Posted 2014-07-29 16:59:37 GMT
In our quest to make a robotic hand, we procured an awesome actuator,
This marvelous device can not only spin but also go to a precise goal position, and hold it against varying torque, using its mighty 72MHz processor to adjust as necessary.
We wanted to use the usb2ax to control it. To our surprise this is actually impossible out of the box, as oddly enough, the MX 28T is programmed to start off listening at 57142.9 baud and the usb2ax can only use 1MHz. This is all the more bizarre because the base clock serial clock of the MX 28T is 1MHz or 2MHz depending how you think about it.
I guess we could have tried to do something cool with a serial port as this is quite close to 57600, but we didn't and we got another controller to program the poor MX-28T which lives on a nice bus to change register 4 to value 1 so we could talk to it.
Then everything was hunky dory. The servo is surprisingly strong!
Post a comment
Posted 2014-04-30 16:39:01 GMT
1 watching live
There are many choices in software engineering that are visible only
to the developers on the project: for example, the separation of
responsibilities into different parts of the program are (hopefully)
invisible to the user. These choices can descend into a question of
personal taste and I personally lean towards simplicity. My experience
has shown that people tend to create complex
hierarchies, only to have them hide a single implementation. What's
the point in that? On the other hand, there are architectural
decisions that affect the way the program behaves. For example,
whether processing occurs on a server or mobile device ends up
changing how the system can be used.
I want to bring up an underused architectural choice: the defined memory layout persisted to disk by the operating system via mmap. All malloc memory on modern UN*X systems is mmap'd. But explicitly choosing a file and mapping that into the memory space of the program means it can persist across crashes. And it doesn't just persist in terms of storage on a backing device, but the OS is aware the pages are mapped into memory, so on start-up there will be no disk read, no serialization delay and everything is ready. In many systems the effort of reading in data, whatever trivial transformation is being performed, can be extremely costly in terms of CPU time (instructions and dcache thrashing). With a mmap'd file, this time can be reduced to nothing.
One very key architectural decision for a system is the degree of reliability that it should possess. This is an explicit trade-off between the rapidity of development (in particular the level of indoctrination needed before new contributors are able to augment the feature set) and the operational stability. By preserving state explicitly to memory backed files, several classes of unexpected events causing the program to crash can be recovered from with minimal disruption. The benefit here is that the system can be developed rapidly with code reviews focusing on data integrity and paying less attention to complex interactions that can lead to crashes.
Modern CPUs have the ability to arbitrarily (generally at a 4kB granularity) map memory addresses as visible to a program to physical RAM addresses. The technique I am advocating here is a way of exploiting this hardware functionality in conjunction with operating system support via the mmap call (that turns a file into a range of memory addresses). It is quite possible to share mmap regions across processes so this gives a very high bandwidth unsynchronized interprocess communication channel. Additionally, the regions can be marked read-only (another nice capability afforded by CPUs) so data-corruption failure cases can be avoided entirely.
The main implementation difficulty with using a mmap'd region is that
pointers into it must be relative to its base address. Suppose one
were to try to persist a linked list into such a region. Each
next pointer in the list is relative to the base address of the
region. There are multiple approaches: store the base address in a
separate (maybe global) variable, and add it each time, or try to mmap
each region to a well-known start address (and fail if it cannot
obtain that address). Generally with some trickery it is possible to
exploit the memory remapping capabilities of the underlying CPU to
reduce this overhead (i.e. store the base offset in a segment or other
register). Each of these alternatives has advantages and
disadvantages which can be debated; in practice, once the idea of
persisting state to mmap files is introduced into an architecture,
there are various reasons to try to use multiple regions (e.g. to
support fixed-sized and non-fixed-size records, and to enable atomic
exchange of multiple versions of the state).
Though there are low-level opportunities, this technique can actually be extremely beneficial in garbage-collected scripting languages where dealing with large amounts of data is generally inefficient. By mmap'ing a region and then accessing into it, the overhead of creating multitudes of small interlinked items can be reduced hugely. Large amounts of data can be processed without garbage collection delays. Additionally, the high cost of text-processing can be paid just once, when first building up the data-structure and later manipulations of it can proceed very rapidly, and interactive exploration becomes very convenient. The instant availability of data can reinvigorate machine learning work-flows where iteration speed from experiment to experiment is a constraining factor.
