undefined | Better HN

0 pointsIshKebab2y ago0 comments

The thing is this code only has to do one very simple function. It should be a few hundred lines at most. It's easily within the realm of formal verification.

I guess they always thought they didn't need it...

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

LeifCarrotson2y ago· 1 in thread

Getting the code right to compute how to drive the outputs when you have good inputs isn't the hard part. It's what happens when things overheat or time out or disconnect or get noisy that's hard; usually you'd just reset but the Onewheel can't do that while you're driving.

IshKebabOP2y ago

Yes that's an obvious fundamental limitation of the entire design - it isn't remotely fail safe. You can't really fix that. You can reduce the chances of failure with redundant hardware and formal verification of the software.

It's not at all clear what the actual problem is here but in this thread we were discussing writing bug free software.

chubot2y ago· 1 in thread

No, formal verification knows nothing about the hardware, which is required for the system to function correctly. This is "not even wrong"

IshKebabOP2y ago

No it is not. You are mistaken. The comment I was replying to was talking about software bugs.

It might be the case that the problem is a hardware issue but the article is extremely unclear about what the problem really is (maybe nobody knows?) and they claim to have fixed it with a software patch.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse