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

Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

density.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 85 posts

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#11

Post by afar »

vorpalhex wrote: post #7
piniondna wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people think that shooting down ideas makes them sound intelligent and “in the know”, but in reality it just makes you sound rigid and not creative enough to see the merit in a idea. This seems to be a common attitude on HN, but it’s less than useful. Genuine critical thinking is great... dogmatic cynicism is useless.

I think there are some valid concerns here. Someone running a clicker is already common procedure at some busy places, and it's often a hostess or someone else who is already "doing stuff". Likewise any sensor is going to open up some questions about the data it collects and it's method of action - what's the error margin? I think there's arguments for systems like this as well, but it's on you to make them, not just…

Accuracy is fundamental. When installed properly, a 99%+ f1 score is achievable.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#12

Post by afar »

ForHackernews wrote: post #8
ericnjorgenson wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think a software solution is more expensive than someone on the payroll with a handheld clicker?

Depends mainly on whether you already have employees working as receptionists/greeters/etc.

More difficult with multiple doors when you have radio between to reconcile count.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#13

Post by dang »

gavman wrote: post #9

The idea is definitely cool (and important/impactful at this time if successful). That said, in the midst of a global pandemic where human density is inherently dangerous and social distancing is espoused, naming a product "Safe by Density" gives the exact opposite initial reaction you're probably hoping for.

I've replaced the submitted title ("Introducing: Safe by Density") with a more specific phrase from the article.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#14

Post by pbourke »

afar wrote: post #11
vorpalhex wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are some valid concerns here. Someone running a clicker is already common procedure at some busy places, and it's often a hostess or someone else who is already "doing stuff". Likewise any sensor is going to open up some questions about the data it collects and it's method of action - what's the error margin? I think there's arguments for systems like this as well, but it's on you to make them, not just…

Accuracy is fundamental. When installed properly, a 99%+ f1 score is achievable.

First off - this is really neat, especially the focus on privacy and the use of AI at the edge.

It seems like the occupancy limit problem for small rooms is much more challenging than the building-density problem, since a single error could DOS the room.

How do you account for that?

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#15

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

I think it could work. Heavens know, I will now have to actively avoid places that are not at least careful about how they reopen.

I am mildly concerned about people, who see doing the opposite as a political expression, but some things cannot be helped.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#16

Post by _bxg1 »

piniondna wrote: post #5
_bxg1 wrote: post #3

Interesting, but I'm skeptical it could make some semblance of normal life "safe" purely through occupancy counts. It also seems like a likely very expensive solution to something that could be solved with a handheld clicker. Corporate offices might splurge for it, but they're also more likely to just have people working from home.

I think people think that shooting down ideas makes them sound intelligent and “in the know”, but in reality it just makes you sound rigid and not creative enough to see the merit in a idea. This seems to be a common attitude on HN, but it’s less than useful. Genuine critical thinking is great... dogmatic cynicism is useless.

I think people think that criticizing others by over-applying perceived HN tropes makes them sound intelligent and "in the know".

I wasn't shooting it down, I was just expressing skepticism toward the complexity of the solution and opening it up for wider discussion.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#17

Post by _bxg1 »

afar wrote: post #6
_bxg1 wrote: post #3

Interesting, but I'm skeptical it could make some semblance of normal life "safe" purely through occupancy counts. It also seems like a likely very expensive solution to something that could be solved with a handheld clicker. Corporate offices might splurge for it, but they're also more likely to just have people working from home.

Nets out to ~$85/mo. For a small place, that's substantially less expensive than staffing it full time. disclosure: co-founder here.

I didn't see the pricing; that's more affordable than I would've thought, especially with the rent-instead-of-buy model.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#18

Post by [deleted] »

_bxg1 wrote: post #16
piniondna wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people think that shooting down ideas makes them sound intelligent and “in the know”, but in reality it just makes you sound rigid and not creative enough to see the merit in a idea. This seems to be a common attitude on HN, but it’s less than useful. Genuine critical thinking is great... dogmatic cynicism is useless.

I think people think that criticizing others by over-applying perceived HN tropes makes them sound intelligent and "in the know". I wasn't shooting it down, I was just expressing skepticism toward the complexity of the solution and opening it up for wider discussion.

[deleted]

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#19

Post by afar »

pbourke wrote: post #14
afar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accuracy is fundamental. When installed properly, a 99%+ f1 score is achievable.

First off - this is really neat, especially the focus on privacy and the use of AI at the edge. It seems like the occupancy limit problem for small rooms is much more challenging than the building-density problem, since a single error could DOS the room. How do you account for that?

Def. We call that the OB1 problem (off-by-one). If either event detection (did something happen) or event classification (entry or entrance) is wrong, you can be off the whole day. To solve that, we have a different approach / non-threshold approach for boolean occupancy. Not implemented here.

Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building

#20

Post by afar »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #15

I think it could work. Heavens know, I will now have to actively avoid places that are not at least careful about how they reopen. I am mildly concerned about people, who see doing the opposite as a political expression, but some things cannot be helped.

The bet is that by giving data back to people to let them make their own decisions about safety, they'll self moderate.
Post reply on HN