This is very much a default mode for ex-USSR countries, especially russia. While russian bureocracy is extremely procedural, it has nothing to do with efficiency or safety (most of the regulations and laws in post-soviet countries are written not to increase safety or utility for population, but for controlling power and money flows and benefeting someone on the top).
On the other side, every single person from there I've asked this specifically agreed their country is utterly corrupt mess, government after government, with tight coupling to big brother russia and mafia.
Its not unique to Baltics, I come from former V4 (poland, czechoslovakia, hungary) and we have some variant of that. Legacy of our fucked up russian tyrannical overlords from cold war is still running strong through very fabric of our societies (plus last 20 years of very effective FSB/GRU psy-op to sow hatred and division all around EU to weaken it, allowed by weak politicians like Merkel).
No, not really. For example, Estonia has been very well governed, including deep digitalisation of the economy, one of the best educational systems in the world and a complete and utter dislike/hate for all things Russian.
I gather you don't know what you are talking about but painting broad strokes so wrongly over 3 States who have been peacefully revolutionised in the past 30 years is offensive.
Isn't that (citizens thinking that) the same for most countries in the world?
Like I'm pretty sure many US citizens would say the same.
Or UK citizens.
Or German citizens.
Or <insert EU member state> citizens.
Or Singapore, Australia, china, japan.
etc.
through they might mean different thing when they say "corrupted mess".
And yes, all the mentioned states are corrupt to different degrees in different way. But I think finding citizens which would describe their country as "corrupt mess" isn't a problem (except if they are afraid about repercussions).
It's also very much in your interest to do so, because when you lash out, as you did here and in other places in this thread, you only reinforce the position you're arguing against and discredit the truth you're trying to represent.
I've tried to explain this same point to other users in similar situations in the past. Perhaps some of those explanations would be helpful, if you or anyone want to take a look: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
One consequence of this dynamic is that the burden is much higher on the person arguing for a minority or contrarian view. You can make the point that this is not fair, and indeed the unfairness gets intensely worse, the stronger everyone's emotions are. Nonetheless, it's just the way it is. Fair or not, it's in your interest to develop the capacity to resist these temptations, and fair or not, we end up having to ban the accounts that won't—not because they're wrong, or because we disagree, but because the forum won't survive if we allow people to keep breaking these rules.
I’ve worked with many people from that region over the years and dated one and it’s absolutely right.
It’s also why lots of people left.
She calls her own people culturally defective.
Or rather, when “the device malfunctioned”.
This was closer to an industrial accident, rather than to Robot Revolt.
But yeah, the response is appalling.
Um what? Maybe you should step away from the internet for a while?
There is really no other reason to bring "I dated someone Russian" into this discussion other than spite.
Also, you haven't seen much chess robots, have you? "Industrial robot", my ass. Have you actually seen one? The one that "could kill everyone with one swing" is a tad different.
Yep, I've seen and programmed many industrial robots. You would be surprised how easy it can be to kill a human with a swinging robotic arm, even a small one (such as the one here). Even a relatively light hit at the back of the head can be fatal.
Even if you manage to build an actuator that can grab a piece quickly but can’t break anything, the required rapid movement of the arm still can break things.
Seems very human proof and also exciting to watch in action.
For example: https://youtu.be/JhoLEbUOYlk
Cheap chess playing devices like this have been available on the consumer market at least since the 80s.
My parents got me one from Toys R Us about 40 years ago.
The problem is that such devices are not as much of a spectacle as a big robot arm that moves by itself.
Just to reiterate, I am not trying to make some any sort of statement about the country. I'm just expressing my disgust in how this specific incident was responded to and the multiple failures in oversight leading up to it. Mistakes like this happen everywhere.
Anyway: the difference is in explicit projectual intention. Some systems are created with a dimension (contextually, safety) as a key performance indicator, some other as just a factor to be sensibly taken into consideration. If you are drawing the project for a plane, a main thing you'll keep in mind is that it will have to stay up; if a toy, safety is required but not part of the function.
But he has. The statements
> This is appalling. There is no world in which an industrial robot like that should be operating next to a child.
> I assume you are referring to driverless cars. Those aren't inherently unsafe. Neither are six axis robots. As I mentioned, cobots are well suited for this sort of situation.
Together form a very easy to interpret implicit argument that "industrial robots" are "inherently unsafe" (since that was used to distinguish them from driverless cars) and that cobots are, by virtue of not being "inherently unsafe" (like "industrial robots"), well suited. Even just the choice of words for "industrial robots" lay bare a moral judgment of using them for entertainment purposes near children. Is there anything less "industrial" about the 500KW motor on a tesla?