Despite the advantages, this technique is not widely exploited, which is why I'm writing about it. For Lisp there is manardb, and in industry there are several very large systems of the order of petabytes of RAM which use this idea heavily. Consider it for your next project!
Post a comment
Posted 2014-04-24 17:02:09 GMT
How to compare the cost of energy? Each different source is traditionally traded in different units (kWh, therm, gallon). Here I take the most recent information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose (the Bay Area) and digest it into kWh.
|Energy source||Cost per kWh in USD cents||Relative cost||Efficiency estimate||Cost per usable kWh||Notes|
|Natural gas (utility)||4.5||1||25%||(18?)||29.3 kWh per therm, efficiency estimate based on CNG vehicle which is unfair comparison|
|Petrol (gasoline)||11.1||2.5||25-30%||44.4||33.4 kWh per gallon|
|Electricity (mains)||22.1||4.9||90%||24.6||Most convenient source of energy!|
The cost of obtaining energy from solar installations is becoming competitive with grid electricity but is still much more expensive than other energy sources (particularly natural gas!).
Deciding in practice between which energy source to use is tricky. For example, if you have a plug-in hybrid car, should you charge it from the mains or from a petrol station? That depends on its efficiency per mile traveled from the different sources (normally much higher for electricity) and also on the charging efficiency, as optimistically 10-20% but sometimes even more of the mains charge is wasted and not stored in the battery.
EDIT 20140424: Added estimates of usable energy in terms of efficiency of a motor. For heating, much higher efficiency can be obtained from the cheaper sources like gas (e.g. some people estimate 70-80%).
Post a comment
Posted 2014-04-20 07:08:40 GMT
There's an awesome tool to keep UN*X /etc directories under revision control. In theory this is where all the system configuration should be. Of course it tends to leak out, but it's a start :)
One missing piece is the list of installed packages: surely this is the main overview of a systems configuration?
Anyway, that's easy to add to etckeeper, here's the script that I use
set -x set -e apt-get install -qy etckeeper git etckeeper uninit -f perl -pi -e 's/VCS="bzr"/VCS="git"/' /etc/etckeeper/etckeeper.conf cat > /etc/etckeeper/post-install.d/00-vii-etc-package-list <<EOF #! /bin/sh etckeeper list-installed > /etc/etckeeper/vii-installed-packages.list EOF chmod +x /etc/etckeeper/post-install.d/00-vii-etc-package-list etckeeper init
and it's easy to run on a new server with cat ~/Junk/setup-etckeeper.sh | ssh root@newserver bash -s
Of course one could set up chef or puppet or something but with just a handful of machines the goal of better configuration management is not automation but clarity. This is a debugging tool so you can figure out what happened when something broke and potentially helpful for reverting.
Post a comment
Posted 2014-04-05 21:07:57 GMT
1 watching live
OpenCV is the most widely used open-source vision library. It lets you detect faces in photographs or video feeds with very little code.
There are a few tutorials on the Internet explaining how to use an affine transform to rotate an image with OpenCV -- they don't at all handle the issue that rotating a rectangle inside its own bounds will generally cut off the corners, so the shape of the destination image needs to be changed. That's a bit sad, as doing it properly is very little code:
def rotate_about_center(src, angle, scale=1.): w = src.shape h = src.shape rangle = np.deg2rad(angle) # angle in radians # now calculate new image width and height nw = (abs(np.sin(rangle)*h) + abs(np.cos(rangle)*w))*scale nh = (abs(np.cos(rangle)*h) + abs(np.sin(rangle)*w))*scale # ask OpenCV for the rotation matrix rot_mat = cv2.getRotationMatrix2D((nw*0.5, nh*0.5), angle, scale) # calculate the move from the old center to the new center combined # with the rotation rot_move = np.dot(rot_mat, np.array([(nw-w)*0.5, (nh-h)*0.5,0])) # the move only affects the translation, so update the translation # part of the transform rot_mat[0,2] += rot_move rot_mat[1,2] += rot_move return cv2.warpAffine(src, rot_mat, (int(math.ceil(nw)), int(math.ceil(nh))), flags=cv2.INTER_LANCZOS4)
The affine transformation of the rotation has to be combined with the affine transformation of translation, from the center of the original image to the center of the destination image. An affine transformation in 2D is a 2x2 matrix A and a translation 2x1 vector a - it takes a source point p = (x,y) to a destination: Ap + a. Combining two transforms Ap + a and Bp + b, doing A first then B, one gets B(Ap + a) + b - another affine transform with matrix BA and vector Ba + b.
