the cost-effectiveness/performance factor benchmark is interesting, but it feels slightly misleading - I just don't see how "average peak torque of all actuated DoFs, normalized by the robot's size" is related to measuring "accessibility and customizability" of the robot.
What is interesting is that on their own metric, the Berkley Humanoid is only twice as expensive as the Berkley Humanoid Lite but has more than twice the "performance factor" (0.36 vs 0.14).
It shows they threw away too much while creating the lite version.
Depends on the relative market size for performance factor though. If 90 percent of the market is captured by a 0.14 performance factor then that extra in price could be put towards solving another problem.
Rather, I think we can say based on those datapoints that for their design, performance scales superlinearly with cost. Not surprising given fixed costs!
The comment criticizes a chart or metric comparing "performance factor" to torque and degrees of freedom (DOFs) in robotics, calling it "the most silly thing" the commenter, a licensed mechanical engineer, has seen. By referencing "Kony 2012"—a widely mocked internet campaign—they emphasize their point about the chart's perceived absurdity. ([The performance factor vs. torque vs. DOFs is the most silly thing as ...](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43801052&utm_source=cha...))
The critique likely stems from the idea that combining performance factor, torque, and DOFs into a single comparison oversimplifies complex engineering concepts. Torque and DOFs are distinct mechanical properties, and "performance factor" is a vague term without a clear definition. Such a chart might misleadingly suggest direct correlations where none exist, leading to confusion or misinterpretation.
In essence, the commenter is expressing frustration over what they see as a technically flawed and potentially misleading representation of robotic performance metrics.
A) bring down cost and expand the design space for the hardware and
B) minimise the barriers to working on the "software" problems where there still seem to be huge areas of mostly unaddressed challenges.
An open source platform seems like a good thing for both.
It shows they threw away too much while creating the lite version.
The comment criticizes a chart or metric comparing "performance factor" to torque and degrees of freedom (DOFs) in robotics, calling it "the most silly thing" the commenter, a licensed mechanical engineer, has seen. By referencing "Kony 2012"—a widely mocked internet campaign—they emphasize their point about the chart's perceived absurdity. ([The performance factor vs. torque vs. DOFs is the most silly thing as ...](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43801052&utm_source=cha...))
The critique likely stems from the idea that combining performance factor, torque, and DOFs into a single comparison oversimplifies complex engineering concepts. Torque and DOFs are distinct mechanical properties, and "performance factor" is a vague term without a clear definition. Such a chart might misleadingly suggest direct correlations where none exist, leading to confusion or misinterpretation.
In essence, the commenter is expressing frustration over what they see as a technically flawed and potentially misleading representation of robotic performance metrics.
https://youtu.be/0Gkl1H2eKsM?t=99
Servitude: Robot Waiter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsUetUzXlg
Empathy: Broken Robot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXrbqXPnHvE