6 ms·

This is just my personal opinion, but as a both a programmer and a cyclist, and as someone who saw the OneWheels all over SF -- I just can't trust that any or

by chubot 3y ago

This is just my personal opinion, but as a both a programmer and a cyclist, and as someone who saw the OneWheels all over SF -- I just can't trust that any organization will write code well enough to get on one of these things, especially where there is split-second interaction with SF traffic, and where my face being broken is one of the consequences. (I might trust certain people, but not organizations.) I don't know if they did anything bad or not, but the very concept seems suspect. I want my body to learn the laws of physics, as on a bike. I don't want my body to have to interact with software that gets updates over time. You can level similar criticisms at modern planes -- planes worked before software, and people learned over time how to fly them in bad conditions. They had skin in the game!!! People writing code in a company somewhere aren't personally liable for your face breaking, or the plane going down in flames. I didn't follow very closely, but the recent Toyota/Boeing issues basically seem like typical organizational blame deflection. No skin in the game. Unlike mechanical systems, this type of software has no end-user/operator repair. When software is doing too much, then the pilots and operators lose agency. --- So I believe a bicycle (or unicycle) has more agency than a OneWheel. The human is forced to learn it, and it's a STABLE target for learning. Humans have an intuitive sense of physics, and it can be honed to incredible degrees This reminds me of those viral videos of indoor cyclists that were going around >10 years ago https://youtu.be/WB3qTVg3hhs?t=158 https://youtu.be/WB3qTVg3hhs?t=158 It's a perfect example of why you shouldn't underestimate the human's brain ability to learn -- software is not that flexible or reliable; AI is not that flexible or reliable. I mean think about SLOW the self-driving cars are after 10+ years. Their reaction time and judgement is shit. I'm not an exceptional cyclist, but I've learned to make decisions safely in 15+ years of riding around SF, through diverse conditions and terrain. It's obvious to me that these capabilities are beyond software.

