Yeah.

They completely ignore panserpmia.

They just quote Isaac Asimov's writing from almost half a century ago (Europa). Ignores Enceladus, Titan, Venus, Mars; all of which have *BIOSIGNATURES* of a probability curve not too dissimilar to Europa.

They are likely a dilettante. Those folks do not do "prior art" research because they believe in the Auteur Myth.

  "An auteur is a filmmaker whose personal style and thematic focus are so distinctive that they are considered the 'author' of their films, a concept known as the auteur myth."

Real science isn't that. Real science is a rational discipline. The null hypothesis -- know what that means. Prior art -- know what that means. Mental biases -- know those, too; you'll see what you want to see, hear what you want to hear. Science is the discipline of mind that ensures you're not just spewing random nonsense. You verify what you think; that's the discipline.

As Isaac Newton said ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), "nani gigantum humeris insidentes."

Ignore them.

Everything seems obvious once it is explained.

Why do 12-14 steps of algebra, when calculus works in 2?

Obvious. People should know calculus.

Yet they don't.

Define Green's Theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- is obvious.

Everything is obvious *IN HINDSIGHT*.

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.

Did not know that. Thanks. But fighting online piracy was only the pretext; the real goal was the usual expansion of government (and thus their) power.

Those illegal narcotics are physically in New York right now. Are the internet servers?