yes, it's encouraged we have a #projects-and-self-promotion channel
yes, it's encouraged we have a #projects-and-self-promotion channel
UYou don't need to modify any file. All you should do is edit your code with updated password and compile a project using
Skecth --> Export Compile Binary in Arduino IDE to generate .bin file. Now this binary file can be uploaded into target hardware i.e. on ur Arduino R4 from OTA Tab of a Blynk Dashboard. This way you can change the password, remotely from anywhere. I hope this will help. Best wishes!
Toh nice didn't see it
DHey guys, with the recent evolution in AI and Robotics what do y'all think?
Should AI-driven automation be prioritized over human workers to mitigate risks and enhance operational efficiency in industries where safety and precision are critical such as mining, construction, and manufacturing?
Considering factors such as job displacement, long-term cost implications, ethical concerns, and the evolving nature of AI capabilities.
What balance do you think should be struck between leveraging automation and maintaining a human workforce to ensure both safety and job security?
@Middleware & OS @MCU, MPU & Firmware
Should AI-driven automation be prioritized over human workers to mitigate risks and enhance operational efficiency in industries where safety and precision are critical such as mining, construction, and manufacturing?
Considering factors such as job displacement, long-term cost implications, ethical concerns, and the evolving nature of AI capabilities.
What balance do you think should be struck between leveraging automation and maintaining a human workforce to ensure both safety and job security?
@Middleware & OS @MCU, MPU & Firmware
E- By providing more training ,you can transfer human workforce to other roles.
- Government can provide restrictions to protect the workers rights and promote fair distribution of automation benefits
- The automation should supplement and not replace human workforce.
MI just wrote a long post bringing in historical examples of how previous technological revolutions were a bit sh*t to live through for the people that lost their jobs at the time but in every case has advanced humanity each time.
However discord said it was too long and refused to post it.
See the agricultural revolution, the Luddites, etc.
As I am typing on my phone, I am giving up and getting another glass of wine instead
However discord said it was too long and refused to post it.
See the agricultural revolution, the Luddites, etc.
As I am typing on my phone, I am giving up and getting another glass of wine instead
WIt's sad Discord didn't let it go through, revolutions can be tough for those affected, (i didn't go through thinking if it's a good thing or not and if it's worth it) i think i will spend the night thinking about it now 
, Enjoy your glass Sir!
, Enjoy your glass Sir!
KIdealistically I like to think we can reduce our role as engineers to improving the "efficiency" of humanity through technology. We bring new capabilities, and make old capabilities cheaper and easier and more accessible.
If we do so well that not every person needs to work for us all to have a good standard of living, I see that as a good thing. (Note on this, if embedded got fully automated, I like to think I could still flash leds on my desk for fun)
The real problem there is social / political. Less work needed should just mean more time for frolicking
If we do so well that not every person needs to work for us all to have a good standard of living, I see that as a good thing. (Note on this, if embedded got fully automated, I like to think I could still flash leds on my desk for fun)
The real problem there is social / political. Less work needed should just mean more time for frolicking
PPost it to Google Blogger, GitHub or another free website and give us a link?
DWhile training and transitioning workers to other roles seems ideal, not every industry can accommodate displaced workers with new roles at scale. Also, government restrictions might slow down technological innovation. Can we truly say automation will supplement rather than replace when the trend suggests full automation is the goal? @Edison_ngunjiri
DIt's easy to point to past revolutions and claim they advanced humanity, but they also caused immense social upheaval. The Luddites weren't just resisting change for the sake of it they saw firsthand the negative consequences for workers. Why should we assume this AI revolution will be any less disruptive or more humane?
ZAll the revolutions turned out to be more humane than we ever thought, we live longer, healthier freeer lives because these things happened. Ofcourse there will be losers but ultimately when AI is finding breast cancer where a doctor would have missed it , life is good. Disruption is key remember it's not our world, it's the blind watchmakers world.
DRevolutions indeed force society to adapt, but at what cost? While technological revolutions may eventually lead to positive outcomes, they tend to leave significant casualties in the form of lost jobs and livelihoods. Is it fair to ask current workers to endure these hardships just to benefit future generations
ZLife isn't fair
DYou're right, @ZacckOsiemo, life isn't fair, but the question is, shouldn't we strive to make it a bit more equitable, especially when we have the power to shape technological changes? It’s not just about adapting or surviving these disruptions but finding ways to balance progress with human impact. Suppose we only focus on long-term gains while ignoring the immediate human cost, aren't we missing an opportunity to innovate in a way that benefits both current and future generations?
