Apportioning blame is one thing the authorities will not want to do:
"The TSIB is the air, marine and rail accidents and incidents investigation authority in Singapore. Its mission is to promote transport safety through the conduct of independent investigations into air, marine and rail accidents and incidents.
The sole objective of TSIB’s safety investigations is the prevention of transport accidents and incidents. The safety investigations do not seek to apportion blame or liability. Accordingly, TSIB reports should not be used to assign blame or determine liability."
And:
"The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.
Accordingly, it is inappropriate that [UK] AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose."
Apportioning blame is how you lose transparency in air accident investigations.
It's awful. I was impressed by the video and the technology, but the presentation style is irritating.
I felt especially sorry for the people working at the Rwanda site just trying to do their jobs efficiently, while he mucks about being fake-excited about everything. There's almost an air of "smile and nod and hope he goes away soon" about it
Other considerations aside, he says the robot is an entry for Pi Wars 2022.
The Pi Wars rules state:
"The core controller of the robot should be a Raspberry Pi. This includes all microcomputer models of the Pi (such as the Pi 3, Pi 4, Pi Zero, Compute Module) and also the Raspberry Pi Pico."
and
"Additional Microcontrollers, such as Arduinos, micro:bits etc may be used on the robot but the Raspberry Pi must be in overall control"
I live in the UK, and the similar law is called the Digital Economy Act, and specific regulations would be named something like the Adult Content (Access by Minors) Regulations
Why do American lawmakers feel the need to make ridiculous acronyms for their laws? It's genuinely baffling. All it does is make it look like they're not taking it seriously.
Don't forget the Build Back Better Plan which got renamed to the "Inflation Reduction Act" even though the CBO estimated that the bill would have no statistically significant effect on inflation. The assholes in congress straight up lie to the American public with the names of their bills.
It is only a small group of people who seriously consider the names of bills, and an even smaller group who gets upset if the bill doesn’t match the name. The US does not dominate the globe relative to most other cultures because we make everything at random, we are extremely good at propaganda/marketing
This stuff is starting to leak into the UK. Why? Because it's not policy that's directed at outcomes, it's policy that's directed at getting particular media coverage. It's part of the permanent campaign. If you pass a bill that improves lives for hundreds of millions of citizens and nobody remembers the name, you wasted your time and don't get re-elected.
Americans have a very direct no BS way of communicating. It's a drug-store and not a "Chemist's". It's a f'ing elevator and not a "lift". You go to the "cinema" and we go to the movies (shit's moving around). Dustbin? Trashcan...
The legislative bills have always had very embarrassing propaganda names though. It plays into the George Creel media industry the US government has always favored.
Elevator is what it is, elevate is what it does. If we wanted to use 'lift' we'd have to call it a lifter. I don't care for either term because I take elevators/lifters down too, but I don't want to have to change to calling it a 'descender' depending on what floor I'm on either.
"The TSIB is the air, marine and rail accidents and incidents investigation authority in Singapore. Its mission is to promote transport safety through the conduct of independent investigations into air, marine and rail accidents and incidents.
The sole objective of TSIB’s safety investigations is the prevention of transport accidents and incidents. The safety investigations do not seek to apportion blame or liability. Accordingly, TSIB reports should not be used to assign blame or determine liability."
And:
"The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.
Accordingly, it is inappropriate that [UK] AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose."
Apportioning blame is how you lose transparency in air accident investigations.