Posted on 11/08/2023 6:26:01 AM PST by BenLurkin
Racist Black robot
The development team is responsible for this, as well as the company that sells it.
No excuses.
Remember how car manufacturers were, and are sued for problems?
If that stifles the production and implementation of robots, so be it.
The worker as last heard singing the Dr. Pepper song... I’m a pepper, you’re a ...SNATCH!
Probably a union member. They will get him a good lawyer.
But there was one man who taught us to fight, to storm the wire of the camps, to smash those metal motherfuckers into junk. He turned it around. He brought us back from the brink. His name is Connor. John Connor.
— Kyle Reese
Possibly.
Im aware of a situation where the company that bought some metal products production equipment and then removed all of the programmed safeties to “encourage faster production” without telling the operators resulting in injuries.
We dont know what this guys job was, did he twiddle with anything? Was it in some way his job to twiddle with such things? As someone who is not an attorney nor involved in a type of job that has dangerous equipment, should it even be possible to remove “a safety”? In the example above the safety that was removed was part of the programming, does that make it in any way, from a legal or moral perspective, different than a physical safety? I once worked in a facility that had equipment that slammed high speed objects into 3 foot long razor blades and had bolted guards all around the razors with signs to remind people not to remove the guards or stick anything in there. I bet youll never guess where people lost their hands.
Why would a stacking robot be designed to slam anything fragile and prone to loss into another object? Was the robot working correctly but had been moved? Did maintenance result in the conveyor moving?
Without more detailed info in the article and no legal education specifically geared toward this type of situation, this is all just monkeys flinging poop.
...Oh wait, no.
He WAS the installation safety guy.
Is the gun company responsible if the guys in quality control insist on putting their head in front of the muzzle when firing?
Is the vehicle company responsible when the safety team runs in front of a moving truck?
Walking next to a powered up robotic arm? Get the hell out of here...
“Only when the boxes push back?”
Makes sense. The robot must be programmed to prevent box escape by any means necessary.
I’d consider this a ‘cobot’ (robot that works along side a human) - and this is exactly the reason you’re not seeing them here yet, they need to be developed against functional safety standards - much like aircraft, both hardware components, hardware design, as well as the software design and development processes.
It’s extremely expensive. It’s the difference between ‘making something work’ and making sure it is safe to use. It’s the same reason that robots not developed by these standards have a “safe state” which is, generally, multiple switches indicating that a gate is closed and operation can begin within a fenced area with no people.
Because of the fatality, I can’t applaud; otherwise, that pun would have merited an A+...
I know, I know, it was a pretty stupid and cold reply.
Frankly, I wonder if this kind of death or injury is kept from the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.