In this case, we are combining a rotation with a translation; A translation as an affine transform has the identity 2x2 matrix I and a movement vector m, so is represented by Ip + m, and we want to first translate to the new center, then rotate about that, so we take the rotation Rp + r after applying Ip + m, which gives Rp + Rm + r, which explains why we have to only add two coefficients.
PS. Sadly, numpy interprets the multiplication operator * not as matrix multiplication if it considers the inputs to be vectors of vectors rather than matrices, so we have to explicitly write np.dot.
PPS. We use the Lanczos interpolation which is generally good for scaling up but not for scaling down very small; that should be adapted given the application.
PPPS. The interaction with Python is much improved with the cv2 module, but there are inescapably some rough edges as numpy has a different co-ordinate ordering than OpenCV. Also, for some reason OpenCV persists in using units like degrees instead of radians, and so on. In numpy, the co-ordinates in an image array are accessed in [y,x] order, as in vertical increasing downwards first, followed by horizontal increasing rightwards second. In OpenCV, sizes are given as (width, height), the opposite order.
Post a comment
Posted 2014-03-13 08:01:18 GMT
Given a floating point number, how to go to its representation as a rational?
1.0471975 = 1/3π
Thanks to the RATIONALIZE function in Common Lisp. See the SBCL source.
Post a comment
Posted 2013-09-26 05:43:02 GMT
I've worked at big companies for a while and when planning a software project you need to figure out how to be a organisational team player and fit with all those other teams and their roadmaps. Here's a handy guide to how well another team's project will help yours:
Apparent suitability for your project,
after meeting the other team
|Development||100% fit, can accommodate your capricious feature requests, designed to scale while consistently providing low latency, beautiful UX in the next quarter/half||Non-existent, vaporware, not used for anything|
|Production||Team tells you to go away until next quarter/half, will not discuss your use-case||Bug-ridden mess failing at its first use-case|
|Deprecated||Unmaintained, so no team to talk to||Years of consistent operation for real use-cases, could do easily do yours if it weren't scheduled to be retired in the next quarter/half|
The kicker being, of course, that the next quarter/half never seems to come around.
A ring of truth perhaps, and why is this?
I would say, the typical incentive structure primarily: proposing a project, you need to make the business case, and once that's locked in (the production stage), you don't want to compromise that by taking on something else — as the first case determines how you'll be evaluated. And once it's working, you will have many requests to fix the tough issues that have small wider benefit — but which are important to the users of the system harming your relationship with them — so it's time to create another project.
How to fix it? Do not emphasize project ownership (outcomes ownership instead), reward engineers who are willing to get their hands dirty across traditional team boundaries, and let them participate in evaluating the performance of the people who work on those other teams. In nearly every business there are teams with conflicting goals, and often directly conflicting, but it is possible to foster a culture of technical collaboration despite that.
A little thought at the beginning of a project in terms of its design can have a huge effect on the lives of everybody who has to work with it, and a little thought about the way people are included even more so. It's too natural for engineers, and engineering managers, to think there are no major feature requests for their system, simply because they have never spent time with the people who interact with the system every day.
Post a comment
Posted 2013-09-23 07:28:29 GMT
Connected up a crazyflie quadcopter with a Leap Motion. Kind of fun because you can fly the thing by waving your hand in the air!
