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

31–40 of 85 posts

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

#31

Post by flak48 »

kevin2r wrote: post #30

A phone app could replace this right? Using the front facing camera you could run some image recognition to count the flow of people and show the statistics on screen. Put the phone on a stand and leave it running. Much cheaper.

Their whole selling point seems to be that their hardware + software can count people accurately without needing a camera. The premise being that cameras spook people.

Cameras are already commonplace enough where I work, for security purposes. So not sure how easily cameras can be eliminated.

The dashboards they provide don't seem to be have to be coupled to the kind of ($850) hardware they are selling. Like you said, cameras should be able to do the job.

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

#33

Post by rosstex »

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 guess the old "Safety in numbers" adage is going the way of the dodo?

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

#34

Post by piniondna »

alkqp10 wrote: post #29
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.

It is not creative to count the number of people in a room.

I’m currently working on a similar proprietary system that is similar to the one described in this article, and I can tell you that there is much more involved here than “counting people in a room”. Claiming someone with a clicker in front of a door is a better solution misses dozens of other use cases where this isn’t at all possible or cost effective...

But you know, everyone on HN is an expert in everything.

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

#35

Post by mceachen »

riffic wrote: post #32

Viruses don't care about how many people are in a room, and this doesn't seem like something people are going to worry about much 10 years down the road.

At the same time, I'd much rather shop in a small neighborhood grocery store with 5-10 other patrons instead of 200.

Trader Joe's and other retailers (at least in the bay area) have to delegate a full-time employee to the front door to throttle incoming patrons. This would free up that employee.

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

#36

Post by afar »

riffic wrote: post #32

Viruses don't care about how many people are in a room, and this doesn't seem like something people are going to worry about much 10 years down the road.

Agree. Intent is to kill the product once this is all over and use the infrastructure to design better cities.

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

#37

Post by afar »

kevin2r wrote: post #30

A phone app could replace this right? Using the front facing camera you could run some image recognition to count the flow of people and show the statistics on screen. Put the phone on a stand and leave it running. Much cheaper.

Many have / are trying this. Harder to pull off than it seems. Privacy is a big part but distributing the infra to do this at scale is nontrivial. A number of years back Placemeter used to pay you 50/mo to install your Android device on a window sill so they could understand movement. Never quite took off.

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

#38

Post by afar »

flak48 wrote: post #31
kevin2r wrote: post #30

A phone app could replace this right? Using the front facing camera you could run some image recognition to count the flow of people and show the statistics on screen. Put the phone on a stand and leave it running. Much cheaper.

Their whole selling point seems to be that their hardware + software can count people accurately without needing a camera. The premise being that cameras spook people. Cameras are already commonplace enough where I work, for security purposes. So not sure how easily cameras can be eliminated. The dashboards they provide don't seem to be have to be coupled to the kind of ($850) hardware they are selling. Like you said…

I don't think cameras will be displaced / eliminated. It's just a question of whether or not they will be accepted as a form of active surveillance or remain a method of security. Today, they are largely security but it's entirely possible the world moves toward mass surveillance.

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

#39

Post by afar »

piniondna wrote: post #34
alkqp10 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not creative to count the number of people in a room.

I’m currently working on a similar proprietary system that is similar to the one described in this article, and I can tell you that there is much more involved here than “counting people in a room”. Claiming someone with a clicker in front of a door is a better solution misses dozens of other use cases where this isn’t at all possible or cost effective... But you know, everyone on HN is an expert in everything.

This. People are weird. They do strange stuff and it's really hard to count accurately.

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

#40

Post by afar »

alkqp10 wrote: post #29
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.

It is not creative to count the number of people in a room.

Definitely not creative just really, really hard. Took us nearly half a decade.
Post reply on HN