D@ke7c2mi Reducing engineers to improve efficiency sounds more like a justification for prioritizing profit over people. If fewer people are needed, does that automatically lead to a higher standard of living for everyone, or just for those already benefiting from the technology? Less work may mean more time for frolicking but only for those who can afford it.
MLook , cutting engineers to boost efficiency sounds more like trading brains for profit. Yup, fewer people might get the job done faster, but who really gets to frolic with the extra free time? Probably not the ones left juggling more tasks. The real trick is making tech work for everyone not just the top dogs. Thoughts on how we keep that balance?
Dwell...this is a valid stance tho...the idea should be making it work for everyone @Marvee Amasi I concur with this.
what's your pick @ke7c2mi on this?
what's your pick @ke7c2mi on this?
ZNot really, every advancement in history has been made because someone crazy was obsessed with something. We don't want an equitable world. We do want a justified one. It turns out hierachies of competency matter. All surgeons are equal until your parent needs surgery then you need the best one. So we should focus on long term gain not pyrrhic ones but long term none the less.
ZAlso if you see that the world is missing an opportunity to innovate ina way that benefits the pressent and the future, the onus is on you to bring that forward. I.e lets see you innovate that way.
MYeah @ZacckOsiemo you are right cus obsession and competency drives real progress here tho and seriously no one is arguing against wanting the best when it matters most. But "justified" shouldnt mean only the elite benefit from innovation. The challenge is to ensure that as we push forward, we are not creating gaps that leave people behind. The innovation should lift us all 
, not just a select few
, not just a select fewZYou are chatting on discord with people all over the world, technology is benefitting everyone. You want equality of opportunity not equality if outcome. If they are using it better to their benefit that's amazing, you can too.
ZLife expectancy in the 1820s was 30 to 40 yrs, now it is in the 70s. That means since the industrial revolution life expectancy has doubled. Technology is not just for the elite, they just use it better, of course some of that comes down to having resources. But not so much of that, that its impossible for others.
Mtechnology has opened the doors for a lot of people yes that's a fair point 
, and it's true that we all have the opportunity to use it in different ways. I guess the key is making sure that those opportunities stay accessible, so people have the tools and support they need to use them to their full potential. It's not to be forcing equal outcomes, but more about ensuring that no one is left out of the race
, and it's true that we all have the opportunity to use it in different ways. I guess the key is making sure that those opportunities stay accessible, so people have the tools and support they need to use them to their full potential. It's not to be forcing equal outcomes, but more about ensuring that no one is left out of the raceMWell how do you think we can keep expanding access while encouraging innovation
ZNo that's not how nature works, we simply can't take everyone. That's why choices exist, they can choose to participate in advancement or left behind. You can't force progress on people.
Zthis is moot, access is prevalent. It's very very rare to find people who dont have access to choose the hard work in order to progress. Like Charlie Munger said,
All of us know what we need to do, only 1% will do it thoughMthe real win is giving more people the option to participate in that advancement if they want to. It's not about carrying everyone forward , just making sure that the door stays open for those ready to walk through it
ZThe doors have never been closed.
Dwell, I agree tho but then I tink we can aim to birth a future where competency and fairness aren't mutually exclusive, where we innovate in a way that benefits everyone, both now and for generations to come. What do you tink?
MHmm , this talk is getting interesting 
ZThe more competent you are, the fairer the world will be to you. That world already exists.
Mit feels like there’s more to the story
DObviously there is
DSo true tho ...we move
ZDon't feel, analyze. Remember you can feel anything at almost any time.
Msome people face obstacles more than just skill level, prolly it's access to education or networks or resources
MAnd the world rewards competence, sure
MBut it is clear that not everyone has the same starting point when it comes to getting there
MLife expectancy in the 1820s was 30 to 40That is the statistic at birth
If you were lucky enough to survive the various illnesses and get to 15, you had about the same chance of reaching 70 as today.
It is the advances of medicine that means more of us are surviving to 15.
ZOh I see, however this still demonstrates the advancements aren't just for the elite.
MThat however is true. It takes time (far too long!) for benefits to trickle down to the masses.
