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

CrankGPT

crankgpt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 252 posts

Re: CrankGPT

#181

Post by zaat »

connicpu wrote: post #107
eks391 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took several biomechanics classes as electives back in my undergrad, and in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed. The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient , from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Every tim…

If you live in most places in the US other than the urban heart of a few very large cities you have to take a huge hit to your ability to get places in a reasonable time frame without a car. I have hope some more cities other than NYC are improving the situation, but as it is the closest I got to using public transit for a commute was when I was going to one of our other offices in a different downtown area I would d…

If you live in most cities in Italy you have to take a huge hit to your ability to get places (in a reasonable timeframe or at all) if you must do it with a car.

Re: CrankGPT

#182

Post by bayindirh »

beached_whale wrote: post #61
bayindirh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1HP is actually ~5 horses. There was a test trying to measure it. https://youtu.be/7qxTKtlvaVE

Other way around, a horse does more like 5-15hp

Yes, you’re right. My mind is foggy apparently.

Thanks a lot. Unfortunately I can’t edit it anymore.

Re: CrankGPT

#183

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

overfeed wrote: post #167
eks391 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took several biomechanics classes as electives back in my undergrad, and in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed. The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient , from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Every tim…

> The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Humans are efficient, but not across the board. Trivial counterexample: walking is incredibly energy inefficient vs a bicycle or other wheeled conveyances whose primary dissipater is rolling resistance.

We're still pretty efficient while not having wheel shaped limbs. Running like humans works pretty well. So well even that we can chase a lot of animals longer than they can outrun us.

There might be more efficient ways to move but we are pretty well equipped by evolution.

Re: CrankGPT

#184

Post by Waterluvian »

rpastuszak wrote: post #178
Waterluvian wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wanted to like the Playdate but it's such an unbelievably overpriced and underspecced toy. But the crank, which really looked like a gimmick, is oddly quite nice to have and I wish my kids' Retro Arcade had one.

I mean it's 100-160 mHz CPU, 16 MB RAM, 4 GB storage -- you could run diablo 1 on it!

Yeah in retrospect I really got it wrong with “underspecced.” I really should have said “not colour.”

This all comes as a retrospective comparing it to my kids handheld for their MakeCode Arcade projects. The device that was 4x the price ended up on a shelf and I find myself borrowing theirs. I just wish it had that dumb crank. It’s so weird and yet I love it.

Re: CrankGPT

#185

Post by niko323 »

zahlman wrote: post #48

The webpage linked is an example of everything I wish people would stop doing in web design. Fortunately, at the bottom there is a link to the "technical documentation" ( https://squeezlabs.github.io/handcrank/ ) which is vastly improved (aside from being light-mode-only and linked from a dark-mode-only marketing page). It also gives me much more interesting information (specifically: models that can apparently run a…

Great prop for a Black Mirror episode about AI use in a post-apocalyptic world. Everywhere you go, all you hear is brrrrr..brrr..brrrr followed by people mumbling.

Re: CrankGPT

#186

Post by lukan »

latexr wrote: post #174
lukan wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"love having our scroll hijacked? " You are the silent majority? No doubt non technical people have different UX experience than tech nerd, but I have seen plenty of "normal" people curse at artsy fluffy design, that made known navigation skills useless and nobody likes their time wasted.

Pretty sure your parent comment was being sarcastic. Why else would they write “choppy javascript keyframes fills me with joy”?

Well, I missed that word, but my irony/sarcasm detector has lately been a bit uncalibrated by the current zeitgeist.

Re: CrankGPT

#187

Post by overfeed »

zaat wrote: post #179
overfeed wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Humans are efficient, but not across the board. Trivial counterexample: walking is incredibly energy inefficient vs a bicycle or other wheeled conveyances whose primary dissipater is rolling resistance.

That's a strange comparison. Wheels are incredibly limited in the type of surfaces they can be used on.

> That's a strange comparison

It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis

>>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines

I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?

Re: CrankGPT

#188

Post by rootusrootus »

markb139 wrote: post #34
smallpipe wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fairly untrained cyclist is usually able to maintain 200W, so yes this is definitely possible

My best is 980W - for 1 second

That's solid. If my memory is correct, and my teachers were correct (both of these are suspect) back in high school, a human should be able to momentarily exert about 1 horsepower at maximum effort. We did an experiment on how much power we could output at maximum effort. We tested it by sprinting up some number of flights of stairs, and timing it. As I recall we did conclude that in round numbers the hypothesis was correct.

But that was 35 years ago and it was a high school physics experiment meant to be entertaining more than precise.

Re: CrankGPT

#189

Post by overfeed »

BadBadJellyBean wrote: post #183
overfeed wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Humans are efficient, but not across the board. Trivial counterexample: walking is incredibly energy inefficient vs a bicycle or other wheeled conveyances whose primary dissipater is rolling resistance.

We're still pretty efficient while not having wheel shaped limbs. Running like humans works pretty well. So well even that we can chase a lot of animals longer than they can outrun us. There might be more efficient ways to move but we are pretty well equipped by evolution.

> We're still pretty efficient while not having wheel shaped limbs.

Agreed, but it was gp that brought up the human vs. machine efficiency argument. Machines can have wheels.

Re: CrankGPT

#190

Post by jszymborski »

hollerith wrote: post #140
jszymborski wrote: post #100

As a bit of an aside, I really like the idea of trying to design things with the constraint of it having to be able to run off a hand-crank. I feel like it is not only an interesting engineering challenge but one that might lead to a more efficient and sustainable framing.

It's not more sustainable though. It takes more energy to grow the food to get the calories to metabolize to turn the crank than it would to run an electric motor or a engine to do the same work.

Totally true that what is and is not sustainable is more complicated than it first appears.

I think what I'm honing in on is the idea that hand cranks produce very limited, often interrupted power and are relative low-tech, both of which are directionally the right way for us to be putting our efforts.

Post reply on HN