“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”
Non sequitur fallacy and then some. Not only didn’t I say “it’s not perfect”, I said it’s completely stupid such as what’s depicted in the illustration above. I also didn’t say “no effort should be expended”, in fact, my first sentence proves the contrary: most efforts should be concentrated on the root causes. And the last sentence quotes the article, symptomatic measures should be prevention, e.g., patrol. Money towards these drones can be spent far more wisely.
“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”
Non sequitur fallacy and then some. Not only didn’t I say “it’s not perfect”, I said it’s completely stupid such as what’s depicted in the illustration above. I also didn’t say “no effort should be expended”, in fact, my first sentence proves the contrary: most efforts should be concentrated on the root causes. And the last sentence quotes the article, symptomatic measures should be prevention, e.g., patrol. Money towards these drones can be spent far more wisely.
Wait until you find out drones are used for patrols too.
Outside this makes total sense. Inside, not at all. And I say this as a quadcopter pilot myself.
This isn’t a case of perfect being the enemy of good. This is a case of the drones simply not being a good response.