There was an issue that prevented takeoff — the Leap would often lose visual identification of my fingers and the software would cut the thrust to zero in that case.
The fix is pretty simple, just turn off the accidental reading protection:
# Protect against accidental readings. When tilting the had # fingers are sometimes lost so only use 4. if (len(hand.fingers) < 4): - self._dcb(0,0,0,0) + print('lost fingers')
I feel the next step is to build a sort of hover control into the device as the pitch and yaw from the Leap are also quite noisy, so they need to be smoothed, which means that the human pilot will not be able to make fine adjustments.
Many thanks to Davey, Mike and Ye for devices and help!
Post a comment
Posted 2013-08-12 06:31:57 GMT
This elegantly avoids the problem of passing around pointers to doubles or having weird flag values.
In a way, a std::unique_ptr with a nullptr contents is also an odd flag value, and in fact that flag value might already have some contextual significance (e.g. an unused slot in a finite pool), so it would be fine to fit a unique_ptr into a std::optional. But sadly it does not support such types that only have constructors from rvalues, originating as it does from boost::optional which predates move semantics.
Would be great to get this fixed (should be possible just by modifying the library proposal). Even better would be if dealing with such rvalue constructed types in downstream templates did not need so much explicit machinery!
Post a comment
Posted 2013-05-06 07:50:42 GMT
In 2001, before I started university, I interned at a company making radio controlled heating valves: why not use code review I asked? Palpably, the quality of technical decisions in open source software like the Linux kernel was much better for discussion around direction — sometimes descending into frankly ad hominem insults but resulting at least in some degree of consideration of alternatives. On the other hand, who wants a layer of bureaucracy? And so we opted not to.
Since coming to Facebook, where code reviews are strongly encouraged and almost enforced, I've done more review than coding — about three to one — which is personally a little frustrating as writing code is more fun. But one reason I do so many reviews is that it is not always easy to get changes in: there are large swathes of the code-base, lying unmaintained, where proposed changes can go unreviewed forever and finding someone who is able to spend the time to consider the ramifications of a modification is often tricky.
What are the duties of a reviewer? There is a school of thought which suggests that these to not extend to verifying the software for correctness. I would disagree — with the exception that if the description of how the change is tested is an outright fabrication, then the reviewer is responsible for independently assessing the correctness of both the implementation and the assumptions underlying it, including a duty to insist on a proper plan for empirically observing the behaviour of the program. Beyond that, the reviewer should consider the consequences in terms of the wider ecosystem of the change (does it increase load on another system or impose technical debt in terms of fragility to subsequent changes), and should consider alternative approaches. The issue of coding style, especially superficial formatting, should not be the main focus of discussion.
The duties of the coder, the reviewee, comprise foremost a duty to ensure a proper review, which means submitting comprehensible (and therefore small) patches to a reviewer who is capable of understanding their consequences — and sometimes this means insisting on additional consideration of some subtlety that the author may have missed.
The question of how strongly opinions should be expressed in the discussion of a patch is largely a personal preference and in some open source communities vitriolic and scathing remarks are not uncommon (Linus Torvalds being infamous for this). My personal opinion is that the delivery of the message is less important than the content, and the reasoning behind it, which should be made clear. And if the reviewer expresses concerns, the onus is on the reviewee, as supplicant, to placate those, or alternatively to find another more convivial reviewer, rather than to try to bully a change through the process. However, civility and a lighthearted sense of humour are most pleasant to work with!
Sadly, in moments of highest pressure the review process is most circumvented: when the change is very large or even beyond a few hundred lines it is most time-consuming to review, so it becomes tempting to skip the process: but this is exactly when consideration of alternatives can have the greatest benefit. Similarly, when there is a very proximate deadline of some sort it is tempting to short-circuit the review, but exactly then are bugs and wrong decisions most damaging, as there is by definition little time to observe and correct them. Reviews here are most essential and I feel that an additional process requirement of a third pair of eyes might actually be beneficial.
At the end of the day, it's almost certainly easier and quicker to rewrite some code than debug it years later. Good code review means better code, better mutual understanding, better systems and therefore better morale.
Post a comment