Overview of the competition series itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyYsCyMC-0w
Video of the 2018 Finals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRNQfaf_Cr0
Bloomberg video about the RoboMaster S1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPzq1DoPnXs
Given the popularity of games like Fortnite, the shooting dynamic seems somewhat inevitable. They may as well shoot at other toy robots and learn to program in the process.
Meanwhile this isn't a terrible price for what amounts to a programmable ground drone and even is just a fun looking toy
As I can see in my home country (ex Soviet Union), parents have no problems when little kids play with guns, tanks or planes. Germans, for example, avoid this. I have mixed feelings, I love peace, but the guns also exist in this world.
Also, how long until someone recreates the famous square scene with a lego character and 3 of these?
EDIT: This video from the promo page where it is hunting down a child - https://www1.djicdn.com/assets/uploads/v/1b34c0e069531a08639...
This would have been great without the cannon, with the cannon it feels... off.
I don't think that's a western perspective, I think that's your perspective. The actual western perspective likes robots, toys, toy weapons, robotic toys, and robotic toy weapons, and all the various combinations thereof. Nerf and Transformers have been cultural staples for decades.
This isn't even the first commercial toy robot with a toy gun on it: https://www.amazon.com/Nerf-Creatures-TerraDrone-Discontinue...
Or the second: https://www.amazon.com/TerraScout-Nerf-N-Strike-Official-Rec...
Or the third: https://www.amazon.com/Unknown-782-USB-Missile-Launcher/dp/B...
Or the hundredth: https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Imports-Control-Military-Airs...
I guess you could argue the programmable nature of this somehow sets it apart, but I don't see how.
> Is the culture gap that big, or is there another reason?
I don't think the culture gap is where you imagine.
But they are not educational. Educational + has a cannon. There is some cognitive dissonance right there. My opinion.
> toy, noun, an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.
A model of something is not the thing itself, therefore, toys are not guns, thus a toy gun is fine for children to have. Because it's a toy, and as you say, toys are not guns. :)
(Sorry if this comes off snarky, but seriously, step back and consider your argument: Lots of toys, as per the definition above, are models or real things. Cars aren't toys; does that mean toy cars should be banned in case a 6 year old plows his 1:75 scale diecast model car into a crowd? Obviously not. Other common toys include airplanes, kitchen appliances and tools. You seem to have misunderstood the entire point of toys. If the toy is itself dangerous, that's an issue. If the toy is a model of something which is dangerous, well, that's why the kid has the toy and not the real thing. Ideally they may even learn some caution with the safe toy version.)
To each their own, I suppose...
The #2 consumer drone maker in the world after DJI, Parrot from France, also sells an educational drone for kids with a cannon (it's an add-on but gets sold together in a popular set), and has done so for years: The Parrot Mambo.
There's countless other toys for children that include weaponry and/or glamorize it for that matter, like just about any toy for boys sold in the US throughout the 80s, or so it feels like. I'm also quite sure LEGO has sold sets with motors and plans to build catapult contraptions. Nothing about this is "super icky from a Western perspective".
I am deeply concerned about many things going on within China (e.g. Xinjiang), but this willful othering and breakdown of empathy has to stop. The bottom line here is that some people think it's fun and/or will sell well to have a toy that shoots things. You can absolutely criticize that, but it's a culturally universal phenomenon and doesn't need to divide us along borders.
I was wondering if the culture there makes it more acceptable. I understand it is a poor question to ask, as it immediately sets the tone that China is doing something wrong. Perhaps I should have worded it better.
Bare with me for a second though. I grew up watching western spaghetti films, playing with bb guns and thinking of cowboys as heroes. I was born and raised in Europe, not in the US (just to see how much things changed in a few decades).
And I would not want my kids to grow up like that. Back then, that was normal. Today, luckily is not.
In the past, having robots that fight each other was cool, because it was in the realm of fantasy. Now that drones and unmanned vehicles are a reality, and the next step is to make them AI and metadata fully powered. Having robots fight each other begins to feel poor in taste, because the jump from toy to war machine becomes blurry.
I was just wondering what the general sentiment and how the culture in China is in regards to the above. Zero anti-sentiment, except honest questions.
As I see it, the world is a violent place, always has been and always will be, by not teaching your kids about it all you're doing is making them irrationally afraid of it. Then they want to be extra safe from it so they support politicians who says they'll keep them safe. Of course, safety involves constant control and oversight by the government but to those raised without violence it is a good tradeoff.
I'm not Chinese and think this stuff is cool.
China has strict control over gun-like toys, and it is difficult to buy gun toys that can launch ammunition on the market.
Story: A women sell balloon shooting game had been sentenced for violating the gun ban. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B6%99%E6%98%A5%E8%8F%AF%E6... （You should use google translate)
In fact I'm worry about is RoboMaster S1 safe for children when I just knew it?
