this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
1486 points (94.9% liked)

Microblog Memes

5910 readers
2888 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 235 points 9 months ago (10 children)

I do industrial automation for a living, and I just want to point out that automating things that exist purely in the digital domain is far easier than automating things like ship breaking.

[–] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 51 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Cant imagine how it even could be automated without advanced robotics. Those ships are freakin HUGE! Maybe a collection of robotic snakes with cutting lazers attached to their heads and some little scuttle bots to pick up the pieces the snakes knock off? Just cut the whole thing into 1' disks or maybe hexagons is better

[–] grue@lemmy.world 77 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Maybe a collection of robotic snakes with cutting lazers attached to their heads

[–] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago

Upvoot for the matrix

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

What do you think snakes are

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just make a huge version of those supermarket bread slicer machines and feed the ships through it.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Or better yet, build a bigger ship and use it to smash the smaller ship to pieces

[–] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Ngl a ship eating ship is metal af

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I just read The Three Body Problem, and I have some ideas on how it could be done.

[–] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Oh! One of my favorite books, have you read all three?

[–] Strobelt@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

The three book problem

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh, there is actually a fourth one by a different author but with Liu Cixin's approval. It goes deeper into the trisolarian biology than the main series. I havent read that one yet

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'd suggest skipping it. While it's a fun continuation, the writer is not nearly as good as Liu Cixin. It's definitely a fanfic

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This kind of makes me curious! I didn’t finish the third book of the original trilogy …

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Definitely try and finish the series first. The unofficial fourth is a direct continuation of some of the in-universe lore/happenings

[–] riskable@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It can be automated it would just never be worth the cost. Every ship is different and has its own requirements.

If they were all 100% exactly the same, using the same hardware in all the same places then it would be cost effective to automate their disassembly. Otherwise every single ship is a one-off edge case.

Even if they're mostly the same many will have had upgrades, repairs, and changes over time that could literally throw a wrench (that someone accidentally left inside an interior area) into the whole (automated) operation.

I think the best case scenario is to enforce shipbuilding standards and deny ships entry if they don't follow them (for loading/unloading, anyway). Then you setup standardized dry docks with robotic arms that are already preprogrammed to disassemble these standard vessels. They may need human guidance for some areas that are allowed to be non-conforming but as long as the majority of the ship adheres to the standard it'd make the whole process much smoother and more environmentally friendly.

From an environmental standpoint the real issues from these vessels isn't even the difficulty of (environmentally friendly) disassembly. It's their emissions over their working lifetime and super toxic things like anti-fouling coatings that where we have no good way to remove or dispose of them. Like, even if you rip off the outside of a ship what do you do with that toxic waste? It's nasty stuff.

[–] TruthAintEasy@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Informed and informative, upvoot!

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Definitely not terrifying

[–] ALostInquirer@lemm.ee 26 points 9 months ago (3 children)

[...] I just want to point out that automating things that exist purely in the digital domain is far easier than automating things like ship breaking.

Not that you're saying otherwise, however isn't that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, I don't see how you would do it without general AI, which is something that will be solved in the digital domain first anyway.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Eh, it could be done with non-general AI. There are a finite number of different types of things to handle, so as long as it's not thrown off by some bent steel or some missing consoles, I'd be amazed if they couldn't automate at least specific ship designs.

[–] epyon22@programming.dev 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

They still manually build ships right now what makes you think they could automate taking one apart

[–] riskable@programming.dev 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Firstly, much of shipbuilding is automated. They use robots to paint them and apply anti-fouling coatings. They also use loads and loads of automated machinery to create the steel parts that make up most of the ship. Do you think some dudes are forging rivets, beams, and pipes by hand? No, those are made by machines that make zillions of them.

Secondly, nearly every ship--even ships that seem generic like big container ships--is a custom, one-off thing. They're all bespoke (for the most part), being engineered for specific purposes, routes, and they even have "upgrades" for companies that pay extra (e.g. nicer quarters, extra antenna masts, more and special equipment mounting options, etc).

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They use robots to paint them and apply anti-fouling coatings. They also use loads and loads of automated machinery to create the steel parts that make up most of the ship. Do you think some dudes are forging rivets, beams, and pipes by hand? No, those are made by machines that make zillions of them.

The missing piece here is assembly, and disassembly is like 95% of what goes into recycling from what I understand.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Notice how my post is not talking about the present tense.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Automation requires very high precision/consistency in the parts you want to work on. I seriously doubt that after many years of wear, tear, and impromptu repairs, those ships would be anywhere near consistent enough.

