You must log in or register to comment.

Groftsan t1_je9z3yq wrote

Humans experience issues and accidents around spinning objects such as propellers, due to a lack of attention span and general awareness.


Killer-Barbie t1_jea2wjx wrote

When I did my ADHD testing there is one test you have to listen for a cue and watch for a cue and then hit a button when either happens for 10 minutes. I did moderately okay for the first 3 minutes and then you can see where I stopped paying attention because my accuracy went from 70% to 4%. So yeah, I agree with you. I would be propellered meat


Evening-Dizzy t1_jea4x0i wrote

I did the opposite. I kept an accuracy rate of 90+% through the whole test. Doc "oh that's a hyperfocus if i ever saw one" but I'm also the person who falls over when they're trying to stand still for longer thzn 15 seconds so who knows


Killer-Barbie t1_jea5tl0 wrote

Oh yeah, that's a thing too. When you stop paying attention to the balance muscles and they forget hot to work


HolyVeggie t1_jebcflu wrote

You focused so hard on standing still that you inhibited your toes and feet from balancing your body


zaphrous t1_jebs75k wrote

If you lock your knees you can pass out. After a while.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jebfpc0 wrote

It’s almost like getting tested for adhd almost guarantees a diagnosis


the-z t1_jebhewz wrote

Nah, when you're testing for a disorder that affects how well you can control your attention, you expect to get stuff at both extremes.

A normal person will get distracted (because the task is boring), then think, "oh! i'm supposed to be doing the thing", and then go back to doing the thing.

A person with ADHD will probably have the same thought, but no amount of effort can guarantee that you can go back to doing the thing.

With ADHD, whether the distraction happens is unpredictable, so both hyperfocus and getting distracted and unable to recover are indicators of disordered processing.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jebifr3 wrote

“Whether you get distracted or not you have ADHD”

I hope in the future humanity is able to see the barbarity of modern psychiatry as we see all of the history of psychiatry: based in brutality, pseudoscience, and often the violation of human rights.


Physical_Average_793 t1_jebjm3v wrote

This guy watches a documentary and still thinks modern psychological tests are the same as from the 50s


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jebz07o wrote

Or, you know, reading stacks of books and endless articles and studies, but sure. I watched a documentary.


GlobalMonke t1_jed3o05 wrote

Well why read a whole gunky stack of shittily compacted information when you could read a tiny little kidz bop magazine of all the best stuff right from the brink of your porcelain squat chair


Apollo7788 t1_jebni6o wrote

"Both a difficulty of attention and a tendancy to hyperfocus on certain tasks is indocative of ADHD"

Its literally the name of the disorder. Attention deficit hyperactive disorder. People with ADHD can struggle to pay attention to certain tasks or hyperfocus on the task.


CueCappa t1_jebw81x wrote

Yep, give me work and I end up on reddit. Give me factorio and oh it's 5am.


That_One_Guy_212 t1_jecasu1 wrote

Don't you have work to be doing?


CueCappa t1_jeccvpw wrote

No actually :D. Was around midnight here when I posted that. And on that note, good night!


Cindexxx t1_jebvl1e wrote

If we just gave everyone stimulants I think we'd be happier. Just saying.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jebypvk wrote

That is an incredibly shortsighted view. Stimulants are not good for the body, especially daily long term use.


Cindexxx t1_jec1z96 wrote

We already have too many old people. Two birds, one stone.

Also people with ADHD take daily stimulants for years. We're getting to the point there'll be people who have been on them virtually their entire lives.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jedkit2 wrote

So, so many things wrong with this comment. You're encouraging what is essentially genocide, or biochemical warfare against entire populations.

Also, "too many old people" means you fundamentally don't understand the issue. It's not like people will be healthy forever then just keel over 10 years earlier than average. They'll get sick and feel progressively shittier.


Cindexxx t1_jeh2qot wrote

Lol, no I'm not. I guess I should've put /j. But for real, just let people have em. Who cares? Better than street meth.


PoopIsAlwaysSunny t1_jeh3j8g wrote

I didn’t say people shouldn’t have them. Doctors shouldn’t be prescribing them so much and they shouldn’t be treated so casually.

But also yeah if people want them recreationally they should be able to buy them. We just shouldn’t act like it’s a good thing.


duffperson t1_jebopat wrote

If you have symptoms of ADHD and get tested, yes it almost guarantees a diagnosis. Just like diabetes or a stroke. It's a health condition, why would anyone get tested who isn't showing symptoms?