I found faq page said that it's meets the safety requirements of major countries and regions around the world. https://www.dji.com/robomaster-s1/faq
It does not indicate age limit, but considering the complexity of assembly, I think it's most suitable for college students with programming skills.
And the adults around me think it’s cool.
I don't get this finger pointing, can we please solve real gun violence in our midsts before going for educational resources?
You are explicitly trying to put it out of context and I don't understand why.
Thats tracking and object and not "hunting". Even the hover link which makes that video visible mentions this:
> People Recognition
> Thanks to advanced computer vision technology, the S1 is able to identify and track any individual you select in the S1’s FOV.
Another issue is that gimbal adds to video quality but also to cost.
Finally with the hype, I was expecting a nice ready to fly FPV drone.
So I'm a bit meh about this toy.
I know I could vpn it but I don't think that should be necessary.
(robocode seems to still be going, though I haven't looked at it in a while..)
- Start with a DonkeyCar with Jetson Nano
- add mecanum wheels (why not three instead of four?)
- add a weapon or laser pointer or whatever
On the other hand, do we really want to push gamification of autonomous weapon systems?
Interested in installing a webserver like flask on here.
> To comply with local laws and regulations, the RoboMaster S1 will not be sold in Washington, D.C. or North Dakota.
My daughter was turned off from robotics at a young age. She joined firstego league and there was a ton of domineering "boy energy" in her school. She enjoyed creating and personalizing the robots in unique ways, the boys wanted "to win".
This is what happens when you have a bunch of dudes designing educational robot toys.
If we accept your premise to be true, then we must cater to the girls so robotics can be more inclusive. Again your words: "creating and personalizing the robots in unique ways". Maybe DJI can provide robotics which is less violent, catered for girls. I don't know, maybe something like Baymax, or Wall-E.
The other side of coin is we reject your premise. Boys and girls have no differences. Boys want to win. Girls want to win also. If this alternative premise is true, then either we must push the girls to be more aggressive (want to win) or discourage the boys who are aggressive (want to win).
I am interested in other people's opinion about this. No, I don't have answer for this question.
So according to you, the situation of boys like "more military and violent" type robotic toys and girls like "more creative" type robotics toys, could be caused by social construct (role modeling and social pressure).
In that case, what should we do as society? Should we let this social construct be because it is harmless? Should we uproot this social construct as society because this construct is harmful for children?
The second question is what do you mean by "let people be people" in the parent's context? Should DJI produce another kind of robotics toys (which is less violent)? Or if a kid who happens to be a girl and does not like "violent" robotics toys should accept the situation and just find another toy? Or she should learn to love "violent" robotics toys?
Because it most often is, boys typically like to compete more than girls do. I'm not going to quote studies on this, just basing this on my experience growing up and now as an adult being around small kids.
Unless you’re making the case that absent cultural conditioning, women are biologically less interested in “winning” than men?
The average man is biologically different than the average female. Testosterone alone can explain why men are generally more violent and sexually aggressive than women. And there are many many many other factors in effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/
Why do people get angry about facts, there is no value judgment in saying "The average women is inclined to do X while the average man is more inclined to do Y", it doesn't mean "every woman HAS to do X and every man HAS to do Y". Why would every animals of different sex present different behaviours but somehow humans are all 100% equal and every difference is due to "society" ? Is biology a social construct now ?
I replied to the claim that wanting “to win” is a masculine trait, and compared it to the feminine trait of personalization/creativity. It seems pretty far fetched to claim that biology causes boys to be more interested in winning Lego programming competitions.
Why ? The "Lego programming competitions" is a detail there, the important part is "does winning at X triggers the same biological pathways as winning at Y ?" and "are men more inclined to be competitive ?".
For example men are more inclined to do dangerous activities for fun, like racing cars or rock climbing. Does it means that biology ""wants"" men to race cars, no, just that racing cars trigger biological pathways somehow perceived as more beneficial for men than female.
Study history and biology and I think you'll probably find that society used to accept nature but today it is trying to romantizise nature and blame it on culture, while the opposite is more true.
Because the same processes that make male and female bodies have different structure and work differently make male and female brains have different structure and work differently.
That was 7 years ago, now she is in an all girls high school. The same sex education has provided a much less distracting environment. (Don't want to get off topic but I could go on and on about same sex education)
From your own words, it sounds like your daughter enjoys being aesthetically creative rather than technically competitive. In which case, why are you bitter about a drone company being a drone company?
It's true that I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about how to solve the problem. But it annoys me when a billion dollar company doesn't seem to either.
It is literally not their responsibility, nor should it be. If girls aren't interested in battling or racing or "winning", then giving them competitive battling and racing games might not be a good choice.
I was just sharing some female perspectives. If this wasn't so expensive, I'd buy 2 for myself.
As a parent, I don't think there's a need to teach the next generation ok kids about AI in the context of autonomous killing machines...