[–] echodot 1 points 9 months ago

In fact they cannot automate the disassembly of cars even though their construction is highly automated. We just grind them up in a big grinder and separate the materials. So basically the same thing as with ships just on a smaller scale.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

Automation does not require very high precision though it does require a modicum of consistency. Millions of vibratory bowl feeders with huge tolerances on their alignment mechanisms demonstrate this fact ("Damnit! A part got caught again... Gerry! Loosen that tolerance screw much farther out so that won't happen again" LOL).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

A single repair or modification would ruin the entire automation process. One single screw off by a single mm type thing.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

This depends on the system. Mechatronics engineers spend a lot of time learning and figuring out how to make systems that can withstand edge cases like an incorrect screw size. There's whole engineering/mechatronics disciplines around automation reliability (though much of it involves lots and lots of sensors and cameras, haha).

The way they test these things is by intentionally throwing bad parts into the mix at various stages of their automation. Something like a screw being too big/small is a trivial matter that won't make it through a system or facility designed by professionals.

The real problem that really throws a wrench into every mechatronics engineer's carefully-planned automated masterworks is people doing things like throwing wrenches into their carefully-planned automated masterworks 😁

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Not that you’re saying otherwise, however isn’t that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?

You're solving for the wrong problem from the perspective of people with money investing money to solve these problems.

  • Shipbreaking, while dangerous for the workers, isn't expensive because it is done in far flung countries with workers that have low wages, few protections for safety, and long term health consequences.

  • Art and writing (for western consumption) requires educated and talented people which are expensive to employ.

People with money, looking for a return, want that return their spending, not reduce human suffering.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Processing the digital world is just the first step. You can't just build a safe autonomous ship disassembly robot without making sure your algorithms are actually sound. Look at self driving cars, they're far from being safe and acceptable. Jumping straight into this problem without testing the shit out of your code in a virtual world is a mistake.

[–] CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago

I mean automating it would certainly be a challenge but the first step would be building tools and robotics to allow human operators to more safely and effectively manage the tasks. Then you streamline the industrialized processes. Then you think about automating things.

But this is all really an economic problem, not a technical one. Software tools have minimal resource costs (compared to building/destroying a ship) but require skilled (expensive) laborers to operate. So to cut costs in any digital field you need to get rid of the expensive laborers. Thus the push for AI to replace any computer-bound work. Physical labor is already considered dirt-cheap in our fucked society, and no one is rushing to add expensive tools in fields where disposable people will suffice.

I sympathize immensely with the OP image's final point, but "working for the right company" isn't going to fix it. Reorganizing society is necessary, rethinking what we culturally value and uphold.

[–] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think the solution for ship breakers is for the job to be a highly paid respectable job with protections. In other words the technology that desperately needs to disrupt this industry is probably... unions

[–] arin@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Unions protect against automation that reduces labor hours.

[–] echodot 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah I think that's the point. Ship breaking is apparently poorly paid so they need unions.

I also not sure how much scope there is for automation on tasks like this as each shit will be different there isn't going to be a huge amount of repeatable action

[–] Strobelt@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Your autocorrect is amazing

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

Honestly more unions should fight for company stock for employees or similar stake programs. As we hopefully get more automated having workers interests aligned against it seems like a losing fight.

[–] XEAL@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

Finally, some fucking sense into all of this.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah exactly, I work in AI and robotics for medicine, and im so goddamn sick and tired of these people and their absolute god-awful uneducated takes on AI.

[–] echodot 3 points 9 months ago

And this guy's claiming to be a programmer too which makes it doubly worse because he really should know better.

It stems from people who seem to think that having the idea is the hard part, and the implementation is just a matter of time and money.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Shh. Just give one of them dancing robot dogs an impact driver attachment. They'll figure it out in a week.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

Once we perfect doing it in software, then we can graduate to hardware. Today, digital paintings; tomorrow, real paintings; next year, tear down a fucking ship!

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is really cool job description I haven't seen pop up before! Would you mind sharing what type of things you need to automate? It sounds so interesting, I never really understood why factory line jobs should exist for example * because the work is dangerous, the opposite of stimulating/engaging (works for some sure), and just generally overall depressing unpleasant places to work. We SHOULD be striving for a world where humans don't have to do such menial unfufilling work.

*very superficially, all the nuance that makes it continue to be necessary and exist I understand)

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

I work in the auto industry, so programming the machines that make the car parts. Humans are still involved because getting machines to handle changing conditions is very slow, expensive, and still winds up unreliable in a lot of cases. The simple process of picking a randomly oriented part up out of a bin and placing it accurately on a fixture is actually very difficult for a machine to do, when compared to how easily a human can accomplish the exact same task.

[–] Opafi@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago