This is in the county, Montgomery, where Virgina Tech is based. They have a very large UAV program there. So much so that they applied for a campus-wide FAA exemption. I think it's cool if a bit useless. But if you have a hammer, everything else is a nail. Books have been delivered electronically for decades. Electronically flying a physical book doesn't look to be our future.
Thanks for noting this! I am from (real) SW Virginia. While this looks great as a headline--because everyone knows of SW Virginia's impoverished situation due to coal economy dependencies--Montgomery is definitely NOT the poorest county in SW VA. That's on the border of barely qualifying as "SW VA" in my opinion. I'd rather see this impact in the coalfield counties of Buchanan, Wise, Dickenson, Russell, Lee, Tazewell, etc. The trouble with those counties--regardless how much VA 9th district politicians in that area beat on about their half-measure broadband access--is simply internet access. The intent of dropping physical books is to address the internet access problem. It's a more poverty-stricken area than some realize, nearly third world.
> It's a more poverty-stricken area than some realize, nearly third world.
This is immensely true of Appalachia in general (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_economic_stratifica...). Having done quite a number of roadtrips up and down I-81, the amount of destitution I've seen has never failed to break my heart. Nothing's ever changed for these people, and the foundational building blocks (infrastructure, education, etc) that they'd need in order to really climb out of poverty have been consistently delayed or disregarded.
Luck plays more of a factor here than in many other parts of the United States at escaping this loop, so programs like this are heartwarming to see in that they aim to give back as part of a broader goal to advance the state of tech.
Drone infrastructure and 5G are probably the two easiest shortcuts to get much of Appalachia equipped with much of what they need to catch up.
Wouldn't 4G be a far better choice for low/medium density population, in a rural setting, with lots of hills/trees/mountains? If it's like central Kansas (probably far worse), there's areas that don't even have 3G.
Is 4G/LTE connectivity also an issue? You've seen internet access brought to people through smart phones but I'm curious if the geography poses even more problems with that approach.
Great question. I previously worked in a field where we relied upon mobile connectivity in this region for data collection, most carrier's coverage maps are low-resolution marketing bullshit based on theoretical detail--particularly in that area. That's the blunt observation from firsthand experience, I can probably name off a half-dozen areas where there is no signal to be had at all for miles. How that doesn't make it onto a coverage map is beyond me. Even when I am back in the area these days, there are several spots along highways US-19, US-58, US-23, etc., where calls will drop every single time you travel through the spot. Decent-sized towns have capable signal, but you leave those areas and the population density just doesn't support a carrier's business. I just wish their coverage maps painted a realistic picture.
The geography does pose a problem there. It's my understanding hardware on a cellular tower travels in a vertical beam, in addition to the more commonly understood horizontal beam. Altitude placement of towers is a factor as well. Altitude variance in those jagged mountains and rolling hills make for awful propagation. Radio/signals aren't my trade though, there's definitely somebody on HN who knows the specifics.
I live just a couple miles from town and have no cell phone service at my house. And it isn't even down in a valley. Forget LTE; cell service in general is really spotty in this region.
I'm currently and temporarily staying in central VA and I can't believe how bad internet access and cell service is here. I'm basically in between Charlottesville and Richmond along the I64 corridor and there is no viable broadband here. I have a satellite connection but the latency is too high to do any actual work over it. They finally put in a cell tower close enough to get 1 or 2 bars of LTE if I strategically place the phone near the window. Before I had stand outside just to make a call and even then it was a crapshoot. Now I can at least tether through my phone for internet access. But holy crap I had no idea it was like that down here when I moved. And it's not even that rural of an area. I'm only like 45min away from Richmond or Charlottesville.
OK a bit of self-promotion but this is what we help people all the time. You can either run a hotspot with external antennas or put in a booster. https://www.waveform.com
Sometimes if you already have a hammer, you start to see ways to hit things, pry things, or pin things so that you don't have to invent or buy another tool.
From this perspective, the fact that some people got together to try this isn't a surprise, it's certainly not idiocy, and being creative with existing skills and resources during a pandemic is far from a bad idea. More data and cred for drone folks, more cred and energy leverage for library folks, and more books and learning experiences for readers and learners.
Electronic books are also not our future. Until there are ebooks with physical pages I can turn, I can’t be bothered with them and I am not alone. Ebooks will never be mainstream except for audio purposes and for reference material.
That sounds nice if not a bit anachronistic. But as a child that had to carry 20lbs+ of books to school everyday I would have loved to have had a Kindle, a notepad, and some pencils as my daily load-out.
You with your immense home library of walls full of books can continue to do you.
