Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Snap launches its first drone

pixy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 420 posts

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#291

Post by ryan_j_naughton »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #132
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Destruction of light/sound pollution sources in places otherwise free of such pollution is totally morally justified IMO. What do you mean by "destruction"? If you mean actually breaking someone's speaker, then you're wrong and fundamentally don't understand externalities. If you read the original Pigouvian and Coasian theory behind externalities, you'll realize that inherent to the nature of an externality is each…

1. Silence is the default mode, Bluetooth speakers require a much more active effort so that's not really a fair comparison. 2. Birds like any animal or creature acts on instinct; there's not an active decision on their part to disrupt the environment with sound, again not a fair comparison. 3. The idea of requiring a maximum dB doesn't really work in the sound doesn't just instantly drop off like that so the physics…

> 1. Silence is the default mode, Bluetooth speakers require a much more active effort so that's not really a fair comparison.

That is a logical fallacy called "Default Bias." There is nothing inherent about something being the default that makes it better. We should never have created writing, architecture, or anything new because the status quo was better? The status quo can be objectively bad and sometimes the active effort to change it is warranted. Systemic racism is the default. Lack of access to clean water was the default. Woman as stay-at-home moms and excluded from the workforce was the default. Additionally, "much more active effort" is a nonsense statement. Everyone is engaging in effort to get value/happiness. It is not for you to judge how much effort I am willing to exert for my own happiness. It took a lot of effort for women to not be silences in the political system through the suffragette movement. Many people just over 100 years ago in the US were saying that the default role for women was silence. (Clarification, I am not saying that there is not a value to silence or that people playing music is not a harm -- there is a value to silence and people blasting music is a harm -- but it is not simply as black and white as you want to make it out to be on the social cost-benefit)

> 3. The idea of requiring a maximum dB doesn't really work in the sound doesn't just instantly drop off like that so the physics aren't really going to work out.

If there is other natural sounds that drown out the artificial sound, then the maximum dB rule is pretty effective. A beach with active waves and lots of birds is a great example of this. My level of noise is very relative to the ambient background noise.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#292

Post by walrus01 »

the_arun wrote: post #84
sytelus wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is probably a market for pocket drone that can carry iPhone and take selfie just like this.

Isn't iPhone too heavy for drone to carry around photographing?

an actual FPV flight hobbyist 5" prop size class quadcopter (such as you might fly with goggles and a real remote control) can typically carry a gopro hero8/9/10 but a gopro is also a lot more compact, brick shaped, rugged, and has very extensively researched video stabilization systems in gopro's proprietary "hypersmooth" which writes the stabilized video into the HEVC file it records.

putting something flat and large like an iphone on a 5" FPV quadcopter would be awkward and bad.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#295

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

marwis wrote: post #133
walrus01 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not just wobbly but what small drone enthusiasts call "jello", significantly lower video quality than like a $399 dji mini 2 it is cheap and non gimbal stabilized, so can't expect much more

Are there no better digital stabilization algorithms? This seems like it could be fixed in post processing on your phone/cloud.

I've used Mercalli to fix this in post-processing but it's not a simple fix.

This is caused by a non-global shutter so you have to spend a lot of processing power to fix it.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#297

Post by srcreigh »

olafura wrote: post #36

Refreshingly honest about the video quality you should expect in the main promo video. Typical problems like dynamic range, color profile, light bleed and tracking problems with the top of the head being cut off at one point. Pretty typical unless you spend more money on your drone or camera equipment. There are so many companies that fake the footage or pick much easier shooting locations.

Why isn't it trivial to cut out that noise?

is it 4 motors? especially with data about current RPMs of the motors, with a FFT and some adjustments, it should be pretty trivial to deafen the sound.

From my listening many motors are effectively pretty simple instruments with normal harmonics etc which are easy to model. I could be wrong though.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#298

Post by bko »

js2 wrote: post #256
bko wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check out Coase Theorem: > A candy maker had had the same property for over 60 years when a doctor moved next door. After eight years passed without incident between them, the the doctor built a consulting room right against the confectioner’s kitchen. The doctor then found that the noise from the confectioner’s equipment interfered with the doctor’s ability to work, and in particular to hear with a stetho…

I'm not sure how that applies here, where the conflicting activities are both recreational and not producing of income. Enlighten me?

It's a thought experiment. Don't worry about the specifics. It's that most people normally have a visceral reaction one way or another. But in many cases there could be a voluntary solution where all parties are better off.

For instance, consider a noisy neighbor is throwing a party. Suppose I complain but he really values the party and offers me $100 to let him keep the party going another hour. He obviously values it more than $100 so he's better off as am I. Similarly I could pay him to shut off the party, in which case we're also both better off.

I didn't mean it literally like the drone payers should pay to use their drones in the park, although that's not a bad idea. The park goers could enjoy better service and accept some noise, making everyone better off.

I just thought it was funny seeing someone argue about this and it reminded me of Coase and his work

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#299

Post by bko »

maxerickson wrote: post #261
bko wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check out Coase Theorem: > A candy maker had had the same property for over 60 years when a doctor moved next door. After eight years passed without incident between them, the the doctor built a consulting room right against the confectioner’s kitchen. The doctor then found that the noise from the confectioner’s equipment interfered with the doctor’s ability to work, and in particular to hear with a stetho…

The machinery in that case was shut down because it wasn't desirable in a residential area! The confectioner was operating out of a house and the doctor wanted to practice out of a shed in his backyard. So it would be entirely keeping with that outcome to declare that a park or whatever is intended for peaceful relaxation and ban noisy drones. Of course you'd have to do it with a straight face knowing that the park a…

I don't know. The candy maker has been there 60 years and it didn't bother anyone. Does the doctor's right to operate sensitive equipment outweigh the right the candy maker has to use his machines like he's been doing for 60 years? It's not obviously clear to me one way or the other

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#300

Post by flatiron »

dmamills wrote: post #284
flatiron wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with my comment? Or are you saying it should be a gift to go “some people smoke but you shouldn’t smoke because it’s breaking the rules and yes they are breaking the rules and no I can’t make them stop” is really fun. A blast.

A gift? Maybe depending on how full you are seeing the glass at any given time. But perhaps OP was trying to say: When you bring a human into the world, you are going have to explain a lot of it to them.

In this thread: people explaining kids to people with kids
Post reply on HN