Anybody remember Dubbya going on and on about gasoline made from switchgrass?

Somehow growing succulents in fragile desert ecologies and irrigating them seems like a dead end.

Maybe they got a government grant.

As someone alluded to above the forest litter causing all these fires may be a good source of cellulose. Betcha robots could make it economical.

> We need new laws to make life safer in the US and CATCHING Criminals.

Violent crime is at historical lows.

Most of our criminal laws are not enforced. If the police have extra time there is a whole Epstein Client List that needs arresting.

> tying the hands of LEO"S

Yes, that is the point of rights. Liberty is not safety. Europe is available for those who prefer safety over Liberty. Europeans who prefer Liberty should be welcome to come here. Cops who distain the rights of citizens should self-deport too.

Anyway, SCOTUS has extensively covered Mosaic Theory if you want the case law. Imagine being an LEO and ignoring the highest court in the land. That's just gang behavior.

> Government asserts that it will be able to identify all potential suspects

They went too far and failed.

They may be able to identify all suspects but even a clever six year old would ask, "and if they're not carrying an active phone"?

Geofence warrants were already struck down by SCOTUS and the government's position is arguing about the difference between beige, tan, and taupe.

Anyway it's a general warrant.

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.

You didn't read what I wrote. The claim is that camera-only automated cars can never be safer than human cars. That's wrong, because the safety comes from automation itself being a better driver than a human, even if it only has cameras. Other sensors may or may not add safety. The do not guarantee additional safety.

An automated car can also be worse than a human driver, even with a dozen sensors. But it won't be because of the sensors.

Automation is safer because it doesn't get distracted, drunk, or drowsy, not because it uses lidar. Adding lidar can add safety, but it doesn't guarantee it.

No you don't. Humans get distracted, drunk, and drowsy. Automation doesn't. That's where automation is safer than humans.

Lidar and radar can add safety, but they do not guarantee it.

He's lying.

"Better than humans" is possible with cameras only, because most of the errors humans make have nothing to with their eyes. Humans get distracted, drunk, and tired. Automation doesn't.

I'm sure lidar and radar can do better than cameras alone. But lidar and radar do not guarantee better than humans.

He's just trying to justify his expensive system.

> I wonder how many problems they tried before they solved one successfully.

Was gonna mod Insightful, but the replies aren't getting it.

"Solving this problem cost $2000."

That may be true.

"We tried to solve 50 problems at $2000 each and one was successfully solved."

This can also be true which means:

"We spent $100K and we solved one open problem."

which is fiscally, but not akshually, the same as:

"We spent $100K to solve one problem."

If Astra is "all that", OpenAI should have a pricing tier, "no charge unless the problem is solved."

Now *that* would be an impressive vote of confidence and everybody should be excited about it.