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.

At least for me and many others I spoke to.

Go and use books to train AI.

Just don't fucking destroy them afterwards! Many of these are out of print, impossible to replace! How much of a douchebag do you have to be to destroy them ?

You are so wrong. The country I live in now has it. It's not called the same, but it amounts to the same. Near impossible to sue the police here.

I'm pretty sure most countries have something similar on the books.

I'm fairly sure at least one entire department at MS is tasked with making sure people don't switch to other formats, that despite on-paper "open" XML it remains incompatible and no competitor software can flawlessly read and write it.

So no, unless you can hire a dozen people full-time to counter that, you don't have a chance to break through that.

Qualified immunity is a reasonable concept that I agree is needed for police work.

It's just being completely overdone, used to cover up clear abuse. The basic idea of "when in doubt, police still needs to be able to act" is sound. The actual practice "unless you can prove to criminal standards and beyond, that the police officer knew at that exact moment, that what they were doing was totally definitely illegal and they intentionally decided to break a law. That's quite a bit too much of "err on the side of caution".