Sure it does. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dispensing with the silly absolutism, we're talking about driving. If you can't see well enough to drive safely then you should absolutely stop or slow down enough that you can. If you don't, life might stop. Example:
We already supplement human vision with things like RADAR or LIDAR and additional cameras. Those supplements are or soon will be required by law in places like the US. They're also very useful.
Yes, that's the point. Trump's plainly illegal scam is plainly illegal in the same way running for a third term is plainly illegal.
There have already been WAY too many examples of bending, folding, stapling, and mutilating of laws going on for anyone NOT to be on a hair trigger.
You guys are finding out how your centuries old laws are are not the mystical perfection you've been told they are. That's a good thing. You seem to be intent on making the discovery in the hardest possible way unfortunately, but still, better late than never.
I specifically said "superhuman performance" and I believe the Waymo guy did as well, not "safety." Even if you're sober, well rested and are using your autistic concentration to it's maximum potential you still can't see through fog. LIDAR, RADAR and the right kind of cameras can. They can also see in front, behind and to both sides simultaneously.
I have a friend who often says things like that. The other day the great social media algorithm decided I should see a video of some guy insisting that unpasteurized milk never goes bad. To prove it he left a bottle out in the sun for a couple days and then drank it. Mmm. Chunky listeria goodness. I'm going to send her that video every time she's in doubt about the potential for human stupidity.
It's about 1 / 100k in the child bearing age group. That would be more than sufficient if being an antivax dumbass was a genetic trait.
Lidar doesn't guarantee things, but since you brought up fog, guess what *can not* sense well in fog? Cameras. LIDAR and RADAR do better in fog.
Yes the problem with self driving goes beyond having the right sensors. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right sensors.
He's not lying, he's simply stating that you can give automation super human senses, and it would just be a complete idiot that would be so against those senses even in principle that hehwould remove common radar sensors from his car, just to prove a point.
He's not talking about worst human case or maybe even typical human. He's saying that confining the solution to cameras makes it only as safe as the safest human, which is fair.
Radar is pretty cheap for cars. LIDAR has similarly gotten pretty cheap. Being anti-LIDAR had at least some justification when LIDAR could only be had for thousands of dollars and saying we can't afford it. Being anti-RADAR was stupid from the moment that sentiment was expressed.
Because they have a representative set of cars for test drives that they then sell at a discount as "ex demo" vehicles. That way, the car you actually get is freshly delivered isn't one that a bunch of other people have already test driven.
In principle, it should be possible to develop a vaccine for certain forms of mental illness. Regrettably, no such thing currently exists and antivaxers are probably too far gone.
This is a stupid waste of time that could not have *possibly* earned them that much, a single ad in a very narrow context to a fairly small demographic. They risk their reputation on what has to be a relative pittance. Same on when they toyed with 'heated seats as a service'. A demographic that was probably happy to pay, but the annoyance was enough..
Similarly, GM has decided to move toward no support for phone interoperability. They are de-featuring cars that might be over $90,000 in the hopes that *maybe* people will accede to $10/month for the features their phone gives them already. Risking over $10k profit on a unit to have a somewhat higher chance at an additional $10/month.
I agree that he was making empirical claims as though they were first-principle claims, and ignoring the fact that cameras are better optical sensors than the human eye,
Not necessarily. Pretty sure the older HW3 sensors from Tesla had considerably less instantaneous dynamic range than the human eye — probably not enough to be a problem most of the time, but still...
But more than that, cameras are notably worse than eyes, because they're in the wrong spot. A pair of eyes three feet back from the window sees the scene and focuses through whatever is hitting the glass, so unless it's a deluge, the contents of the glass are largely out of focus. With small sensors mounted close to the glass, you don't have the depth of field helping you in the same way. With cameras outside the car, it's even worse, and they get blinded constantly.
What cameras do have is quantity. Your eyes can look in only one direction at a time. Cameras can look in every direction. They can see that something is coming at you from the side or behind. They can see around corners better, if placed correctly. They can judge distance and speed of oncoming vehicles with mathematical precision that human brains can't consistently match.
They also don't get tired. They don't get drunk. They don't get distracted. They don't start burning when sweat gets in them. And so on.
These things can make camera-based cars considerably safer than human drivers, at least in theory, particularly once you consider that the average contains drunk drivers, tired drivers, distracted drivers, etc. And most driving accidents are not caused by loss of visibility, statistically speaking.
What are these things you call books?
They're things you find in a place called a liiiiiii-brary.
Of course it's not impossible. It IS impossible for a spent booster. It's also impossible for every single rocket and spacecraft we've ever made, by a long shot. Also the ones we haven't made. A theoretical fully fueled Starship already in orbit with no payload is about a quarter of the way there.
The reason SpaceX's second stage is hitting the moon is because it was used to send something there in the first place.
They're not meaningless, they're just obvious. Humans drive using their eyes. You should be able to get a bit of superhuman performance because you can have lots of cameras, but they're not going to be able to see things cameras can't see.
On the other hand, "camera" can be a pretty broad term. There's no particular reason to restrict your cameras to the human visible spectrum, or not to equip them with IR floodlights for example.
Money isn't everything -- but it's a long way ahead of what comes next. -- Sir Edmond Stockdale
