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

Not a Wheelchair [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#141

Post by fastball »

mdasen wrote: post #3

I think e-bike technology is going to get adapted to all sorts of new uses like this. I think there's a lot of opportunity to create great vehicles for people that will offer a good accessibility. https://rootedinrights.org/video/disabled-bikers/ This video shows bikers of many different abilities using many different kinds of bikes and it shows how versatile bikes can be for different people. I'm kinda curious why i…

Seems like they wanted to leave the back for carrying loads, which you can't do as a trike.

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#142

Post by rideontime »

hinkley wrote: post #124
codekansas wrote: post #45

Reminds me of this passage from Cory Doctorow's book Walkaway: "You realize that they're exactly right," Sita said. She smiled, stopped. "You know, when the first walkaway prostheses project started, most of the people contributing had lost an arm or a leg in Belarus or Oman, and were tired of paying loan sharks for something that hurt and barely worked and could be remotely repossessed by an over-the-air kill-switch…

> 'I want an arm that's so outrageously awesome that you'll cut off your own to get one.' Probably not the first and definitely not the last time that idea will be tried in sci-fi (and out of). I can't recall what story but there's one where operations people have twice the usual complement of fingers. There's also a guy who hacked the interface for his prosthetic arm to directly control a sound board. Why go analog-…

The guy mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSKBtEBRWi4

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#143

Post by donw »

jasim wrote: post #121
black_puppydog wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gosh I really love-hate that book. It comes up over and over and over again despite what I consider shoddy writing. It's a bit of a blueprint for how to make the best of a foreseeably shitty future.

My feelings as well. But this one sentence made the book worth it - it is a commonplace thought that should've occurred to most others, but anyway was a clearer articulation than whatever I'd had: "I'm suspicious of any plan to fix unfairness that starts with 'step one, dismantle the entire system and replace it with a better one,' especially if you can't do anything else until step one is done. Of all the ways that…

Love that quote.

I think why so many people want to "dismantle the system" is exactly the same reason that less-experienced engineers push for rewrites: it seems easier to build a good system from scratch, than it does to build the skills required to refactor what you already have into what you need.

(Not to mention, the skills to understand what you actually need!)

Because, more often than not, it turns out that the old system had evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge-cases that were, in fact, really, really important.

Also, and connected: there seems to be this odd zeitgeist of "make other people solve things".

Like, most of us think homelessness is bad, and most of us want to help the homeless, but how few people actually directly invest their own money -- which I would argue is more important than donating time -- towards actually solving that problem?

If I lived in the US, I'd be half-tempted to do a YouTube series where all I do is run around, ask people what they think the biggest problem is in society, and then ask them how much money they've spent to help fix it. Might be interesting, especially if I could do so with a curated list of charities (e.g., ones that don't just pocket the money for nefarious purposes)...

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#144

Post by zrobotics »

black_puppydog wrote: post #71
codekansas wrote: post #45

Reminds me of this passage from Cory Doctorow's book Walkaway: "You realize that they're exactly right," Sita said. She smiled, stopped. "You know, when the first walkaway prostheses project started, most of the people contributing had lost an arm or a leg in Belarus or Oman, and were tired of paying loan sharks for something that hurt and barely worked and could be remotely repossessed by an over-the-air kill-switch…

Gosh I really love-hate that book. It comes up over and over and over again despite what I consider shoddy writing. It's a bit of a blueprint for how to make the best of a foreseeably shitty future.

Honestly, for me Doctorow and Heinlein occupy many of the same spaces. It isn't great fiction, but the ideas presented coupled with 1-2 paragraphs of absolute brilliance make it worthwhile. And both have their cringey moments, although Heinlein definitely takes that cake.

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#145

Post by Markoff »

zip1234 wrote: post #114
Markoff wrote: post #15

4750USD doesn't sound extremely affordable for battery only up to 10 miles at best, so less than 5 miles one direction under ideal conditions. I dunno, I would expect at least better range from 4 wheels, simple body, suspension and electric enegine worth 4.8K. this seem like something worth max. half of the price they sell it for I fail to see benefit compared to ATV - I just checked some shops and you can buy brand…

ATVs are loud and often require use of legs to ride properly.

for price of this vehicle you can buy already electric ATV, so much for noise

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#146

Post by AnthonyMouse »

donw wrote: post #143
jasim wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My feelings as well. But this one sentence made the book worth it - it is a commonplace thought that should've occurred to most others, but anyway was a clearer articulation than whatever I'd had: "I'm suspicious of any plan to fix unfairness that starts with 'step one, dismantle the entire system and replace it with a better one,' especially if you can't do anything else until step one is done. Of all the ways that…

Love that quote. I think why so many people want to "dismantle the system" is exactly the same reason that less-experienced engineers push for rewrites: it seems easier to build a good system from scratch, than it does to build the skills required to refactor what you already have into what you need. (Not to mention, the skills to understand what you actually need!) Because, more often than not, it turns out that the…

> Because, more often than not, it turns out that the old system had evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge-cases that were, in fact, really, really important.

