladly use a fleet of drones to capture valuable image data once it's in place and people are used to it.
I don’t know about y’all but I’m pretty tired of big tech’s “disrupt first, lobby government for permission later” approach to profiteering off the less regulated aspects of society. I’ve soured on a lot of the (often yc-backed) unicorns that came out of the early 2010s.
So different from big-auto creating cars and scaring the horses. Or big-electricity burning the city down with their wires all over the place.
Nothing new under the sun.
Nothing new under the sun.
(serious) Are there any examples of new/innovative/disruptive technologies that got government permission first before successfully launching?
Fair question and I don’t have an answer. It makes me wonder how disruptive the earlier approaches to cars and railroads were.
I remember way back in 2015 we had security personnel and strange dudes in orange suits walking around the beach playing with drones. That same week I saw a news article headlined "Amazon secretly testing drones near the border"[1]. Pretty fun. They haven't figured out a solution in ~10 years. Good luck I guess
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/amazon-tests-delivery-drones...
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/amazon-tests-delivery-drones...
Shooting at them has the risk of law enforcement action (destroying property, unlawful discharge of a weapon, reckless endangerment).
Electronic interference runs the risk of FCC attention.
But passive barriers (nets that are invisible to the drones' sensors) - now that doesn't have an obvious risk. They don't even have to destroy the drone: "Here, Amazon, this one seems to have something wrong with it!"
Electronic interference runs the risk of FCC attention.
But passive barriers (nets that are invisible to the drones' sensors) - now that doesn't have an obvious risk. They don't even have to destroy the drone: "Here, Amazon, this one seems to have something wrong with it!"
Shooting at an aircraft is a federal crime.
Clickbait aside, I can't say that I do not understand this point of view.
Amazon is Weyland-Yutani. It is Tyrell Corporation. It is IOI. It's a Snow Crash FOQNE.
Wanting to rebel against "The Corporation" is a pretty common reaction when you see a megacorp consuming the world.
Amazon is Weyland-Yutani. It is Tyrell Corporation. It is IOI. It's a Snow Crash FOQNE.
Wanting to rebel against "The Corporation" is a pretty common reaction when you see a megacorp consuming the world.
Signal jammers and general wireless interference could cause major issues with these drones
If they're like some consumer and commercial drones, they can be pre-programmed to complete a "mission" whether or not they're in contact with the controller. So line-of-sight, signal strength and interference doesn't matter much.
You pre-program a flight with GPS coordinates, and then just send the drone on its way.
Check out https://flylitchi.com and the "mission hub" ... that's what I use for DJI drones.
You pre-program a flight with GPS coordinates, and then just send the drone on its way.
Check out https://flylitchi.com and the "mission hub" ... that's what I use for DJI drones.
I think they'd still need a GPS signal to complete a mission offline and most jammers can muck up GPS signals as well. It would be flying by sight (camera) only and I don't know of any drone that can do that.
Gps is jammable and spoofable.
https://ctstechnologys.com/gps-spoofing-technologyYou start generating significant interference, you'll invite a black van with funny antenna to your neighborhood.
I mean if you start firing shots you're attracting attention too.
Depends on the neighborhood?
Well if it becomes a cat/mouse game, the drones could start shielding their electronics and employing backup navigation methods if GPS fails (think robotic-sextant-style celestial navigation).
Of course, a robotic sextant is not going to be as accurate as GPS, but I bet you could get within 100-200m of your destination.
Of course, a robotic sextant is not going to be as accurate as GPS, but I bet you could get within 100-200m of your destination.
Radio jamming to interfere with aircraft navigation is a federal crime.
That's true, but it would be much more fun to get your own drone and program it to chase them.
They are also highly illegal.
[deleted]
And get yourself a visit from the FCC
> Amazon drones are coming to town. Some locals want to shoot them down
FTFY
FTFY
Even better: "Skeet shooting with a prize"
I actually interpolated the word "down" at the end of the title. I was totally sure I've read it and only noticed that it wasn't really there when I saw your comment.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
I丅 尺卄丫从乇丂
[deleted]
The only people that want this seem to be Amazon execs… obviously so they no longer need to employ delivery drivers.
I’m not particularly inclined to let them, but I don’t have the money to pay off politicians, which is how I’m assuming this is coming to pass.
I guess that means I side with the locals. Lets capture these things and return them as piles of parts to Amazon.
I’m not particularly inclined to let them, but I don’t have the money to pay off politicians, which is how I’m assuming this is coming to pass.
I guess that means I side with the locals. Lets capture these things and return them as piles of parts to Amazon.
You shoot an aircraft, you’re going to prison. Simple as that.
If a drone endangers my family or property, it's going to have an 'accident'. Simple as that.
I cannot imagine a scenario where shooting a delivery drone would in any way make things safer for anyone.