andrelaszlo 3y ago
I saw a dad with his son together on one (or a similar product) last week. I doubt that they test things like that thoroughly. It definitely looked like an accident waiting to happen. Both were wearing helmets but they were going pretty fast. I can imagine that smashing your face into the ground will be ugly at those speeds. Especially for a 6-7 year-old with the weight of an adult added on top...
tromp 3y ago
> This reminds me of those viral videos of indoor cyclists that were going around >10 years ago The other day my wife showed me this unbelievable performance of a Chinese acrobat unicycling on top of a big rolling globe while doing acrobatics with balancing bowls on her head [1]. Since that site is Chinese language with weird popups, I also found a 10 years later performance by the same lady on youtube [2], but it's not quite as effortless as the first. [1] https://www.douyin.com/video/7281815910430657846 https://www.douyin.com/video/7281815910430657846 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuRlFjwql4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuRlFjwql4
- bunabhucan 3y ago
  >that site is Chinese language with weird popups That site is tiktok or rather the Chinese version of it.
eschulz 3y ago
Your comment reminds me of the Boeing 737 MAX problems which resulted in them all being grounded worldwide.
- hosteur 3y ago
  Reminded me of this too. But luckily those 737 max8 got a software update (and a new name) and are happily flying again...
  - cdelsolar 3y ago
    I flew in one a few months ago and was really pissed off that I didn’t know about it ahead of time. I thought when they announced the plane we were on that it was a bad joke (flight had already been delayed many hours). Luckily nothing bad happened but I had to quickly google how they resolved the issue.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It got more than that, some more redundant sensors, pilot training specific to the plane, and an option to override the system.
    - chipsa 3y ago
      They always had the option to over-ride the system: turn off the electric trim, same as for runaway trim (which the failure much resembled).
- avalys 3y ago
  That was not a software bug, but a bad design from a dysfunctional organization that had long since stopped valuing sound engineering.
  - 3y ago
xixixao 3y ago
All true, but you have to trust the organization(s) that manufactured your bike. And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down. My main point is: You gotta trust someone. If you trust no one you should move out to a remote uninhabited forest.
- chubot 3y ago
  No, it's not all or nothing. Good engineering is simple, relies on less, and trusts less -- it doesn't require trusting zero. I also addressed the difference in the comment -- this type of software has no end-user / operator repair, and the costs of failure are great. I know how a bike works, and I can repair it. (Time-tested materials like steel frames are also nice.) I don't know how the OneWheel works. In theory, I might be able to read some of the source code, but that counts for very little. It's certainly more complex than a bike. It also hasn't been tested over a long period of time. Well it looks like we've had a test... I haven't touched a OneWheel since I first saw them 5 years ago, and now it seems like I have some good info about them. The test of time works!
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  >And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down. Nope, especially if you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Totally not, I can take a bicycle into my workshop, check if is made of steel or aluminium, inspect quality of hardware, I can test quality of a weld, hit it with a hammer, etc.. You can't see source code of onewheel, or take out the firmware and run it in isolation. Software producing companies have the privileges of being protected from inspection, but responsibility of a guy assembling Ikea furniture.
flatline 3y ago
We can write safety-critical software. Look at NASA’s CMM level 5 processes for some of their flight control software. I’m not as familiar with applications in other domains, but I know they exist. This is typically not fun code to write. It is bureaucratic and developed over decades. It is more an engineering discipline than most commercial software. And, it is organizational, this is not code written by a single individual. I would not trust that at all. More eyes mean more trust, broadly speaking. The 737 Max issues were not as much about software as corporate cost saving efforts. I have no idea if the OneWheel software can be fixed. I’m sure there was real talent that went into it. I suspect the first to market and other financial incentives were big factors in this outcome. Just the fact they are only now, apparently, adding user notification of error states is kind of crazy. So I agree that certain types of organizations are not trustworthy, but I also think the safest code we have ever written was done by…organizations.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  NASA’s code runs on devices that have am very specific missions. They can test all of the edge cases because they’re going from A to B once and they have a decade to prepare that journey. People riding electric scooters and etc will run into more variability each day than NASA will in a whole mission. I crashed and broke my back on a two wheeled scooter in SF due to a pedestrian walking on a red don’t walk sign, for example. Plus, none of these companies are doing NASA quality assurance or anything close, so why even compare them to NASA?
  - flatline 3y ago
    I’m saying that organizations can, in fact, write safety critical code. One wheel does not need to account specifically for pedestrians crossing the road, but it does need to behave properly under a wider variety of conditions than a spacecraft or launch vehicle. Give it a decade with a half dozen teams working to making the code correct, and I think you could get there. I am inclined to think that a commercial entity cannot reliably write safety critical code for a primary income driver. You need different financial incentives and probably a different organizational structure for this to work. At the risk of derailing my point in minutiae, I suspect Waymo will ultimately deliver safe self-driving technology sooner than Tesla, for example.
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
The "skin in the game" point is interesting. Imagine if there was a way to buy personal injury insurance for a device such as the Onewheel. Then the insurer has an incentive to audit the code and check for safety hazards, in order to figure out what premium to charge. If you're a customer and you want to know which device is the safest, check to see which has the cheapest insurance.
- nucleardog 3y ago
  Seems it would be easier and more effective to handle this at the source. Set some minimum standards for the products and require a bond or insurance for them to be sold. We already set standards for other vehicles and safety critical products (FAA, FMVSS, UL listing, etc). The minimum standards makes a case for culpability through negligence relatively easy. Requiring a bond or insurance means either betting a substantial amount of your own resources on the fact that you have done correctly, or convincing an insurance company (who are demonstrably passable at assessing risk based on their still being in business) to assess the likelihood of payouts and price your premiums accordingly. If you can’t convince them you made this safe, you won’t be able to afford to put it on the market. Then instead of expecting somehow that OneWheel is going to cooperate with audits they have no real incentive to participate in, consumers in aggregate to make informed, rational decisions, and a bunch of other things that are unlikely to happen… (The insurance company is just going to base rates on aggregate historical data like they do with cars. Some of you may need to die so we can determine whether the products are safe. Best of luck.) People can just go buy products at the store and be relatively confident that they’re not going to kill them. I’d wager that markets are generally healthier when people have confidence that generally available products aren’t dangerous. I can only imagine how little I’d purchase if instead of electrical standards and UL listing I had to go talk to my home insurer every time I wanted to plug something else into the wall so I could find out if it was going to kill my family.
- chubot 3y ago
  Why do people get in cabs with crazy cab drivers? There's even a game called "Crazy Taxi" Because they are confident that the cab driver doesn't want to kill HIMSELF. If he behaves recklessly, he'll face consequences That is, self-driving cars with remote operators are a moral hazard. If they make a mistake, the operator doesn't face any consequences This is not a trivial point. If you look deeply into causation, you'll see it in many places --- Likewise, Tesla's policies of forcing your hands on the wheel are incoherent. They claim to drive you around, except that it's your fault if something goes wrong. Well, that's exactly where I wanted the help. Definitely check out "Skin in the Game" by Taleb if you haven't I predict that this will become a recognized limitation of AI. In 10 or 20 years, we'll realize that it was a philosophically incoherent position to claim that a machine is doing something, WITHOUT being liable for the consequences of performing poorly. And not just incoherent, but bad engineering. Without this vital feedback, it won't operate well, and it won't learn. In evolution, which is the process that has produced machines capable of navigating the world (us), death is a very strong piece of feedback!
ilyt 3y ago
The problem is that it takes time. Learning how to go on 2 wheels isn't that hard Learning how to go on one is noticeably harder as in need 2 axis of balancing, not (essentially) one Meanwhile they want to sell product that's small and convenient enough to carry, and one wheel gives it advantage in that. And artificial balancing is easiest way to add it. > I mean think about SLOW the self-driving cars are after 10+ years. Their reaction time and judgement is shit. > I'm not an exceptional cyclist, but I've learned to make decisions safely in 15+ years of riding around SF, through diverse conditions and terrain. It's obvious to me that these capabilities are beyond software. This thing is not self-driving. There is MASSIVE gulf between "make a vehicle controllable by human" and "make that vehicle self drive".

