zlacker

>>ummonk+(OP)
Article is missing some key details. Every industrial robot that I've seen has at least a line painted in the floor, or more often a physical barrier, and workers are required to stay behind it when the robot is powered on. Did this factory not have such basic precautions, or did the dead worker violate protocol, or did another worker turn on the robot at the wrong time?

>>nradov+r3
All of those are possible, but food handling usually uses less powerful robots (simply because they're a lot cheaper) so there may have been some complacency about them not being that dangerous.

(Physical barriers can be tricky to get right too, though - there have been incidents of "worker crushed between robot and inside of safety cage" though design standards have been updated in response to that.)

>>eichin+14
The one this article is about is an absolute brute.

>>jacque+Ko
Any idea what model? The bbc picture looked like implausible artwork (way too much expensive hardware in-frame for a "replace cheap humans with cheaper robots" scenario) but I could see them picking a low-end industrial/automotive arm instead of a "collaborative" arm...

>>eichin+j43
The BBC article picture is just filler (they should more clearly indicate it when their pictures have nothing to do with the article).

Top picture:

https://m.yna.co.kr/amp/view/AKR20231108062151052

I've been trying to figure out the brand but enough of the text on the arm is obscured that I can't make it out beyond NZ...MI or something to that effect. I'd love it if someone could figure out what make and model it is. It's a palletizing robot, it looks superficially quite a bit like the Kawasaki models but the brand name fragment clearly doesn't match that (and that would be Japanese, not South Korean).