[sandworm101]

All well and good with the standard little girl model, but what does this look like with ten fat disney tourists? What would the machinery look like to swing 10 or 50 times the weight? (Same question if this is to be used for flight simulators.) Is there a point at which linear hydraulic actuators are easier?

[hn9780470248775]

> All well and good with the standard little girl model

"The software developer Maria Lächele from the 8-person developers team at the Max-Planck Institute is seen amongst others as a passenger of the robot."

[sandworm101]

So? She could be the chief engineer, but in the video she is the model, the stand-in, the demonstration person. Call it sexist if you want, but it is standard marketing practice to use young women/girls in promotional vids. Where movement is involved, models with long hair are also preferred as it shows the motion, something that again tends towards young girls. Smaller people also make products seem larger. Where the product involves a seat (cars, air travel etc) a really tiny person makes things look much roomier and more comfortable. Where the action is recorded at a distance people with clear skin but darker lips and larger eyes are more expressive, again trending towards females. Where there is any sort of perceived physical danger you pick models that, rightly or wrongly, are perceived delicate. Use a 250lb Army grunt with massive muscles (of any sex) and viewers might think they also need to be tough to enjoy the product. So this vid is following standard marketing practices in selecting a very standard model.

My point still stands. What would rigging for several non-small people on this thing involve? Looking at the angles on those cables, a 10-fold increase in payload might need a 20 or 30-fold increase in cable strength ... adding weight ... needing stronger cables.

After watching it a couple times more, I'm also interested in how it would handle asymmetric loads. How much before it tips into a cats cradle of wire? Is there any feedback into the system to detect such situations?

[Nadya]

Reading a bit too literally and presuming the worst intent behind the statement. It leads to better discussions when people assume the best possible intent unless the person later clarifies their intent. I don't think they meant "model" as in "attractive fashion model".

"Standard model" is a thing among products. For example, they give out 3D glasses at the movie theater I visit. One-size-fits-all is the "standard model" but they have two sizes of booster seats. They have the "children model" and the "adult model".

So let's throw the complete statement that you removed back in:

>but what does this look like with ten fat disney tourists?

So the standard model ("little girl" [sic] sized) works great. How does the "jumbo model" work for an obese population?

I'll agree with the implicit sexism and infantilization behind the use of "little girl". Though I also refuse to ascribe sexist intent behind the word choice and I'm someone who cares about intent and not interpretation. One can always interpret the worst possible intent and find evil in everyone and every statement. Also yes, I'm aware that bad deeds can sometimes have good intentions.

They were highlighting a physical trait (smallness). "Small woman" and "little woman" are awkward to say and imply dwarfism. "Woman" as a standalone fails to highlight the smallness. I'd personally use "petite woman" but that becomes awkward in conversation because I'm seemingly the only person who uses the word "petite" in adult context without referring to porn actresses or nude models.

TL;DR:

It works fine for the 105 lb~ model. How about the 350~ lb model?