Managed to send a first message claiming a urgent security update must be delivered to the ring(TM) before any use, but never got any answer from the owner. Reminds me of real life
In that case I would have welcomed a simple sentence stating why they won't use 'const'. I very much feel they're not even aware of it.
The general feeling I get is that they're trying to work without a compiler, notably without any optimization not warning
- some of the code (passing short* instead of int*) will raise warnings
-it's likely optimisations passes will often remove some of the copy overhead
- the compiler will bark if you write to 'const'
So my general feeling is that they're trying to work assuming people will want to screw their API intentionally; which looks quite unreasonable to me. A bit context about the 'why' would be interesting
This fits your checklist I think:
- notably more intuitive than the classical Texas Instrument / Casio
- calculations input are shown
- ( not that it seems to matter for you, but it also has python on it )
If you round up and down with the same probability, it will get canceled on the long run.
I suppose this does mitigate the risk a little, but risks breaking other things. For example, you don't have the simple logic sequence:
a < b => round(a) < round(b)
Something a bit more complicated if I remember well. Something like:
- You can down vote questions for free
- but down voting answers costs you 1 karma (and encourages you to provide a proper answer instead)
For most applications in my company, we prefer fastapi + Jinja to generate HTML pages, and rely on the browser to display that for us. For the few programs that need to be run locally & without browser, we use PySide2 (Qt bindings): the framework is bulkier, but somehow feels more reliable.
Kudos to the writer! I used this framework for an small robotics project and, as others pointed out, I was up and running in less than an hour.
However, as the project grew more complex, I reached a point where I felt the framework was in the way: I wanted complex things, and lacked the means to configure the framework that precisely.
I would recommend others to keep the framework for what it does so incredibly well : small / prototypes projects ; but do not hesitate to switch to a more powerful backend once you feel your needs are complexifying.
I'd love to see that! I tend to think that some of their technical choices on Atlas would have to revised, though.
Having hydraulic actuators (very good power/weight ratio) makes the robot quite noisy, which is fine for a robot, but less cool if there is someone stuck inside it a whole day
I live in the EU, and I surprised to discover that insurance companies themselves are interested in funding those exos themselves.
The total medical bill of a paraplegic person a or the course of its whole life can get very high. Recent clinical studies appear to show that time spent standing could really improve the health, to a point that "investing" into an exo for their patients could become worth it.
Hey ! I am not a robotics expert, but I work at this company (Wandercraft) as software dev, so I know some of the reasons :)
First of all I'd say that's because it simpler: we have so much to do that simplicity is a strong decision factor. That way you also reduce the number of moving parts, so maintenance is easier.
On the software side you also get the marginal benefit that you keep a 1:1 mapping between joints and actuator (an example with coupled actuators: Cassie, from the Oregon State University). That way you can have different control strategies for the different joints.