I have a son and a daughter, and I don't like that approach for either of them. I think if boys or girls are having fun, that should be encouraged and used as a motivator. If "killing machines" is what motivates the boys to program robots, so be it. Although I don't think this toy robot can actually kill anything, so that is just hyperbole.
And presumably it goes further - will I be blamed if I give my son a water pistol, because I encourage his toxic masculinity? Where does it stop?
The problem that I observed is that my daughter's co-ed elementary STEM program attracted a lot of hyperactive boys. On top of that, the curriculum flipped some primal switches. What I called the "boy energy" spilled over to my daughter's experience and made it crappy for her.
She has been in a same sex educational setting for the past several years and it has been great. FWIW, she loves Chem, Bio and Theater.
p.s. I am enjoying this conversation even though I must be getting downvoted a lot since my karma is negative. LOL
I don't think it is an inevitable outcome of having boys in the class, in fact, many boys also suffer from the behavior of such classmates.
However, if single-sex education helps, why not.
What irks me is when there are STEM courses just for girls, without similar offers for boys. In my country, significant amounts of government money are available for that kind of thing. Firms and organizations also do it, presumably for marketing purposes (displaying how progressive they are by encouraging women in tech).
An example that comes to mind is Google sponsoring women traveling to their Google I/O event. It's nice to encourage women in tech. But if there is a woman reluctant to go, being convinced by being offered money, and a man who would love to go but can't afford it, I feel something is amiss. Although I give the companies that they have their own incentives, namely getting their hands on cheaper software developers. The market for male developers might be tapped out, so it is understandable if they set their eyes on women.
If we can conclude that it's society's fault (nature/nurture) women don't like STEM, then we can change society until women are interested.
If the reality is that women are uninterested in STEM from a biological standpoint, then it's harder to manipulate to get women interested.
The people who are most concerned with this problem are really fighting the idea that any of this is biologically responsible.
In my opinion, the main reason for that is that they have lots of other interests, too, and they have more options than men (being less dependent on a good income). For that reasons alone it is to be expected that less women choose engineering. Biological aspects might play a part, too, of course (apart from having a womb, I mean).
Can you explain these three points? I really don't know what you mean by them. I assume men would have the same amount of interests and "options", and don't know why being dependant on good income has anything to do with it.
For example you can study literature, or work with children. Another option only women have is becoming a mother, staying at home or working only part time. Some men do that, too, but as a man you can not really count on making that your career. Mothers have the first choice of staying home or not (because they have the wombs).
Other things, like being more sociable, might be affected by biology. I am not sure. Maybe being more popular as a kid makes people more inclined to take up a people facing job.
I love maths, and even I find it difficult to stay focused on it if I am not forced to do so. Maybe it is different for other people, but I could imagine that is also a factor that makes women drop out. Not because they don't like STEM, but because they don't have the pressure to stay in it.
Another way to think about it: what do women do who don't go into STEM? We are trained now to think that they fail in life, but the reality is that they usually go on to do other interesting things.
I have had female colleagues in IT who told me they would try this now, and they could always drop out and have kids if they don't like it. Only one of them stayed in tech, and she became a teacher. That was in a job where they ended up putting the IT staff into the basement, while marketing and HR resided on the first floor with big windows. Not the only time I witnessed that attitude towards tech workers.
This almost looks like it's satire, but it's completely real and for sale, just $499!
Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM
Although it is hard, I try to avoid fighting games and media for my kids as much as I can and try to teach them competing in more creative ways...
Do you also forbid water blasters in the hot summer?
As you say, those playful fights are a natural impulse. It is also not true that you can solve every problem without violence.
I'm expecting people to chime up with "what about the girls?", though. Presumably those battle bots might be considered off putting to girls, putting them to a severe disadvantage because they miss out on their STEM education. (An argument I would also consider bullshit, but those are the times).
Btw Rudolf Steiner (of Waldorf School fame) would also outlaw ball games, at least soccer. After all, the ball could be mistaken for a head and it could train kids to kick heads.
1) they learn to have fun without the need to feel superiour (ball games need some supervision in that regard though)
2) they learn emotional intelligence, especially for activities that require collaboration (surfing not so much though)
people tend to miss, that in the early years many inner brain functions and predispositions, especially emotional regulation get tuned for the rest of the life...
And it can also train emotional intelligence to win or lose gracefully in games, and try again.
What will your kids do when they encounter somebody who "feels superior" later in life? Like an actual superior, perhaps?
here it is fighting...
This particular robot though is hard to repurpose (e.g. put additional sensors on top, e.g. to measure things or additional actors to move things or have other meaningful impact)
commercially it makes sense, like a facebook bubble does, educationally it is limited
You can use "macros" in the fight. Regardless, this robot is a vision-enabled robot after all. You can use it as a ordinary AI robot anyway. I think the price still make sense as there are few consumer programmable robots with mecanum wheels.