The problem is that a lot of crufty old systems evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge cases that no longer exist.

Or they started out with a bad assumption, and then had some hacks applied to deal with the problems that caused, and then had some other hacks applied to deal with the problems those hacks caused, until nobody can see from one end to the other.

It's important to be able to tell the difference between something which is complicated because it's dealing with a complicated problem and something which is complicated because it's hot garbage.

> Like, most of us think homelessness is bad, and most of us want to help the homeless, but how few people actually directly invest their own money -- which I would argue is more important than donating time -- towards actually solving that problem?

The trouble with many of these issues is that they're results rather than causes.

Why is someone homeless? For one person it's mental illness, for another it's unemployment, for another it's drugs, for another it's housing costs.

So if you want to solve homelessness, all you have to do is solve mental health, unemployment, drug policy and zoning. And then six other problems that caused six other people to be homeless.

Which, it turns out, somebody needed to solve anyway, but now you've got to pick something to focus on. And I think that's where people have trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#147

Post by donw »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #146
donw wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love that quote. I think why so many people want to "dismantle the system" is exactly the same reason that less-experienced engineers push for rewrites: it seems easier to build a good system from scratch, than it does to build the skills required to refactor what you already have into what you need. (Not to mention, the skills to understand what you actually need!) Because, more often than not, it turns out that the…

> Because, more often than not, it turns out that the old system had evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge-cases that were, in fact, really, really important. The problem is that a lot of crufty old systems evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge cases that no longer exist . Or they started out with a bad assumption, and then had some hacks applied to deal with the problems that caused, and then had some ot…

> The problem is that a lot of crufty old systems evolved to deal with a crazy number of edge cases that no longer exist.

Totally true! But it's usually a lot easier to factor those cases out than to rebuild the entire thing from zero.

> It's important to be able to tell the difference between something which is complicated because it's dealing with a complicated problem and something which is complicated because it's hot garbage.

My rule-of-thumb here is "If you have to force people to use it over alternatives, you can safely throw it out. And possibly not even bother replacing it."

> So if you want to solve homelessness, all you have to do is solve mental health, unemployment, drug policy and zoning. And then six other problems that caused six other people to be homeless.

If you want to solve all homelessness, sure.

But there is something to be said for helping fix real problems, for real people, now. To make the world that tiny bit better. And in doing so, you gain a more nuanced view of the problem you are solving, which makes you better at proposing and evaluating proposed solutions.

I think too many people end up in this weird place where you have to solve either all of the problem, or none of the problem -- evolutionary change just doesn't seem to be on the table.

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#148

Post by jseutter »

mdasen wrote: post #3

I think e-bike technology is going to get adapted to all sorts of new uses like this. I think there's a lot of opportunity to create great vehicles for people that will offer a good accessibility. https://rootedinrights.org/video/disabled-bikers/ This video shows bikers of many different abilities using many different kinds of bikes and it shows how versatile bikes can be for different people. I'm kinda curious why i…

regarding 3 wheels vs 4, I see 4 wheels having some advantages. If you picked a tricycle configuration you'd want two wheels up front and one wheel in the back for stability. If you have steering and drive in the front, you have a more complex system that doesn't get good traction going up steep hills. If you put drive up front and steering in the back you lose good handling at speed. If you put steering up front and drive in the back, you only have one wheel drive.

From growing up on a farm, tractors with tricycle gear in the front don't work as well in the snow, and I'm not certain why this is. I think it's because you have to break three paths through the snow rather than two. In addition, a four wheel setup in snow tends to go in a straight line. If you get tricycle gear stuck in a rut, you're going sideways and it can be difficult to maintain a straight line.

Re: Not a Wheelchair [video]

#149

Post by jlbang »

Is no one going to comment about how it looks and sounds like their voices were overdubbed by professionals? It just doesn't sound natural _at all_. I know it's not actually overdubbed, but it's so smooth, the inflection is perfect... it's freaking me out.
Post reply on HN