GeraldBWilsonJr t1_jebqnvq wrote

I was just thinking that a strobe light could really fuck one of these systems up, and remembered that my front teeth are fake due to an accident involving a strobe light 20 years ago


Fat_Bottomed_Redhead t1_jebvbsi wrote

I'm going to need to know that story, please, and thank you.


GeraldBWilsonJr t1_jefckyf wrote

Not exciting, when my brother and I were little we were playing around with a friend in a dark room with just the strobe for fun, and being idiotic little kids were just kind of running around and my face smacked into his head. He still has a scar and I still deal with tooth infection issues this much time later


tombola345 t1_jebh2fp wrote



oakteaphone t1_jebvgui wrote

Heavy, quickly spinning objects can cause serious injuries. They happen to people, especially those that aren't being safe


u9Nails t1_jebihzn wrote

Hence ducking when entering/exiting a helicopter?


Phate4569 t1_jec85mi wrote

Funny you should mention human eyes.

Human eyes have a 30-60 fps rate.

Cameras currently can get up to 240, granted those are standard cameras. Depth cameras are currently at about 30fps, but getting better.

As tech increases robots will be BETTER at seeing fast moving objects.


me_I_my t1_jea4ag4 wrote

Not just humanoid robots, but any robot using cameras. Another interesting issue is with led headlights and tail lights, because the way they maintain their brightness is by pulsing, if the framerate is synced with the pulse your self driving car never sees the brake lights or something similar


generalbacon965 t1_jeau5sk wrote

Thats why cameras shouldn’t be the only thing used for self driving Lidar would just detect the car getting closer


tt54l32v t1_jeb4i8v wrote

That's what the camera does, it's not looking for brake lights.


WisestAirBender t1_jebvl15 wrote

Otherwise broken tail lights would cause so many accidents.

Not to mention every other obstacle without lights on it


TheGrumpyre t1_jeazf6d wrote

I always wonder if I'm especially sensitive to the flickering on those lights or if the ones that annoy me are all defective in some way that makes the flickering more noticeable. I hate them.


Zncon t1_jeb1z28 wrote

There are a few different ways to design these electrical systems. A cheap one like Christmas lights will flicker at 60hz or 120hz depending on design, both of which some people can detect.

I absolutely hate it.


Podartist t1_jeblg8k wrote

UK electricity is 50 Hz, visitors from USA (60hz) see flickering. Long florescent tube lighting you find in offices was the worst.


AnyAmphibianWillDo t1_jec8yo0 wrote

you can also find plenty of DC Christmas lights with no flicker at all. downsides are they have a brick to plug in and they can't be daisychained as much. I've got some strands that can be daisychained up to 300ft/91m - these cover the vast majority of home use cases, and the lead between the plug and first light is about 20ft/6m so it's usually possible to combine multiple sets. I once had 12 strands on one tree and while that required 3 plugs, it was something like 60w total so I just used a 3 outlet end on a 16awg extension cord


frivolousfry t1_jeb5j6l wrote

Are you colour blind?


TheGrumpyre t1_jeb7k71 wrote

No. Do you think that would make a difference? I would assume that would only affect the cells in your eye that detect the difference between wavelengths of light, not the ones that detect changes in light intensity. Unless it's one of those things where you become more attuned to other kinds of visual input to make up for the lost data.


frivolousfry t1_jeb9wdy wrote

Indeed it is. There are two different types of cells responsible for visual stimulus. "Rods", as they are known, are responsible for differences in light intensity while "cones" are responsible for colour differential. Colour blind people don't necessarily have less eye cells overall, but rather a deficiency of cone cells. The totality of cells is comparable to a normal sighted person and the lack of cones is made up by rods, which in turn can cause an increase in light sensitivity for colourblind individuals.


AlpaxT1 t1_jebebce wrote

A self driving car doesn’t need to look for break lights noir headlights. I guess you could run into this issue with something like a traffic light (not at all sure if these work in the same way you’re describing). Either way, an issue like this could probably be solved really easily with regular standards since neither frequency change over time.


