Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#2[deleted]
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#3Interesting, 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.
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#4Interesting, 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.
You think a software solution is more expensive than someone on the payroll with a handheld clicker?
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#5Interesting, 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.
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#6Interesting, 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.
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#7Interesting, 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 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 complain about others being skeptical.
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#8Interesting, 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.
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.
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#9The 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.
Re: Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building
#10The 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.
Yeah. Should have been "Safe by reducing Density"