alt Hacker News> you can't possibly be saying XYZ...rant about XYZ, among other things
No, obviously that's not what they're saying. There must be some reasonable interpretation then, right? Let's look at the chat thread and see what we can find.
> be very cautious about evil uses of seemingly safe technology when developing initial capabilities
>> that's super hard since most things can be repurposed
>>> (your other comment) it's actually easy though, just look at how we could repurpose these death machines
>>>> (their comment) but...that's wildly inefficient
The subtext to their answer is going an entire opposite direction to your rant. People are saying that turning anything into a killing machine is easy, and their comment is saying that doing so is sometimes Pareto-suboptimal, and so wildly so that no semi-rational-at-least-a-little-bit-sometimes military is going to bother trying to weaponize your silicone basting brush or what have you.
They're not saying that you should mass-murder people, as you, yourself speculated.
>No, obviously that's not what they're saying.
It is what they are saying, because they have misunderstood the point:
You talk about 'efficiency' while there are children dying, limbs severed, bombs still falling.
The F35 is there, it has one purpose: murder.
Turn that immediately into another, singular purpose: life.
Nobody is saying "manufacture new F35's that only drop pansies".
The point is, de-weaponize. That can be done with far greater ease than anything else.
And that is the only point that matters, while limbless children are dying by the minute.