[micaksica]

I withhold any opinions about Luckey. I've never met the guy and I don't feel it's fair to judge somebody based upon what journalists have decided to write about him. (However, I don't think we'd get along much.)

Besides, there's something better to learn here: the surveillance state will always find willing people to work on technologies that can potentially be used to oppress populations. Luckey is enormously wealthy by world (and HN) standards -- he has "fuck you money" that so many on this board are searching for -- so you can't say he's out building this stuff to pay the bills, to feed his family, et cetera. He's out building this stuff because he is a paladin for this cause, regardless of whether or not you find it detestable.

[TulliusCicero]

I'm confused about what's inherently oppressive about making the border more secure. Personally I oppose Trump's stupid wall because it's a useless, wasteful boondoggle, not because having a secure border is inherently bad.

[chc]

So, you have a border that is not widely perceived to be a very big security problem, and most national security incidents have arisen through other vectors, and you propose redundant, expensive measures for border security. This raises the question of why, since "border security" doesn't seem like a realistic answer. The people who see it as oppressive believe the real purpose of this push for "border security" is a political statement to the effect of "brown people aren't welcome here." (Trump also kind of helped give this theory currency by claiming that Americans of Mexican descent are so likely to be biased against him due to the wall that a Mexican-American judge needed to recuse himself.)

[j05huaNathaniel]

ISIS has explicitly stated that it plans to infiltrate the US through lax border security. I think it is more than fair to take that threat seriously.

[Jack000]

Should probably focus on the Canadian border in that case

[DonHopkins]

America really needs to focus on reinforcing the wall along the border between the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.

[pyroinferno]

What makes you think all Hispanics are brown?

[angry_octet]

He has enough money, but there is nothing like having your ego stroked. And more money.

[thisisit]

> And more money.

This. I have never understood why people think that if someone has something means they don't need more of it.

Though I can't speak for Palmer Luckey's intention behind doing this.

[panic]

I have never understood why people think that if someone has something means they don't need more of it.

Because almost everything in life works this way. Once I have a place to live, I don't need to find a second one. Once I've eaten enough food to be full, I don't need to keep eating. Maybe by buying enough clothes you can avoid doing laundry, though…

[ionised]

Because almost everything in life works this way. Once I have a place to live, I don't need to find a second one. Once I've eaten enough food to be full, I don't need to keep eating.

Except that's not how it works, at all.

Overweight people are overweight because they eat when they don't need to.

People with money pursue ever greater amounts of it.

[some1else]

I think the causality you were trying to invoke goes "If you eat more than you need, you could become overweight." As such, it describes ways people can become overweight, not the cause for obesity or food cravings.

People are overweight for reasons other than "eating too much," just as drug addicts relapse for reasons other than "trying meth once." I'm actually comfortable thinking about greed as a symptom of a disconnected world view as well. Just one that none of the afflicted are inclined to treat.

[wand3r]

Sure, I'm not parent but still agree. You are right with your analysis but parent is right as well. There are a lot of overweight people. Have a house? Everyone wants a nicer one. Ca

[awinder]

> Overweight people are overweight because they eat when they don't need to

That's a massive over-simplification, but by the same token, okay? We've now established that over-accumulation of wealth is comparable to an eating / mental disorder? Has anyone looked into treating this disorder?

[wadeboggs]

Yeah but who would fund the research.

[jackmott]

So you are making connections between gluttony and greed then?

Innovative!

[jacobush]

Buying clothes to protect you from the elements, are you? Many people buy them for entirely different reasons, like signaling social status and other things. Even if you do this very conservatively, you need to keep up because fashions change and what your dress signaled last year is not what it signals this. Sheesh.

[thisisit]

My bad. I should have phrased it better.

What I meant is money is one commodity where even the super rich wants more, not less. Just because they have a lot of money doesn't mean they stop caring about it.

[kurthr]

Because the percentage increase is likely to be so small as to be unnoticeable. That's why most economic utility models are logarithmic. If Luck already has $1B then making another few $M is unlikely to make any difference other than for social affirmation reasons.

If you think that Lidar technology for border security can only be used at national boundaries, I have a bridge in NY to sell you.

[panzer_wyrm]

The job is fun and challenging, the toys are great, the budgets are unlimited and how many times in your career can you be in a meeting where four star generals listen with eyes wide open every word you say?

[jerrylives]

You could say the same thing about meeting with the Stasi or CIA black operations in the 50s and 60s

[mcmacintosh]

This technology can't be used to "oppress" populations more than any other technology can. It's here given as a possible solution for surveillance of military bases and border control. Both seems sensible enough. I think you're seeing it in a too grim light.

[melling]

How is protecting your borders, a military base, etc oppressive?

Yes, the technology could be repurposed for nefarious uses, but so can just about every other technology. Machine learning, for example, probably has some excellent military applications.

[kabdib]

Ask people who lived in East Germany during the Cold War. A wall can keep people in just as easily as it can keep people out.

[mcmacintosh]

Oh, c'mon. There's plenty of difference between having border control and an insular totalitarian regime. You don't see any difference in the comparison?

[melling]

Looks like it was quite easy to get over the Berlin Wall:

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-berlin-wall-fell-two-reporters-re...

The guards with guns were the real impediment.

At any rate, we are discussing surveillance technology, not a wall. And it has nothing to do with Americans legally leaving the US.

[kabdib]

... yet

[melling]

Ah, right... That old scare mongering tactic.

"We can't do blah, blah, bah, ... yet."

Technology is always advancing, in fact at an increasing rate, whether you like it or not. Trying to scare people about the technology is not the answer.

[btg_1987]

Wall != Oppression

[weq]

yeh i disagree. when u have truckloads of money, u meet people with truckloads more. So how do the richest get richer? Defence spending. The only industry where profits are measured in billions.

Trump's America and Putins Russia are the same. In Russia, it costs big$$ to get favourable regulations from the government and access to government spending. Once u pay, ur returns are garenteed. As we can see with Trumps budget, its obvious he is paying back the US's own oligarchy in order to gain a life-long membership.

[imron]

> The only industry where profits are measured in billions.

Nah, the big 4 Australian banks all make profits in the billions:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/big-four-...