by chubot 3y ago

andrelaszlo 3y ago

I saw a dad with his son together on one (or a similar product) last week. I doubt that they test things like that thoroughly. It definitely looked like an accident waiting to happen. Both were wearing helmets but they were going pretty fast. I can imagine that smashing your face into the ground will be ugly at those speeds. Especially for a 6-7 year-old with the weight of an adult added on top...

tromp 3y ago

> This reminds me of those viral videos of indoor cyclists that were going around >10 years ago The other day my wife showed me this unbelievable performance of a Chinese acrobat unicycling on top of a big rolling globe while doing acrobatics with balancing bowls on her head [1]. Since that site is Chinese language with weird popups, I also found a 10 years later performance by the same lady on youtube [2], but it's not quite as effortless as the first. [1] https://www.douyin.com/video/7281815910430657846 https://www.douyin.com/video/7281815910430657846 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuRlFjwql4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYuRlFjwql4

bunabhucan 3y ago
>that site is Chinese language with weird popups That site is tiktok or rather the Chinese version of it.

eschulz 3y ago

Your comment reminds me of the Boeing 737 MAX problems which resulted in them all being grounded worldwide.

hosteur 3y ago
Reminded me of this too. But luckily those 737 max8 got a software update (and a new name) and are happily flying again...
- cdelsolar 3y ago
  I flew in one a few months ago and was really pissed off that I didn’t know about it ahead of time. I thought when they announced the plane we were on that it was a bad joke (flight had already been delayed many hours). Luckily nothing bad happened but I had to quickly google how they resolved the issue.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It got more than that, some more redundant sensors, pilot training specific to the plane, and an option to override the system.
  - chipsa 3y ago
    They always had the option to over-ride the system: turn off the electric trim, same as for runaway trim (which the failure much resembled).
avalys 3y ago
That was not a software bug, but a bad design from a dysfunctional organization that had long since stopped valuing sound engineering.
- 3y ago

xixixao 3y ago

All true, but you have to trust the organization(s) that manufactured your bike. And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down. My main point is: You gotta trust someone. If you trust no one you should move out to a remote uninhabited forest.

chubot 3y ago
No, it's not all or nothing. Good engineering is simple, relies on less, and trusts less -- it doesn't require trusting zero. I also addressed the difference in the comment -- this type of software has no end-user / operator repair, and the costs of failure are great. I know how a bike works, and I can repair it. (Time-tested materials like steel frames are also nice.) I don't know how the OneWheel works. In theory, I might be able to read some of the source code, but that counts for very little. It's certainly more complex than a bike. It also hasn't been tested over a long period of time. Well it looks like we've had a test... I haven't touched a OneWheel since I first saw them 5 years ago, and now it seems like I have some good info about them. The test of time works!
Ylpertnodi 3y ago
>And unless you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down. Nope, especially if you’re paying $Ks of dollars the manufacturing quality is sadly going down.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Totally not, I can take a bicycle into my workshop, check if is made of steel or aluminium, inspect quality of hardware, I can test quality of a weld, hit it with a hammer, etc.. You can't see source code of onewheel, or take out the firmware and run it in isolation. Software producing companies have the privileges of being protected from inspection, but responsibility of a guy assembling Ikea furniture.

flatline 3y ago

We can write safety-critical software. Look at NASA’s CMM level 5 processes for some of their flight control software. I’m not as familiar with applications in other domains, but I know they exist. This is typically not fun code to write. It is bureaucratic and developed over decades. It is more an engineering discipline than most commercial software. And, it is organizational, this is not code written by a single individual. I would not trust that at all. More eyes mean more trust, broadly speaking. The 737 Max issues were not as much about software as corporate cost saving efforts. I have no idea if the OneWheel software can be fixed. I’m sure there was real talent that went into it. I suspect the first to market and other financial incentives were big factors in this outcome. Just the fact they are only now, apparently, adding user notification of error states is kind of crazy. So I agree that certain types of organizations are not trustworthy, but I also think the safest code we have ever written was done by…organizations.

