It also looks like he didn't shorten the wires to the stepper motors at all, meaning he may have found he could not reliably drive them faster than he did, a problem which could have been addressed by cutting them to proper length and ensuring the driver circuitry was up to the task of dumping massive currents to move the rotors quickly and absorbing massive flyback spikes when breaking the circuit. It also wasn't clear that he was using any advanced techniques for stepper motors, like ramping up and down acceleration, making sure each command to advance in a sequence happened with exactly the right timing to ensure smooth motion (you can hear a buzz when the motors are moving, which you don't as much when the timing is spot-on), etc. I'm pretty sure a lead-screw design rather than a belt-driven one, would have an higher ultimate driving speed as well. And now that I think of it, it isn't clear you need the full range of motion that a linear actuator provides when there are only three positions that are useful, so stacked solenoids (which can go crazy fast) might do the trick.

I don't mean to belittle his achievement -- it is impressive indeed! I just see plenty of potential to bring it to human speed without unreasonable amounts of additional effort since he's already done much of the difficult engineering.

Did you watch the video? This is an application were a non-humanoid hand has clear superiority. His manipulator design is spot-on.

The limiting factor was that his motors weren't fast enough: the linear positioning of the hands was much slower than I can imagine is possible, and the rotation speed, while better, was still slower than I'd expect. With bigger stepper motors, I would easily expect his design to go twice as fast and be in the realm of human speed. Faster than that might take substantial additional engineering, and perhaps better solving algorithms. I understand that the optimal solver for 3x3 is known, but is that true for 4x4?

Or does it break down the glues and resins that hold bits and bobs together, resulting in package or PCB delamination and your nice pristine servers turning into piles of mush?

"Welcome, let's get the meeting started. What have you guys got to offer in return for our AI tech?

We're already full up on luxury 747s, so it would have to be something else."

Good faith disagreements can get you banned from a lot of them.

Someone who is prone to falling in line with group think will likely never encounter it but it's real.

LK

It's a stupid echo chamber full of stupid people who are chasing stupid agendas.

It's a place where they will permanently ban you for suggesting that there is any difference of any kind between XX CIS women and XY Trans women.

It's a place where you'll be mod bombed into oblivion for saying that you wouldn't want to date a current or former sex worker.

It's a place where honest discourse goes to die.

Seriously, fuck Reddit.

LK

Replaced my phone in December, and it made it 4 years. I used to replace it every other year. But, this was the last phone that was paid for by my company so from here on out I might be a bit more frugal.

While I acknowledge that after 4 years the new phone is a significant improvement in some areas, the value proposition just isn't there. I prefer to use my iPad over my iPhone, so my next phone might just be a mobile hotspot.

Oh, here the Coconut Rhinocerus Beetle is starting to develop a taste for Bananas after they wipe out all the Coconut Palms.

Luckily, Rust changes all those container issues from SHOULD to MUST.

Sure, as a developer, you SHOULD never write any bugs.

Good luck with that.

BTW, the mutation and iteration could very well be happening in completely different parts of the application, written by different developers who aren't even aware of each other's code.

Two words: Iterator invalidation.

You don't need any pointers to shoot yourself in the foot with C++.

(Of course, most of the self-appointed C++ cowboys on this site aren't aware that iterators could even be an issue.)

Creating public debate

Ok, then, let's give them what they want.

I'll start. I am an admittedly selfish American. Fuck everyone else. Fuck everyone who isn't me. From that premise, what are the advantages of renaming the gulf? Sure, it's causing some seemingly-unnecessary expense, but that's balanced by ..

...

..uh, sorry, I'm drawing a blank. How can the gulf rename give me an advantage? What is the upside to doing this? If I come out ahead at someone else's expense, that's great. I want to do that. I hope someone else loses and their life gets worse, as long as my life gets better, even if just a tiny bit. But how does my life get better from this? I'm fine if a thousand children are raped and murdered as collateral damage, as long as I get a penny. So where the fuck is my penny?!

Surely, someone has an answer to this.

Yeah, unfortunately the technology is not exactly inherently robust for long distance links. Improving the system ultimately requires reducing the reliance on human air traffic controllers... which has been a [failing] ongoing project for decades.

I'm pro-automation for all jobs, and IRS workers are no exception. If you can automate these jobs, that's great. But whoever is in charge of this is either unintelligent or inexperienced.

In the past when a customer and I automated a job, we did things in a special order that I think would surprise the hell out of Bessent. My big trade secret (should I be leaking this?!) is this:

First, you think about how to do the job. Then you think about what the code should do. Then you write the code, test it, and then have a little trial in production, and see how it goes. Eventually you gain confidence and then finally .. how about that, my customer just removed those positions.

Notice how the word "think" appeared a lot at the beginning of the above schedule, and getting rid of the humans who made sure the job was getting done, came at the very end? My proprietary ordering of these operations is how I got a big advantage. (Yeah, I probably shouldn't be leaking this.)

It turns out that aiming after you fire instead of before, results in a much lower percentage of your shots hitting the target. I wonder if Bissent is traveling backwards in time. That would explain how they got rid of the workers first and now they're nebulously speculating on how they might, some day about a decade from now, create automation to replace the workers they got rid of way back in 2025.