Scalar Control and the Machine Problem

Scalar (or 1D) General Control This refers to commands that take a single value, which is between 0.0-1.0 (usually represented at a 64-bit float, of which we'll normally use a tiny fraction). What that command actually does to make a toy move is ignored, and it is assumed that 0.0 is off/stopped and 1.0 is max power/intensity/etc. Buttplug Client Implementations written by the Buttplug Core Team expose this as scalar actuators. General scalar control is handy if you want to quickly make sure your code works with whatever hardware you have. More importantly, it's perfect if you just want to crank out an application that controls a sex toy so you can go "hey look I made this thing control a sex toy" on social media and then be done with it. 🔥 THE FUCKING MACHINE PROBLEM The simplicity of ignoring device context comes with a cost, which we refer to as The Fucking Machine Problem. Vibrators, which are what most people use sex toy applications with, take a speed. Most affordable fucking machines also take a speed value, with which they drive a motor to make their thrusting actuator go back and forth. These two motions are wildly different. One might make the user numb, the other might perforate the user. Using general control drops this context, which means the onus of safety is on the user. While there is little to nothing a developer can do to limit a user's choice of hardware and application pairings, keep this problem in mind when communicating about applications that use this type of control.

The image is a screenshot of technical documentation for Buttplug’s scalar actuator control. It humorously explains that reducing different sex-toy motions to a single 0.0–1.0 value hides crucial device context, creating “The Fucking Machine Problem” where an unsafe pairing could cause injury. It is used as a reaction to over-simplified abstractions, questionable software documentation, or unexpectedly explicit programming topics.

• @rzeczyzabawne / 10153 2023-06-19