On the perception of “Robotic Candidates”

With the most recent debate, Christie has attempted to skewer Rubio saying he has the same 25 second speech, and that all he does is repeat the same speech. And the media has pounced on it. While it is true that Rubio and many other candidates do repeat themselves, unlike the other candidates Rubio does not deliver his speeches in the same cadence or order. Take Carly Fiorina for example–she delivers every answer in the same tone of voice, if she doesn’t have an answer for the question she goes back to one of her set talking points, and most of all as she repeats her answers her eyes move back and forth like she is reading a cue sheet. Carly is the epitome of the robotic candidate movement. But no one is calling Carly out because she is a nobody in this race unlike Marco. 

In addition, when you are asked the same question a 100 times, of course you are going to produce the same answer because you want to hold to your convictions and not be a flip-flopper. Do you know why Ted Cruz and Donald Trump never repeat the same answer? Because depending on the day, they believe or espouse a different ideal and tout a contradictory position from the day before. Or if you are Trump you would rather just insult everyone and everything. But once again, Marco is the most dangerous candidate, and everybody wants to be in denial about Ted Cruz’s flip-flopping.

If these candidates were smart, they would focus their energy on the issues at hand rather than turning on themselves because one is more successful than the rest. They would attack the Democrats, point out their flaws and tell the people why they would be the best candidate to fix it. But because that means their flaws would also be exposed in the process, from Christie’s lackluster governor performance to Jeb’s wanting a Bush dynasty, they decide it is better to attack Rubio because it deflects off them. 

Marco is the only candidate who consistently keeps to the issues, doesn’t attack his fellow candidates, and has the best record out of all of them. You can believe whatever you want, but I support Rubio 100%, and will continue to do so.


Mobile Robotic Fabrication System for Filament Structures

Project from the Institute of Computational Design uses wall-climbing robots to create web-like structures:

The project Mobile Robotic Fabrication System for Filament Structures, demonstrates a new production process for filament structures. It proposes multiple semi-autonomous wall climbing robots to distribute fiber filament, using any horizontal or vertical surface, or even existing architecture, to support the new structures. Compared to larger scale industrial robots that are limited by position and reach, these robots are enabled with movement systems and a collection of sensors that allow them to travel and interact accurately along typical ground, walls, roofs, and ceilings. One can imagine a fabrication process where an operator arrives to the scene with a suitcase housing all the necessary robots and materials to create a large structure. These agile mobile robotic systems move robotic fabrication processes beyond the constraints of the production hall, exposing vast urban and interior environments as potential fabrication sites.

More Here

Here is a semester project in the 2012 Mechatronic control systems engineering module at San Jose State University. This is a Proportional-Integral-Derivative controlled (PID), 6 degree of freedom (6-DOF) Stewart platform, which basically means it has six axes on the top plate. This prototype uses 6 radio controlled servo motors instead of the traditional use of hydraulic jacks or electronic actuators. (this video has sound)


A PID controller continuously calculates an error value as the difference between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint. The controller attempts to minimize the error over time by adjustment of a control variable, such as the position of a set of servo motors or actuators,  to a new value, given by a weighted sum:

where Kp ,Ki , and Kd, all non-negative, denote the coefficients for the proportional, integral, and derivative terms, respectively (sometimes denoted P, I, and D).

  • P accounts for present values of the error , and is determined by the direction and magnitude the correction needs to be applied (e.g. if the error is large and positive, the control variable will be large and negative),
  • I accounts for past values of the error (e.g. if the output is not sufficient to reduce the size of the error, the control variable will accumulate over time, causing the controller to apply a stronger action through P), and
  • D accounts for possible future values of the error, based on its current rate of change. This part determines when and at what rate it needs to reduce the magnitude of its action, e.g as the ball fast approaches the desired set point at the centre of the plate.


Not rwby but extremely important - girls in STEM

I am on an all girls’ robotics team named Double X in New York, NY. Students in this team come from two all girls’ schools - the Brearley School and the Chapin School

We participate in the FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC). We have SIX weeks to build and program a fully functioning robot that performs a certain task. We work SIX days a week, at least four hours every day we meet: 4-8 pm Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; 10-4 on Saturdays and 12-4 on Sundays.

Team link: http://robotics.brearley.org/

Donate here: https://forms.diamondmindinc.com/brearley/robotics?token=814996776 (even small amounts like 20 dollars count, and we’ll have thank-you gifts for you)


Instagram: bcdx4856


First robot in history to ace No. 16 at Waste Management

Progress. 19 years after Tiger Woods.

In the opening round of the 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open, LDRIC the golf robot gets a hole-in-one on the par-3 16th hole.