4 ms·
Do the cone-handling machines strike anyone else as over-engineered?
by simoneau 9y ago
Do the cone-handling machines strike anyone else as over-engineered?
- jessriedel 9y agoYes. This is the kind of machine that is only ever bought with someone else's money.
- DontGiveTwoFlux 9y agoIt seems like the kind of thing that doesn't take that many fatalities prevented to break even on.
- jessriedel 9y agoThe key word was "over-engineered" not "unnecessary". There are alternatives besides having someone place cones on foot.
- taxpayer9 9y agoYes, thank you for explaining how taxation works. I thought about buying my own cone-handling machine for my libertarian utopia, but I decided to just pay a little money with everyone else to have modern amenities like road construction.
- jdietrich 9y agoNope. Manual cone handling is incredibly dangerous. At best, someone has to hang out of the side of a vehicle; at worst, they're walking unprotected next to a live lane. This work is often carried out after dark and in poor weather conditions. Automated cone handling machines are a massive advance in safety. From a purely cynical perspective, they usually pay for themselves in improved productivity and reduced insurance premiums.
- protomyth 9y agoFrom a purely cynical perspective, they usually pay for themselves in improved productivity and reduced insurance premiums. heck, it probably pays for itself by avoiding one lawsuit
- quadrangle 9y agoYou can't speak for everyone with that "nope". Many people can be indeed struck with the thought that these are over-engineered. Of course, your points are enough to convince most of us that the "over-engineered" thought is flat-out wrong, though. But we were still struck but this wrong thought initially.
- quadrangle 9y agoSorry to be pedantic here, surprised by the downvoting though. > Do the cone-handling machines strike anyone else as over-engineered? Taken literally, the answer is "yes" other people also get this wrong impression. So it's wrong to answer with "nope" just because you, as one person don't have the bad impression. Again, taken literally, the question isn't "are they over-engineered?" but "does anyone else get the impression I got?" Consider: "anyone else grossed out by the idea of eating insects?" being answered with "Nope. They're fine, nutritious and delicious with nothing disgusting about it". I suppose the "nope" can mean "not me" but it literally is a claim that nobody else is grossed out. I only clarify because I hope nobody missed that I wasn't disagreeing with the post I was replying to, I was just being pedantic. I should have marked it. There should be a pedantic-mark just like a sarcasm mark.
- dang 9y agoI'm not sure I understand your complaint but in this case "Nope", to my ear, sounded friendly, the same way "yup" would if the answer were yes.
- quadrangle 9y agoI agree with that entirely. But it sounded like "nope, nobody else is struck by that thought." Like this friendly (but wrong) exchange: "Does anyone else hate tomatoes?" "Nope. Tomatoes are great" Which can be read as a friendly version of "Nope, it's just you, everyone else loves them".
- geofft 9y agoNo, I don't think you're sorry to be pedantic. If you really were sorry, you would have made amends (e.g., deleting your comment) instead of doubling down. Everyone understood just what you meant. (Every single person, literally.) Your pedantic observation was not new. People just thought it contributed nothing to the conversation. Around here you get downvoted for being off-topic, not just for being wrong. There is a perfectly good pedantic-mark: it's called not replying in the first place.
- FooHentai 9y agoIf by over-engineered you mean the way the machine worked seems to be overcomplicated and likely to break often, that was my immediate reaction as well. Surely a simpler mechanism could be developed! This is our naïve view though, perhaps simplification is not so easy or cost effective, if it is possible at all. I think other replies to your post have taken over-engineered to mean that the task is best accomplished by a human. That I wouldn't agree with, as cone deployment and collection is dangerous, sucky work. Then again depending on your view on self-driving vehicles, how much of a lifetime would any solution in this space really have?