ThyShirtIsBlue t1_jebv4x6 wrote

Could this be resolved by using multiple cameras that capture at different intervals?


littlebitsofspider t1_jeav993 wrote

OP might like to read about event cameras. They're probably going to be the best shot at robot eyes that we have.


BanzoClaymore t1_jebcqf5 wrote

I’m not a scientist, but I’m thinking you could just have a different frame rate for each eye


the-z t1_jebht1x wrote

You should be. This is a pretty good solution.


littlebitsofspider t1_jebr74v wrote

If you like flicker artifacts and bouncing around gaze vergence, sure. If you want stereo fusion, good edge detection and depth estimation, and smooth saccades, you'll probably want an event camera. Ideally, you'd have a robot eyeball with a beamsplitter inside with an event camera sensor grid on one side, and a traditional camera-CCD sensor on the other. That way, an event at one of the event camera pixels can trigger a pixel dump on the corresponding CCD color subpixels. Better yet would be a Foveon-style stacked-RGB CCD, which could match 1:1 resolution with the event camera in color. You could do the sensor fusion on a dedicated ASIC hooked up to both cameras and let them both do what they do best.


BanzoClaymore t1_jebtlch wrote

Did you really think I would know what you were talking about when you wrote this?


raff7 t1_jeaajku wrote

What does the fact that they have humanoid and that they have cameras for eyes have to do with anything?

Wouldn't a dog shaped robod with a camera in his butt have the same issue?


ghalta t1_jebsi73 wrote

> Wouldn't a dog shaped robod with a camera in his butt have the same issue?

That camera would constantly just be filming other dogs' noses.


calartnick t1_jea8m3o wrote

You and I think of very different things in the shower my friend


Cantsmegwontsmeg t1_jeayxv2 wrote

So you're saying we can become invisible by twirling?

Advantage: Humans


Vapur9 t1_jeb89dp wrote

Humans have the same frame-rate issue. However, we also have a sense of awareness.

Knowing that something spinning quickly creates sound and a draft is enough of a warning sign to be aware of danger.

Pattern recognition in robots should produce the same results.


khleedril t1_jebbmsx wrote

This is the exact (correct) answer I was just about to type.


blueeyedkittens t1_jeb34cx wrote

It shouldn't be too hard to just vary the frame rate or use multiple cameras with different framerates


JeffryRelatedIssue t1_jebkvzy wrote

You sweet summer child. High framerate cameras go up to 76 000 frames per second. The human eye of a well trianed person with perfect vision is sensible to about 60fps. Going even to 120 fps (which would be more manageable to process as 76k is a stupid amount of data that isn't even useful in most cases) where processing is possible would still be a major improvement to human eyesight.


adeptus_fognates t1_jebwfgt wrote

Your eye doesn't exactly have a "frame rate." But you still have a minimum time of exposure before you notice something, so this is actually something that applies more to you than robots.

Also you are assuming all computer vision is raster based, like the way images are drawn on a TV screen, (pixel by pixel from top left to bottom right, rows over colums) and you are also assuming that computers will see with images.

Computers can visualize sound, as well as many other things that we are not capable of.


IDontHaveNicknameToo t1_jeaue9n wrote

Large prime number for framerate should make it way more robust. Fun problem to think about.


Yorspider t1_jeb3vio wrote

So long as there are two cameras, that are not synced they would have no issue.


PracticalExperiense t1_jebun7b wrote

Disagree. There are cameras capable of recording at 300,000fps. 10,000 is no issue anymore.

If referring to the effect where objects look still or moving slowly, that's because our displays aren't yet capable of showing those incredible frame rates. Or the recordings are at low level fps like 60 or 120.


Showerthoughts_Mod t1_je9yljk wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.


thesockswhowearsfox t1_jeb22l9 wrote

Got it, if I need to fight a humanoid robot I go full General Grevious


Interesting-Space-24 t1_jeb3b4m wrote

They could simply vary the camera framerate to detect the fast movement of the impeller.


AceExaminer t1_jeb5y0p wrote

They can just assume solid object when they detect its diameter


Niminal t1_jeb6ice wrote

In theory would adding a frame rate variation routine into their programming fix that?