If you want to claim that he didn't _directly_ and _explicitly_ state that argument outright, then you're right. It doesn't take a lot of reading between the lines to come to the conclusion that he considers there to be some difference.
> Anyway: the difference is in explicit projectual intention. [...]
So what's the argument here? That driverless cars were made to be safe and this chess playing robot wasn't? With how driverless cars have been pushed onto the roads with over the top promises and negligent safety features, how do you even begin to substantiate that argument?
Don't do it. You have been here for years, you should have noticed: do not read between the lines. Do not overread what other said. Do not attribute intentions. Do not paint ideas that come from you on the expression of others.
In the past very few days I had posted about the buffers of undetermined positions¹, and hours before I had a post of mine literally re-translated in ideas that certainly were only in the mind of the "translator", parallel with other interventions that surely had skipped the duly operation of understanding where possible and stopping inventing statements otherwise. It is really to be avoided.
You exercise doubt on your interpretations just like you exercise doubts on all your ideas - and more, on your habit of forming ideas.
¹https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32205085 (and following, for clarity about them "buffers")
Contextually: notice that formula, '«like that»', that the poster wrote.
> So what's the argument here
Yes, the chief point in engineering a "driverless car" is that it does not crash on things. I «substantiate that argument» - which a difference is there between KPIs and constraints - beyond the beginning because nobody told you that the engineers succeed.
Perhaps it would help if you applied your argument to good old regular cars and see where it fails.
Personally, I believe that neither driverless cars nor "industrial robots" are "inherently unsafe". In fact I think the whole notion of "inherently unsafe" is flawed. An "industrial robot" playing chess with children can be fine if it's engineered well, which this particular robot evidently wasn't. Driverless cars can be fine if they're engineered well, which I would argue has not always been the case.
“Inherently safe” is a technical term. It’s an ideal form that almost never materializes, so “functional safety” substitutes it and arguments are made as to what risks exists or how they should be mitigated.
“Inherently unsafe” as reverse of that means an object cannot be safe no matter what; A bomb next to a person can be an example. Had a driverless car inherently unsafe, it cannot be placed on public road.
The original argument therefor means, that it is established that cars and robots can be safe-fied with functional safety standards and measures such that only tolerable risks exist, so they cannot be inherently unsafe, so generally they can be let be on public roads or around people with conditions.
BTW this isn't even about any lawyers and EULAs, there's simply no legal way how a company like Tesla or Mercedes could take responsibility for a crash, so IMHO Tesla is at least nice enough to spell it out, unlike Mercedes.
This seems unlikely to be true, unless of course they weaseled themselves in this position.
Really? Guilt by association, purity test questions and projection/assumptions towards me?
Speaking of fascist attitudes...
The last time I was there, even the Russian airport security interrogators were more polite than you...
More to the glacial reality, it is said that the notorious dictator who made the move in '39, once presented with a report of particularly heavy losses, after a pause said "After all, this is what the young are for". Some people can have so debatable ideas.
“No sparing soldiers, women will give birth to more of them!”
They don’t need sophisticated weaponry or artillery. Just a slow push until the opponent is exhausted.
Losses are irrelevant: they can always be hidden or denied because you control media.
Whut. What makes you think anyone did?
> the robot must be given time to react. But the boy was in a hurry and the robot grabbed him
A soft blame, but a blame nonetheless. It's an attempt to divert responsibility, no matter how you look at it. They were ultimately in charge of the situation, it's never a good sign when the leaders immediately try to assign blame elsewhere.
Maybe you think the fact that they're not explicitly blaming the robot is tantamount to blaming the child, but I don't read it that way.
So, where are you from exactly? I am curious which culture draws an equation sign between "x triggered y" and "x is to blame for y".
Diverting responsibility is making virtuous political statements, instead of analysing what went unexpected.
Is that not an explicit diversion of responsibility? They allowed the robot to operate at their event. I might buy a mistranslation, but seems like a stretch.
I come from 8 years of experience in industrial robotics. That the boy triggered a “bug” is irrelevant. It's a distraction. The bug isn't the issue here. This kind of robot should not have been used in the first place. That is my point.
Why? How are you going to fix it then?
> This kind of robot should not have been used in the first place. That is my point.
Please, open your favorite search engine, find images for "chess robot" and tell me how the whole humanity had managed to fail in designing a default chess robot.
In any case, seems like we won't be seeing any chess robots in Russia anymore, which would be stupid as hell.
At best you can read it neutrally. But you could also read it as blaming the child.
There are robots, called Cobots, designed specifically for this type of environment. They are highly specialized and extremely sensitive to unpredicted forces. Even then, you'd likely have a light curtain to stop the motion when anything crossed over into the table.