It's painfully clear you have no applied experience working with sensors in a practical setting, or performing sensor fusion.

LIDAR and cameras sense fundamentally different things. When gauging distance to other objects, LIDAR is certainly orders of magnitudes better than cameras in a few ways that are extremely important to self-driving. First and foremost, LIDAR provides a raw measurement of distance to another object at an extremely high rate, with relatively little post processing (as compared to multiple image fusion). Tesla self-driving has at least one fatality that has made headlines which was due to a visual/color as primary sensor approach.

Adding color to LIDAR is not that hard. It's not like Waymo has never heard of a camera or cameras are some arcane technology that's hard for folks to use... in fact, they show that they do use cameras in conjunction with LIDAR: https://blog.waymo.com/2020/03...

  You can get rough distance data from 2+ good camera feeds, but the 1) distance data is going to be fairly rough and 2) getting two good camera feeds is harder than you think it is. The human visual system has a broad range of visual adaptation techniques that cameras don't have. Glare, dirt, not enough light, too much light, vibration, orientation change due to temperature shifts, so on and so forth.

Frankly, trying to do a self-driving system without LIDAR seems like driving with blinders on. You can do it, but almost anyone would be significantly better at it with their full visual field.

Well, destruction of evidence, for one.

Actually, games are a great example of what I'm talking about when I mention AI. Clearly, there are no artificially intelligent consciousnesses running the opponents in a game. But that distinction isn't helpful to the rest of the world. Yes, it's important to the game developer, but to the game reviewer? They don't care about the implementation. When they review the game for the public, they're not going to write "The finite state automata driving the animation is poorly thought through"... They're going to say that the AI sucks. Both the author and the audience understand the term, and therefore it both useful and appropriate.

It's like someone chiming in that gravity isn't a force, and going into relativity, when a high school teacher is talking about Newtonian physics. Sure, it may be technically correct, but it's largely unhelpful, and everyone in the conversation is just waiting for the self-important know-it-all to shut the hell up so they can learn the bits of physics that are actually practical for them. Nobody is impressed.

I'm 12 hours in. It's crashed once. Compared to many other games I've played, it's really not a big deal.

Yes, there is clearly AI. Your definition of AI does not suit this technology, however the rest of the world has moved on without you, as your definition is useless/impractical.

And no, monitoring the quality of a product to decrease defects and increase saleable yield is not a stupid use of AI.

~D

This isn't about keeping each Cheeto identical (though puffs are already close to that), this keeps them within acceptable tolerance: Some big, some small, but none so dense as to be hard to eat. None so cheese-less that they have to throw them out. Keep in mind: The factory already throws all of the out-of-spec ones out. For people, variety is a great thing. For products, not so much.

More importantly, I be they don't have bratty kids the rest of the year.

"What you do is, you set yourself goals for what you want to achieve and then go for them"

So, what do you call it when you surpass those, and get some bonus goals along the way?

So the only way you can be successful is if you get it 100% right the first try, even if your goal isn't to get it totally right until the 10th try? I hate to tell you, that's not engineering works, and that's also specifically not how modern engineering works.

With the highly complex systems of today, you have to break stuff in order to learn and make a better product. It's the iterative design approach, and it works very well for a large number of engineering firms. Most importantly, it works very well for SpaceX, who has done more for aerospace innovation in the last decade than Boeing, Airbus and Lockheed Martin have collectively been able to do in the last half-century.

~D

They successfully hit their intermediate milestone, plus some.

If you have a six month goal of running a marathon, you need to grow your ability to run gradually. By the end of month one, you should be able to run five miles. In this case, they've completed month one and found that they were able to run nine miles instead of the planned five.

You're calling it a failure because they didn't run a full marathon at the end of month one. To mark any intermediate goal as a failure because it isn't the final goal is moronic.

~D

This (and the other article, Americans of all ages are spending more on video games).

Two no-duh articles in a row. Many of us are not GOING anywhere (or at least going out much less frequently). Phones aren't getting lost, dropped on concrete, etc. nearly as frequently. Battery life isn't an issue, as the charger is readily available. We don't need new capabilities if we're not leaving the house very often. Considering the last 9 months or so, a new video game will have a much bigger impact on my day-to-day than a new phone will. Heck, this year I could have made do with a landline.

~D

Posting pictures with it? I think you're missing the point of a throw away account

I've had no problem making fake Facebook accounts. Do it in incognito mode, and you're fine.

Well played, sir!

After Zoom comes more Zoom, and then another Zoom.