Sir_Lord_Pumpkin t1_jeb6s9l wrote

At a certain point it stops being about framerate and more about how fast the processor can compare frames.


zephyrprime t1_jebbyhj wrote

Humans have limited readout speed from their eyeballs as well. There's a lot of image processing that goes on. They'll probably just increase the readout speed of cameras or use global shutter. BTW, the problem you are describing is called rolling shutter.


randomwalkin01 t1_jebcns4 wrote

Wouldn't machine learning be implemented in these robots so that they would recognize that a propeller would exist even though they might not directly see them?


sakonigsberg t1_jebfrf8 wrote

This is relevant for us today. If your fluorescent lights or whatever are at a harmonic frequency with whatever is rotating, it will still look than it actually is moving.

It's called the stroboscopic effect


Smiddy7465 t1_jebqw52 wrote

Came here to say this

Edit: I’m almost surprised I had to scroll this far too see it


SecretRecipe t1_jebguan wrote

Have the cameras run at different frame rates. Problem solved


N0085K1LL5 t1_jebhmcs wrote

Not if they make it mandatory that all spinning things have some sticker the robots can identify.


zinky30 t1_jebj9c4 wrote

This could be how humans defeat androids in some future dystopian movie.


zoltan99 t1_jeblbm6 wrote

Robot designers know what rolling shutter is and can specify that that won’t be part of the design


Inttegers t1_jebp1ls wrote

I wonder if you could get around this with a variable, but reasonably predictable frame rate.


LoopholeHacker t1_jebt4eo wrote

A good solution to this would be a varying shutter angle to allow them to distinguish motion.


ImmoralModerator t1_jebu2aa wrote

Can’t this be worked around like the machine guns that shoot through propeller gaps?


ColonyRuinScavanger t1_jebuqu6 wrote

If you're a visual thinker your mind's eye is your visual buffer, so you can't think intensely and see at the same time, indeed a lot of sleight of hand exploits this by prompting you to think about how the trick is being done so you're not actually paying attention.


Zeshicage85 t1_jebwbto wrote

What if the cameras shutter speed was offset? So one is always on/open? (Not sure of the accurate lingo for digital cameras)


Hushwater t1_jec8a48 wrote

By the time there is humanoid robots advanced enough to be doing their own thing something like frame rate isn't going to be problem.


DarkSpartan301 t1_jec8zc9 wrote

Maybe an array of cameras with varying framerates would fix the problem, they'd be able to use that information to see the speed it's spinning at.


BreakfastBeerz t1_jeakwwt wrote

Considering the human eye sees somewhere between 30 and 60 frames per second, and current high speed cameras can see well over 250 frames per second I think those humanoid robots will be just fine.


InjuryApart6808 t1_jears30 wrote

Our eyes don’t work like a camera.


V_es t1_jeasckz wrote

Our eyes have a limit of what we can comprehend. High speed cameras and faster data analysis- not.


InjuryApart6808 t1_jeat1kj wrote

So, according to his logic, if the human eye processes between 30-60 frames. A light flashing or fan spinning at 30-60 times per second would appear stationary.


BreakfastBeerz t1_jeattwz wrote

You mean like when you watch a fan or airplane propeller start up and the blades start to appear to slow down, then stop, then go backwards and then disappear all together?

Take a guess at what point in the video the blades are turning at ~60 times per second


InjuryApart6808 t1_jeauqfi wrote

You’re using a video captured by a camera. You’re actually proving my point. The camera is likely recording at 60 fps.


Fiberdonkey5 t1_jeaxk8c wrote

This can occur with the naked eye as well. Spinning motor shafts can often appear stationary when looking at them which is why there is a tool called a stroboscope that rapidly flashes light at variable speeds so you can visually see if the shaft has stopped spinning.


BreakfastBeerz t1_jeav3c9 wrote

You are correct, cameras work a lot better.


InjuryApart6808 t1_jeavfky wrote

Not if something is spinning at the frame rate of the camera. Which is what the post is about. Then that object would appear stationary. Human eyes don’t do that, it would appear as a blur, and we would infer that the object is moving.


BreakfastBeerz t1_jeb091n wrote

You've never watched an airplane propeller start up? It does exactly that, it appears to slow down, stop, go backwards, then it disappears.


ForumDragonrs t1_jebajwf wrote

I also see this a lot with car tires. If you watch a video of someone on a dyno, you'll likely start to see the tires slow down and then go backwards.


blueeyedkittens t1_jeb3f90 wrote

if the rotation speed is at a resonant frequency with the frame rate, they can appear stationary or appear to rotate backwards, or slowly etc