You miss the point completely. The technology is there and unstoppable. Cutting down one company doesn't destroy the technology. Killing Napster didn't kill the technology, it just spread it around, decentralized it, then there were thousands of sites to control, and they never did manage to do that, did they? Killing Flock will do exactly the same.

Killing Flock won't kill the concept or the capability and more than demolishing Napster stopped music copying. I bet within 5 years, this scanning will be common in most dashcams and phone apps will be available.

Lashing out in anger without having a plan or knowing your target is juvenile.

Whoops -- accidentally moderated it. Undoing...

Maybe you should stop panicking lie a wee baby and think from the other end: things are working as well as they can, and the problem is a lot bigger than just snapping your fingers and hoping a genie shows up.

Fabs are expensive and big, and can't be built overnight. Even stupid ordinary homes take months to build, and fans are thousands of times bigger with thousands of times the utility requirements.

It's taxpayer money. Means they'll burn through it all the faster.

I do not believe the differences are so stark as to account for a jump from 6% to 22% and back to 6%.

That may explain the mechanism, but it still means they've got too small a sample size. There's no reason for Windows and Linux users to differ so extremely over four day weekends.

If it can jump from 6% to 22% for one day, and then presumably back down to 6% the next day, either they've got an almighty small sample size, or they're lying.

There's 8 billion people on the planet. Are you saying 7 billion a year do get drunk?

Out of those 8 billion, 7,999,999,999 did not make as stupid a comment as you did. Let's celebrate!

That may or may not be a defect. Human eyes are also not seeing in all directions at once, unlike Tesla's cameras.

And it has nothing to do with the CEO's lie that cameras cannot be safer than humans, when it is the automation that makes automated cars safer. Mount a lidar to your roof. Are you now a safer driver? No. It is the automation which is safer, not the lidar alone.

You skipped this quote in your hurry to apologize for the liar. Are you a politician?

"If the goal were to just approximately match human performance or to build an assist product ..."

"approximately match" also means "no better than". Even if you take it to mean "only marginally better than" it's still a lie. If cameras are only as good as human eyes, they still don't get drunk, distracted, or drowsy.

No, I settled with him being a liar, because it is not the lidar which makes automated cars safer than humans, it is the automation. He said cars without lidar cannot be safer than humans. He is wrong. Lidar may add safety, but it does not add as much as automation itself.

Selection bias my left eye. There are enough drunk, distracted, and drowsy human drivers to kill thousands of people every year, and they are statistically significant; there are no drunk, distracted, or drowsy automated drivers, and that zero is also statistically significant. So is the difference, and it is entirely due to automation, not cameras vs lidar. And getting back to my original post, that is why I call that CEO a liar, and you have not addressed that.

No. That is not what he said. He said cameras-only driverless cars cannot be better than humans.

That is a lie, and that's what I called him out for. Research be damned; cameras already have better resolution than the human eye, but that's not where the safety comes from. It comes from being automated, and not getting distracted, drunk, or drowsy. If you won't believe that without research papers, then you're a damned fool.

Where did I say anything about perfection? It's true that automation has a perfect record of not getting drunk, but I doubt that's what you meant.

Don't make up things to blame me for. There's plenty of real things for that.