Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, should have said, worked on the John Deere guidance module for auto-driving tractors. As a contractor.

There are field limits defined. But they are respected as algorithms need, to determine turn parameters at the end of a row. I could imagine easily that fiddling with that code could end up with a tractor on the other side.

What horror scenarios do you think are realistic? Remember we are considering multi-ton machines with maybe a thousand horsepower, wielding huge spinning blades and crusher mechanisms. What scenario can we consider that is not a horror show?

View on HN

Your car, heater, air frier, lawn mower, etc all have the potential to kill you. I’d even argue that the probability of a car killing someone due to technical malfunction or user tinkering is way higher than a farm equipment that operates in a large open area.

If all of these things were locked down following John Deere’s logic our daily lives would become very expensive and inconvenient.

We as a society have more than enough legal and insurance frameworks to mitigate any of the risks that you’ve mentioned.

Your car, heater, air fryer, and lawn mower are consumer devices. If you modify them and they become unsafe, you're at fault.

However, farm equipment is classified as industrial equipment and if you can modify it to be unsafe without being an expert in that domain, then it is the manufacturers fault that you can do that.

Locking down industrial equipment so that it requires a trained technician to modify it is one of the ways that industrial equipment manufacturers try to mitigate the liability that they face.

> then it is the manufacturers fault that you can do that.

This is not always the case, and if it gets to the point that legislation has to be written to stop you, it's likely you don't care that much about the law in the first place.

When Marvin Heemeyer built the Killdozer, nobody blamed Komatsu for providing him the parts. Unprecedented, violent problems can happen with all sorts of equipment. We stop these accidents by holding professionals liable, not their machines.

The killdozer isn't a problem in terms of industrial liability.

Product Liability in the Farm Equipment Industry - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY

I'd stress watching the section on farm equipment - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=1166 and then continue on to case study 1 where a farm worker was maimed and the manufacturer was held liable (see lessons learned - https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=2561 ) ... and liability waivers to try to shift that to the farmer is at https://youtu.be/NdN577BbnSY?t=3760

The legislation and liability for industrial and agricultural equipment already exists. Under that structure, the manufacturer is the one facing the product liability claims if any claims are to be paid out.

If you (the framer) modify a JD tractor and someone gets hurt, JD is is the one likely to pay.

I am still trying to understand your point.

While I agree these systems are highly complex, I am not sure why farmers need to mess with source code to perform a repair? If farmers are messing with the code (disabling sensors or whatever), then I'd have to assume the farmer knows they are taking on this risk that their tractor will not function as expected.

If sensors can be safely disabled, then why not provide an easy to do that?

Again, we're not talking about a lawn mower or toaster. We're talking about a multi-ton autodriving machine of destruction. God no, don't disable a sensor, any more than you'd disable a sensor on a jet airliner.

I agree; farmers should under no circumstance mess with code to perform a repair. I'm concerned that the software documentation is part of this bill (and in the minds of many technologists, should be open).

The closest example I can think of is my car. If the seat belt sensor doesn't detect when my safety belt is properly working, I think it's ok to disable the sensor so that I can operate my vehicle without warning lights and sounds distracting me while I drive.

I am sure there are comparable sensors on these vehicles that can have inaccurate readings that can safely be ignored if the operator knows what they are doing.

To me, even though you might call this hitting a nerve, this comment and the one you did earlier, scream the classic stereotype of white collar workers looking down on blue collar workers like farming. "If they were smart like me, they wouldn't be farmers." "They are too dumb to manage a multi-ton machine despite having done it for over a century. Unlike me, who has written code for a few years."

Farmers aren't stupid. They're actually sometimes very high-IQ people because maintaining a profit with so many constraints and uncontrollable circumstances is extremely difficult; and Silicon Valley flunkies would be in bankrupt within days of trying. If they could even survive waking up at 4AM for more than 3 days in a row.

I’m a robotics engineer designing an open source solar powered farming robot (links in my profile).

I gotta be honest it sounds like you have been exposed to Deere’s propaganda and believed it. To put this another way, I feel like you’re missing what this bill is really about.

Deere has added software locks to their modules so that even if you can source another identical module with identical firmware and you’re capable of plugging it in, you have to use dealer software to change the software lock and allow the module to work with your tractor.

No one is saying farmers need source code, they’re saying they need access to the dealer software tools (not engineering tools!) to allow replacement of modules without a trip to the dealer.

This is extremely important for farmers! Please read the replies to your comments and consider that you may have been misinformed. Respectfully, I think this can be a learning moment for you today.

You're bang on the money with

> exposed to Deere’s propaganda and believed it.

and I feel we can add a dash of smug superioty over presumed to stupid farmers.

I worked on sheep shearing robots in the 1980s at UWA and went on to have a global career in geophyical data aquisition, processing, and interpretation with a sideline in developing "Google Earth" pre current Google Earth .. all funded by part time work in 800 million tonne per annum iron ore mining projects.

Now I'm hanging about with farmers in rural WA.

"Giant John Deere tractors" are small fry compared to mining machines .. and many farmers here have FiFo (Fly In - Fly Out) minesite experience working as electricians | mechanics | operators on mining operations.

The bulk of local area mechanics that come to fix tractors have that same background .. understanding the technology is not the issue with agricultural machine repair, it's gate-keeping by the companies and system protocols designed to hinder part replacement, board updates, diagnosis, etc without a commission going back to oginal manufacturer.

This reminds me of when I taught a robotics class for a week at a university in Mauritius, off the East coast of Africa near Madagascar. We're exposed to so much nonsense about how "people over there" are simple and can't understand complex concepts. But those kids from Kenya, South Africa, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Morocco were exactly as talented as students from Palo Alto. People don't need to be treated like babies, they need to be given tools. No matter how special some engineer thinks they are, there's loads of equally talented people all over the globe.

By the way please show your farmer friends my open source farming robot. Sounds like you and yours would appreciate it. https://community.twistedfields.com/t/join-the-solar-farming...

I would like to have a couple of sock-puppets to upvote this more!

I jest, of course, but, this is such an important point that engineers and the designers of a product don't have monopoly on intelligence and people need not to be babied. I think some people even come to believe it themselves and develop some kind of learned helplessness.

Hey, I joined up a few days ago and wrote a little intro post, but I seem to be blocked from posting pending admin approval. I know you’re busy, so I don’t want to bother you, but I’m eager to participate.

ooh thanks for letting me know! I am slow to do admin stuff there. I have approved your post. Welcome!

Cheers!

I imagine this multi ton machine running over a fence, into a tree stump. The stump disconnects the wheel from the axle and it's no longer able to drive.

I think what we're saying here is changing the oil is not allowed. You can't change your own oil, or use third party oil because there is a detector that says this oil is not John Deere brand oil. The engine is now deactivated and you must call a John Deere technician to put in the encryption key to unlock the engine. Your next available appointment is in 938 days. Please note, we have a higher than expected volume of repair calls than usual this year. Your appointment may be de-prioritized. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Assuming that there is some sort of sensor that’s measuring these turn radiuses? What happens to the machine when the sensor malfunctions? Does it shut down (requiring work to stop), keep going (being a huge liability) or is there a box of them under the chair the operator can swap in and keep going? I think what’s being asked for here is option 3, not so much being able to modify turn parameters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com