PowerMac G4 Ad - Tanks
mobilzzoneCited 3× on HN, 2024–2026
other · general · 2024–2026 on HN
A short 2000s Apple commercial for the PowerMac G4 that plays on the computer being classed as a weapon under US export restrictions, with tanks as imagery.
Cited as a clever precedent whenever export controls on powerful computing hardware or AI models are discussed.
Up next
14 mo on HNMicro Men - 720p (2009)
gimpymoo
15 HN recommender · 2015–2026
12 mo on HNProject Code Rush - The Beginnings of Netscape / Mozilla Documentary
The Documentary Network
13 HN recommender · 2015–2026
10 mo on HNEd Catmull, Pixar: Keep Your Crises Small
Stanford Graduate School of Business
9 HN recommender · 2010–2017
9 mo on HNLISA11 - Fork Yeah! The Rise and Development of illumos
USENIX
9 HN recommender · 2012–2026
6 mo on HNSecret History of Silicon Valley
Computer History Museum
6 HN recommender · 2010–2026
4 mo on HNThe Spectacular Failure of the Star Wars Hotel
Jenny Nicholson
4 HN recommender · 2024–2026
5 mo on HNThe Secret History of Silicon Valley
Google TechTalks
5 HN recommender · 2008–2016
5 mo on HNNetscape Mozilla Documentary 1998 - 2000 ProJect Code Rush - creative common licence
znoopy2k
5 HN recommender · 2011–2013
4 mo on HNDisney's FastPass: A Complicated History
Defunctland
7 HN recommender · 2021–2024
4 mo on HNComplete Apple WWDC | Steve Jobs talk and answer developers questions | 1997
TheAppleFanBoy - Apple & Computer Archives
4 HN recommender · 2018–2025
4 mo on HNiPhone 1 - Steve Jobs MacWorld keynote in 2007 - Full Presentation, 80 mins
Protectstar Inc.
4 HN recommender · 2020–2025
5 mo on HNFacebook Fraud
Veritasium
7 HN recommender · 2014–2025
3 comments from Hacker News
A company with different taste would redo that apple ad from the Power Mac era: “this model has been classified a munition”. ▶ this video
Normally dual use means it has a possible use as a weapon. Compute power is restricted from export to enemy nations and is considered dual use. There was once a moment when a Mac had enough computing power that it was prohibited from export during a few months until the new limit was established, which was cleverly used as an ad: ▶ this video But in this specific case it’s utter clickbait. Dual use: link
Ah, now I see my mistake; I gave a list of what I see as things of political importance without making it clear this is what I was doing. That the source code for unbreakable encryption fits onto a T-shirt made it clear to the US government that it was a "speech" issue, and also made it clear that it was in any practical sense unstoppable. That big models can't fit onto most person devices at present is indeed likely to be a temporary state of affairs, however it does also mean that the political aspect is very different — the senators and members of parliament can't look at the thing and notice that, even if the symbols are arcane and mysterious beyond their education, it's fundamentally quite short and simple. And, of course, if they're planning legislation, they can easily say "no phones with ${feature} > ${threshold}", which they've already done on various compute hardware over the years, even if the thresholds seem quaint today: ▶ this video Politicians don't care if all of us here think they look silly. > 2) Claiming that the benefit of people being able to run the models locally is only 5% is absurd. The privacy benefit of not sending your sensitive data to a third party is worth more than that by itself, much less setting up some huge institutions to have an oligopoly over the technology and subject everyone to all the abuses inherent in uncompetitive markets. This seems a surprising claim, given the popularity of cloud compute, Cloudfare, third-party tracking cookies, Dro