You aren't alone, but you are also incorrect. Ebooks are already very mainstream. Doesn't mean physical books are dead - over time sales of physical books have gone down and sales of ebooks have risen. (though this has been relatively steady of late - ebooks make up 20% of sales)
fwiw, I hate ebooks for references because flipping around is pretty tough - but as someone who loves to travel and loves to read, being able to bring a single ebook reader has been life changing.
Don’t get me wrong I make it a point to collect as many ebooks as I can but I never read them. I feel through them now and then with some regex but I would never stare at a screen for hours just reading. Paper is softer on the eyes and it doesn’t take fossil fuel for them to continue existence and use. Until renewable energy makes up more than 50% of our energy sources, I hold that paper books are more environmentally friendly than ebooks as they do not require electricity to use or to store, additionally they permanently trap carbon in a useful way. Everyone is itching for everything to be “smart” but we don’t necessarily gain a benefit of making everything electronic
Sorry, but I really doubt this. Ebooks take zero space, are instantly shareable, and are somewhat* easy to search.
I hate reading on regular phone/laptop screens, but my kindle paperwhite is actually pretty nice for regular text. I like my bookshelf, but not accruing hundreds of pounds in books is also very nice.
We'll likely continue to see updates to e-ink/similar screens that make them more palatable.
* Actually for referencing material, I find physical books + bookmarks/tabstops are way easier than navigating stupid UIs. When I was learning Rust I had several sections of O'Reilly's Programming Rust bookmarked for quick reference. At least for separate software like amazon's app, etc. With a PDF indexer/parsing tool like Paperless searching is pretty painless, but you need to set it up and convert everything to an indexable format like pdf. Unless I'm doing something wrong.
I can’t help but think a car would have been a better delivery mechanism but then Google wouldn’t get much press from it. Doing “good things” just for better optics really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> I can’t help but think a car would have been a better delivery mechanism but then Google wouldn’t get much press from it.
i can see a pretty obvious way that could get even more press for Google’s corporate parent, since it would be an Alphabet firm doing it directly and not merely an outside but Google-supported firm.
> Doing “good things” just for better optics really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Dissing people for doing good things just because you've ascribed to them optics as their motive leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Today, sure, using a van would be much more efficient. But this is probably a way to test and improve the technology, working towards making it more efficient than a van.
More importantly, the optics here are not just about you and me and other adults. Think about it how it looks to a kid. You can have your library books show up in a van, and that might be fun, but if you could have a drone drop off your library books? What kid wouldn't sit around outside all day waiting for their books to arrive?
I think we should get kids excited about reading a book through the experience the book provides, not the experience the delivery provides.
In the past they used to have book mobiles, and probably still do in some areas. It's a library in a van...not like a UPS delivery where you pick a book out online and you only get that book. A book mobile is where kids can go in the van, physically touch and feel books and choose one that excites them. They can talk to other kids, talk to the librarian...
At some point when drone delivery of books get boring, someone will need to invent teleportation just to get kids to read.
The cynical side of me, and I'm particularly cynical when it comes to Google, is that this kind of thing is nothing more than PR to try to normalize filling our skies with drones ("Look at the good they do!") so they can inevitably then fill the skies with crap to boost the consumerist appetite without much protest.
It's cool technology, but I guess ebooks might have been even more effective.
Side note, for once I am happy to be in Germany and not the US. Here Libraries are open. I go to the gym. Next week I even have a movie date at the local cinema.
Wow, I would love to see some research done on this. Does drone delivery of books improve reading rates among public school children? My hypothesis: No.
It doesn't exactly sound like goal #1 is improving reading rates. The article discusses "readers" as the main audience. Which I think is really important to understand. There are a lot of readers out there for whom the pandemic created unnecessary stress and inconvenience, students included.
Personally my three kids would have used this like crazy over the last couple months, when they were stuck with whatever they could check out before the local library closed. The drone delivery is a bonus but also it would have been the only way to get books. Aside from learning and enjoyment, the book-reading sessions are converted into AR test scores and classroom-by-classroom cumulative reading word counts, which are reasonably good motivators for many.
What's insane about an alignment of incentives? Drone resources were available. Physical books were going unused, while electronic copies are not exactly free. Those involved get a pat on the back via publicity. Readers get to read more. Learners get to experience a new phenomenon.
Yep. You know the library has to pay extra for electronic texts, right? For example, when a patron checks out an item from Hoopla, the library is charged from $1 to $3 (or so... prices may have changed) for that transaction. This affects the number of check-outs the library grants patrons for a given month. I've seen ours vary from 3-10. And many popular titles are not available at any time.
Another reason why it makes sense to leverage the physical books.