So what exactly does "endangers" mean? What scenario requires you to shoot a drone to "protect" something?
Why open oneself up to liability by attacking the drone when you could just sue Amazon for reckless endangerment?
Assuming you're not joking, you would do this to get a quick and effective resolution.
Of what kind? Because the next thing that happens is a lawsuit slapped on your desk by a very rich company for property destruction. They have a vested interest in protecting not only the property but also the business model so they will use the law to maximize punishment for such behavior. And the downside to shooting down a drone is the telemetry it collects makes it pretty easy to prove the shooter is the aggressor and Amazon's following all relevant local laws.
Going on the legal offensive and putting them in the position to prove they're doing no harm (including a discovery process to confirm their telemetry isn't gamed or flawed) is a much better tactic. Still a legal uphill battle, but one you're signing yourself up for anyway if you take a gun to an Amazon drone. At least this way it's on your terms, not theirs.
Going on the legal offensive and putting them in the position to prove they're doing no harm (including a discovery process to confirm their telemetry isn't gamed or flawed) is a much better tactic. Still a legal uphill battle, but one you're signing yourself up for anyway if you take a gun to an Amazon drone. At least this way it's on your terms, not theirs.
Let him go to prison, it will be a good example for people who think they have a right to shoot down drones just trying to deliver a package to a destination.
Yeah, let me go to prison.
I mean they're not "just" trying to deliver a package. They're doing it close enough to my land where I could land a shot.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not going to do it. I don't have a gun, a bow, or more than a tiny sliver of a yard.
But still, I kind of hope someone does it just so I can follow the case.
I mean they're not "just" trying to deliver a package. They're doing it close enough to my land where I could land a shot.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not going to do it. I don't have a gun, a bow, or more than a tiny sliver of a yard.
But still, I kind of hope someone does it just so I can follow the case.
Who says I couldn't do both. Neutralize the danger and sue.
Then you will be talking to your family from behind bars in a federal prison.
You think a jury of my peers in rural Colorado is going to send me to prison for shooting down a drone that was endangering my family or property?
You discharged a firearm wildly into the air with no concern for where the bullets may land. And you thought someone flying a drone was somehow a threat. Anyone ordering packages by drone now has to worry their items might not make it. You’re not coming off as a sane and stable individual. It is not clear that you will walk free, especially with the right jury.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you've never fired a gun.
If I'm defending my family or property, I won't be firing wildly into the air. It'll be precise and I'll be aware of my target, what's behind it, and what's beside it (one of the 4 universal laws of firearm safety).
My only concern for my neighbors will be if they get their shot off on the drone before I get mine. <grin>
If I'm defending my family or property, I won't be firing wildly into the air. It'll be precise and I'll be aware of my target, what's behind it, and what's beside it (one of the 4 universal laws of firearm safety).
My only concern for my neighbors will be if they get their shot off on the drone before I get mine. <grin>
If you shoot a harmless drone it can be argued you’d probably shoot a delivery van as well, maybe kill a driver. Forget it man, you fire a gun at a delivery drone you’re going to prison. They will catch you.
You must have missed this part in my first reply...
"drone endangers my family or property"
I'm not firing at any harmless drones or vans or anything that's not a threat.
You must really love your drones and fear for their safety.
"drone endangers my family or property"
I'm not firing at any harmless drones or vans or anything that's not a threat.
You must really love your drones and fear for their safety.
How exactly does a drone endanger your family or property anymore than a delivery van? You haven’t made an effort to explain that, and I doubt you’d have a reason that makes shooting it down the only reasonable option. Shooting it is more likely to start a lithium fire or something when it crashes.
If Amazon's lawyers can convince the court that shooting down a drone is interference with interstate commerce (which has been widely construed to mean "commerce" in this day and age) and is therefore a violation of https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951, then unless I misunderstand the process you would find yourself tried by a jury of your peers in Denver, Colorado Springs, Grand Junction, or Durango.
I'd say best of luck in such a case, because it'll be Amazon's telemetry on whether the drone was an actual threat over testimony that their lawyers will do their damnedest to prove unreliable (or at least less reliable than the avionics).
I'd say best of luck in such a case, because it'll be Amazon's telemetry on whether the drone was an actual threat over testimony that their lawyers will do their damnedest to prove unreliable (or at least less reliable than the avionics).
What California law would you be counting on to send someone to prison for in that situation? Best you could probably get would be vandalism, maybe public endangerment - neither of which would typically result in prison time.
Heck, in many parts of California, you won't be sent to prison for robbery...
Heck, in many parts of California, you won't be sent to prison for robbery...
Discharging a firearm into the air is a felony in California.
[deleted]
Seems fair.
Very bad news. Every drone I see is a reminder that other people can afford houses and I never will. I will be picking up a BB gun or slingshot soon.