With the comms down, the Ukrainian submarine drones packed with explosives “lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly,” Isaacson writes, according to CNN.

Wait, does this means the military drone is equipped with starlink antenna? In that case, I think it make sense for a company to not want their product to be used in a military weapon. IIRC many tech companies and even open source projects have extra clauses in their license to forbid use in military weapon. Musk should have warn Ukraine first before they launch it in the field though.

[–] ArdMacha@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He didn't think giving it to Ukraine (I say give but he basically got the US military to pay for it) to defend against a Russian invasion would mean it would be used by the military??

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Defending is one thing, but putting it on a weapon platform is another thing. A few years ago there were a lot of discussion when one of the popular open source library (I forgot which) explicitly said they won't allow their work to be included in any weapon system that used to kill human. A lot of people in tech were in agreement, so it's not a stretch to imagine western tech companies typically don't want their product to be weaponized.

[–] zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago

Ehh, musk is a marketer who happens to own tech companies. He's doing this either to help the brand (collect military dollars while publicly being anti-war) or to leverage more contracts (US military didn't explicitly contract for this use, please pay me more next time).

[–] ArdMacha@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It was an invasion, they were attacking Russia on Ukrainian soil, everything they are doing is defensive. He timed it being unavailable during a major planned offensive, he was working for the other side, you cannot defend this.