Skip to content ↓

COVID-19

Learn more about how MIT Admissions is responding to COVID-19 in this blog post from our Dean and new dedicated FAQs.

MIT student blogger Snively '11

Watch our robot grow up! by Snively '11

Grow robot grow!

Sorry for the absence, I’ve been busy (lame excuse, sorry. The actual excuse is that I’m tired of uploading my pictures for this blog because it’s annoying and blog entries without pictures suck).

This, however, is too important. I’ve been building a robot for a class this month and it’s now alive and moving! We cut him from acrylic, slapped three motors and some omniwheels on him, and gave him a battery + eeePc. He’s just now learning to drive and move (which is exciting!) but even more exciting is the fact that we trained him to tweet whatever he’s doing. So, if you’d like, you can follow our robot as he becomes sentient and grows up into a red-ball-nomming beasty.

http://twitter.com/c2bot

Definitely be tuned in to the feed on Jan 29th for the final competition, he’ll tell you what he’s doing the entire time!

Cheers.

21 responses to “Watch our robot grow up!”

  1. Justin says:

    Sounds amazing. =) Cheers! *slaps robot to yours* oh oops, sorry.

    Good luck, c2bot.

  2. parav says:

    Which class is it? I guess its not 6.270. Your Lego robot was really awesome, Team Awesome.

  3. Snad says:

    this is the start of the apocalypse. soon these twitter bots will control the ipods, and together they will condemn us all

  4. makesense says:

    Did you design the omniwheels too?

  5. Put this in my application essay, as a clipped “supplement” example….good or bad?

    Observable laws and set conditions define our methods of definition in relation to Cosmological models of the universe, and by intransalistic association, the “theory of everything”, or better yet, the very notion of existence itself. Clearly seen are accepted properties such as gravity, universal expansion, relativity, and so forth; few stands are given to any aberrations from these “standards”, as they are, of course, proven.
    However, the questionable reason for origin (or its reciprocal) may coerce perusal of such unquestioned ‘absolutes.’ The in-sanstrinstic law of infinity procalates an idea: what if ANYTHING could have theoretical existed? After the big bang? Or before the big bang? Why is the universe as it is at all- a big bang 13.7 billion years ago followed by what we see today? If random trumps reason, not form should be any more expected then another. Existence could have created a non-physical universe, or a universe that hasn’t started yet (now THERE’S a mind-warping thought) or ,I suppose, ANYTHING. Existence might not have been at all. Or there might have been (or might be) more than one. This would also challenge the concept of “supernatural.” Theoretically, any verison of reality mathematically could have (and paradoxically does.) So is natural theomorphism to hard to believe?
    After the big bang, anything could have formed. Whose to say there aren’t multiverses, “superverses”, or an infinite number of scenarios?

  6. Put this in my application essay, as a clipped “supplement” example….good or bad?

    Observable laws and set conditions define our methods of definition in relation to Cosmological models of the universe, and by intransalistic association, the “theory of everything”, or better yet, the very notion of existence itself. Clearly seen are accepted properties such as gravity, universal expansion, relativity, and so forth; few stands are given to any aberrations from these “standards”, as they are, of course, proven.
    However, the questionable reason for origin (or its reciprocal) may coerce perusal of such unquestioned ‘absolutes.’ The in-sanstrinstic law of infinity procalates an idea: what if ANYTHING could have theoretical existed? After the big bang? Or before the big bang? Why is the universe as it is at all- a big bang 13.7 billion years ago followed by what we see today? If random trumps reason, not form should be any more expected then another. Existence could have created a non-physical universe, or a universe that hasn’t started yet (now THERE’S a mind-warping thought) or ,I suppose, ANYTHING. Existence might not have been at all. Or there might have been (or might be) more than one. This would also challenge the concept of “supernatural.” Theoretically, any verison of reality mathematically could have (and paradoxically does.) So is natural theomorphism to hard to believe?
    After the big bang, anything could have formed. Whose to say there aren’t multiverses, “superverses”, or an infinite number of scenarios?

  7. Caio '14? says:

    OMG! The twitter bots are becoming real! Please, train him not to spam. hahahah

  8. @Snively ’11: An ASUS Eee centric robot? Very xkcd. smile

    @astrophysicist: A tad late? Anyways, I’m sorry, but I don’t see the point of this essay. What prompt is it answering?

  9. genius ('18) says:

    Ball nomming beasty!!! I love it!!!
    “He’s just now learning to drive and move (which is exciting!)”
    OH… BETTER GET HIM SOME INSURANCE…lol! Pretty cool bots you Mit-ers build!

  10. joemill says:

    Wow. Good luck bro! And wow, it’s eee……eeePC….the best netbook power wise.

  11. @andrew huang: no prompt, just something a little extra I decided to throw in…

  12. MikeS says:

    As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the
    mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a
    tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a
    classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity and is located at: http://www.superrelativity.org
    This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and
    deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.

  13. Text “HAITI” to 90999 to donate $10 to Red Cross relief.

    Thank you

  14. penny says:

    This has like no relevance to this post, I just wanted to say that you remind me of Sheldon (Jim Parsons), on The Big Bang Theory?
    Actually, to be more accurate, it’s like Sheldon reminds me of you…but that’s moderately creepy, so…

  15. peiyun says:

    Whoa.

    “…we trained him to tweet whatever he’s doing.”

    How did you DO that?

    At the danger of sounding like I live on a farmstead with twenty cows and fifteen goats, I never knew that was possible.

    @Caio ’14 Twitter bots! LOL.

  16. Dipta says:

    Hey, that’s very cool! twitter bots :D
    wonder if the robot can be instructed by tweets too :p

  17. Mom out west says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjeMDvCdrtc

    Counterpoint to your long-ago link to “Final Countdown”.

  18. Mason '10 says:

    As the programmer responsible for making our robot tweet its actions, let me assure you all that it was by far one of the easier programming tasks associated with working on the robot. Even getting it to drive straight was harder than adding Twitter.

  19. @peiyun Don’t worry. Neither did I. And to be PERFECTLY honest, I didn’t even know what a tweet was until a few months ago…and at least several times a week I get put on blast by my friends for not knowing or recognizing celebrities. There is no shame in living under a rock smile Safer during tornadoes, anyways.