ok_dad 3y ago
NASA’s code runs on devices that have am very specific missions. They can test all of the edge cases because they’re going from A to B once and they have a decade to prepare that journey. People riding electric scooters and etc will run into more variability each day than NASA will in a whole mission. I crashed and broke my back on a two wheeled scooter in SF due to a pedestrian walking on a red don’t walk sign, for example. Plus, none of these companies are doing NASA quality assurance or anything close, so why even compare them to NASA?
- flatline 3y ago
  I’m saying that organizations can, in fact, write safety critical code. One wheel does not need to account specifically for pedestrians crossing the road, but it does need to behave properly under a wider variety of conditions than a spacecraft or launch vehicle. Give it a decade with a half dozen teams working to making the code correct, and I think you could get there. I am inclined to think that a commercial entity cannot reliably write safety critical code for a primary income driver. You need different financial incentives and probably a different organizational structure for this to work. At the risk of derailing my point in minutiae, I suspect Waymo will ultimately deliver safe self-driving technology sooner than Tesla, for example.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

The "skin in the game" point is interesting. Imagine if there was a way to buy personal injury insurance for a device such as the Onewheel. Then the insurer has an incentive to audit the code and check for safety hazards, in order to figure out what premium to charge. If you're a customer and you want to know which device is the safest, check to see which has the cheapest insurance.

nucleardog 3y ago
Seems it would be easier and more effective to handle this at the source. Set some minimum standards for the products and require a bond or insurance for them to be sold. We already set standards for other vehicles and safety critical products (FAA, FMVSS, UL listing, etc). The minimum standards makes a case for culpability through negligence relatively easy. Requiring a bond or insurance means either betting a substantial amount of your own resources on the fact that you have done correctly, or convincing an insurance company (who are demonstrably passable at assessing risk based on their still being in business) to assess the likelihood of payouts and price your premiums accordingly. If you can’t convince them you made this safe, you won’t be able to afford to put it on the market. Then instead of expecting somehow that OneWheel is going to cooperate with audits they have no real incentive to participate in, consumers in aggregate to make informed, rational decisions, and a bunch of other things that are unlikely to happen… (The insurance company is just going to base rates on aggregate historical data like they do with cars. Some of you may need to die so we can determine whether the products are safe. Best of luck.) People can just go buy products at the store and be relatively confident that they’re not going to kill them. I’d wager that markets are generally healthier when people have confidence that generally available products aren’t dangerous. I can only imagine how little I’d purchase if instead of electrical standards and UL listing I had to go talk to my home insurer every time I wanted to plug something else into the wall so I could find out if it was going to kill my family.
chubot 3y ago
Why do people get in cabs with crazy cab drivers? There's even a game called "Crazy Taxi" Because they are confident that the cab driver doesn't want to kill HIMSELF. If he behaves recklessly, he'll face consequences That is, self-driving cars with remote operators are a moral hazard. If they make a mistake, the operator doesn't face any consequences This is not a trivial point. If you look deeply into causation, you'll see it in many places --- Likewise, Tesla's policies of forcing your hands on the wheel are incoherent. They claim to drive you around, except that it's your fault if something goes wrong. Well, that's exactly where I wanted the help. Definitely check out "Skin in the Game" by Taleb if you haven't I predict that this will become a recognized limitation of AI. In 10 or 20 years, we'll realize that it was a philosophically incoherent position to claim that a machine is doing something, WITHOUT being liable for the consequences of performing poorly. And not just incoherent, but bad engineering. Without this vital feedback, it won't operate well, and it won't learn. In evolution, which is the process that has produced machines capable of navigating the world (us), death is a very strong piece of feedback!

ilyt 3y ago

The problem is that it takes time. Learning how to go on 2 wheels isn't that hard Learning how to go on one is noticeably harder as in need 2 axis of balancing, not (essentially) one Meanwhile they want to sell product that's small and convenient enough to carry, and one wheel gives it advantage in that. And artificial balancing is easiest way to add it. > I mean think about SLOW the self-driving cars are after 10+ years. Their reaction time and judgement is shit. > I'm not an exceptional cyclist, but I've learned to make decisions safely in 15+ years of riding around SF, through diverse conditions and terrain. It's obvious to me that these capabilities are beyond software. This thing is not self-driving. There is MASSIVE gulf between "make a vehicle controllable by human" and "make that vehicle self drive".