That may be the one way to make this potential AI revolution ‘fairer’
That may be the one way to make this potential AI revolution ‘fairer’
ZI agree it takes too long, on whether it should or should not I'm on the fence.
They promised me a better world with the advent of the smart phone especially with the open handset alliance, they promised me a better world with Virtual Reality and Augmented reality, they promised me a better world with decentralization and blockchain, they promised me a better world with covid and remote work. The world remained and still remains largely the same.
I am jaded as to how AI will be the magic bullet.
They promised me a better world with the advent of the smart phone especially with the open handset alliance, they promised me a better world with Virtual Reality and Augmented reality, they promised me a better world with decentralization and blockchain, they promised me a better world with covid and remote work. The world remained and still remains largely the same.
I am jaded as to how AI will be the magic bullet.
MWhile it is a ‘they’ it never will get better.
‘They’ are mainly interested in ‘them’. If it happens to benefit someone else, then that is a happy accident.
Social Media was meant to be the great leveler - letting the voice of the people be heard.
Well, we heard it and it turns out to be pictures of their cats!
‘They’ are mainly interested in ‘them’. If it happens to benefit someone else, then that is a happy accident.
Social Media was meant to be the great leveler - letting the voice of the people be heard.
Well, we heard it and it turns out to be pictures of their cats!
Treach > grasp
ZI guess it is time we get involved
TSo, that's my queue to break in with the shameless self promotion—or rather, a meetup topic: open source.
How altruistic is a lot of open source tech these days? For example, Zephyr started as a commercial RTOS built by a company that was acquired by Wind River and then open-sourced under the name Rocket and then pushed to LF—but you better believe WR is interested in converting commercial Zephyr users to VxWorks or WR Linux.
Who are the progenitors and maintainers of Zephyr and other popular open-source technologies? Does it matter?
I'd like for this to be the topic of this week's OH meetup but would also like to hear the community's thoughts here.
How altruistic is a lot of open source tech these days? For example, Zephyr started as a commercial RTOS built by a company that was acquired by Wind River and then open-sourced under the name Rocket and then pushed to LF—but you better believe WR is interested in converting commercial Zephyr users to VxWorks or WR Linux.
Who are the progenitors and maintainers of Zephyr and other popular open-source technologies? Does it matter?
I'd like for this to be the topic of this week's OH meetup but would also like to hear the community's thoughts here.
TAt best, an open source technology is something that mainly benefitted someone and in some cases gained popularity through the happy accident of also benefitting others. Then marketers realized the power of the messaging and have spun up a largely rosy image of homebrew + counter-culture + cost savings + flexibility + self-reliance that it's hard not to get on board with.
KYou're missing something here
Things taking less time should lead to more free time and frolicking
You're actually mad that the structure of society is such that everyone needs a job, i.e. at money and capitalism
To me it is crazy to think we would keep "busy work" for the sake of it, so we can give people made up tokens..... maybe you need to take a step back to see it, but this is very crazy
Things taking less time should lead to more free time and frolicking
You're actually mad that the structure of society is such that everyone needs a job, i.e. at money and capitalism
To me it is crazy to think we would keep "busy work" for the sake of it, so we can give people made up tokens..... maybe you need to take a step back to see it, but this is very crazy
KTo try and express this in a more concrete way, lets say for the sake of argument, it takes 100 hours of human labour to provide for 1000 people
We can see the % utilisation per person is 10% to maintain this. Lets say the rest of the utilisation is made up with frolicking. Society is 10% work, 90% frolick
Lets say we have an innovation, and now it only costs 50 hours to provide for 1000 people, now the % utilisation per person is 5%, and we are at 95% frolick
In your statement you claim that %frolick goes down as %utilisation goes down, but we can see that the natural effect in this system is that frolicking goes up with utilisation going down
So - go and find the mechanism that makes what you said true (and it IS true today) - and get very specifically mad at that bit
We can see the % utilisation per person is 10% to maintain this. Lets say the rest of the utilisation is made up with frolicking. Society is 10% work, 90% frolick
Lets say we have an innovation, and now it only costs 50 hours to provide for 1000 people, now the % utilisation per person is 5%, and we are at 95% frolick
In your statement you claim that %frolick goes down as %utilisation goes down, but we can see that the natural effect in this system is that frolicking goes up with utilisation going down
So - go and find the mechanism that makes what you said true (and it IS true today) - and get very specifically mad at that bit
N
