2 ms·
> The reality is that the real definition of a robot is "a machine which does not work yet". Once it starts working we stop calling it a robot. Counterpoint: R
by Izkata 2y ago
> The reality is that the real definition of a robot is "a machine which does not work yet". Once it starts working we stop calling it a robot.
Counterpoint: Robot vacuums
I think the real colloquial meaning is more along the lines of how constrained or hidden the movement is. Elevators stick to a track, dishwashers only move on the inside, missiles pretty much move on a straight line. On the other hand robot vacuums roam the floor, and while a robot arm is rooted to one spot it can move freely in that range.
- krisoft 2y agoThat is probably right. But it also doesn't matter much to me. I don't want to convince people to change what they call things. I want to make things which are reliable and useful for them, and I don't quite mind if they will call them robots or not. I know that they are robots and that is enough for me. ;) > missiles pretty much move on a straight line Only the boring ones! Have you seen long exposure photos of the Iron Dome in action for example? [1] They fly all those swoopy trajectories to be at the right place at the right time. Also it is speculated that when they decide to go for intercept they launch multiple interceptors against every target. One aimed earlier in the trajectory one aimed later. And when the system has a high confidence that the target has been eliminated they re-target the second interceptor against some other one. It is a beautiful and very complex robot. Sadness all around that it is needed of course. 1: https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/CVsuWQwzlBDG_yhJUr6sI16PUK4=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6C4MS5EX3RGRFELIMLSN6AAHCM.jpg https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/CVsuWQwzlBDG_yhJUr6sI16P...