arpafaucon

Managed to send a first message claiming a urgent security update must be delivered to the ring(TM) before any use, but never got any answer from the owner. Reminds me of real life

I really liked listening to and working on the projects of the open MIT course about performance https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-172-performance-engineering-of...

In that case I would have welcomed a simple sentence stating why they won't use 'const'. I very much feel they're not even aware of it. The general feeling I get is that they're trying to work without a compiler, notably without any optimization not warning - some of the code (passing short* instead of int*) will raise warnings -it's likely optimisations passes will often remove some of the copy overhead - the compiler will bark if you write to 'const'

So my general feeling is that they're trying to work assuming people will want to screw their API intentionally; which looks quite unreasonable to me. A bit context about the 'why' would be interesting

You might be interested in the one made by NumWorks (https://www.numworks.com/)

This fits your checklist I think: - notably more intuitive than the classical Texas Instrument / Casio - calculations input are shown - ( not that it seems to matter for you, but it also has python on it )

If you round up and down with the same probability, it will get canceled on the long run.

I suppose this does mitigate the risk a little, but risks breaking other things. For example, you don't have the simple logic sequence: a < b => round(a) < round(b)

So I'd say "not worth it"

that does look like french salary ranges for juniors

Something a bit more complicated if I remember well. Something like: - You can down vote questions for free - but down voting answers costs you 1 karma (and encourages you to provide a proper answer instead)

For most applications in my company, we prefer fastapi + Jinja to generate HTML pages, and rely on the browser to display that for us. For the few programs that need to be run locally & without browser, we use PySide2 (Qt bindings): the framework is bulkier, but somehow feels more reliable.

Kudos to the writer! I used this framework for an small robotics project and, as others pointed out, I was up and running in less than an hour. However, as the project grew more complex, I reached a point where I felt the framework was in the way: I wanted complex things, and lacked the means to configure the framework that precisely. I would recommend others to keep the framework for what it does so incredibly well : small / prototypes projects ; but do not hesitate to switch to a more powerful backend once you feel your needs are complexifying.

I'd love to see that! I tend to think that some of their technical choices on Atlas would have to revised, though. Having hydraulic actuators (very good power/weight ratio) makes the robot quite noisy, which is fine for a robot, but less cool if there is someone stuck inside it a whole day

I live in the EU, and I surprised to discover that insurance companies themselves are interested in funding those exos themselves. The total medical bill of a paraplegic person a or the course of its whole life can get very high. Recent clinical studies appear to show that time spent standing could really improve the health, to a point that "investing" into an exo for their patients could become worth it.

Hey ! I am not a robotics expert, but I work at this company (Wandercraft) as software dev, so I know some of the reasons :) First of all I'd say that's because it simpler: we have so much to do that simplicity is a strong decision factor. That way you also reduce the number of moving parts, so maintenance is easier. On the software side you also get the marginal benefit that you keep a 1:1 mapping between joints and actuator (an example with coupled actuators: Cassie, from the Oregon State University). That way you can have different control strategies for the different joints.