I wonder if Boston Dynamics videos include people kicking their Big Dogs precisely to elicit this human sympathy towards what is, ultimately, weaponry.
This may be the first time police had to respond because of a robot-on-robot threat of violence.
Perhaps what gun control needs is a few advocates who are a little more visibly familiar with the sheer fun of holding a pistol and pulling the trigger.
More often than not, an agent is rewarded for catching a terrorist rather than for preventing and dissuading someone from becoming one.
The best time to start tackling future crimes is now.
I want to know how to think about the problem. We don't even have the right words. We can't make our systems Andromedan-proof if we don't know what we need to protect against them.
Ben Beeson, a partner at insurance broker Lockton:
The costs are becoming so great that we really need $1bn policies in light of the threats we are facing. The question is how do we get there and price risk, especially when the risks are changing every day.
The American military is deeply committed to force protection, to not losing soldiers. Captains tell you proudly their primary goal is to get through the tour without any fatalities. This is an admirable sign of human decency, but it is not particularly bellicose. It is impossible to imagine William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Patton focusing above all else on not losing soldiers. Historically, officers are happy to use their men as cannon fodder if it will help them achieve their objectives.
Elizabeth D. Samet, professor at West Point:
We were all of us ... inhabiting an Odyssey in which the hardest struggle comes after the battle has been won.
[My cadets] are wondering whether they have what it takes to be lieutenants, while I'm thinking about what kinds of generals they might make.
Defiantly unapologetic irrationalism is, sad to say, still a winning strategy for power, all over the world. But we pay a huge price for its successes.