I don't envy those setting that slider. There is likely are pretty decent range of scenarios where you are in a no-win position.
A rock and wadded up paper grocery bag look the same on lidar. Hit a rock and it will be a headline. Panic stock for a paper bag and it will be a headline.
From an intellectual stand point you'd rather have a false panic stop than a dead homeless lady. From a marketing standpoint you don't want an overly cautious car giving Uber-AI riders whiplash on a daily basis.
In the end I am still very bearish on autonomous cars. The problem of meeting unreasonable sets expectations that exceed the expectations placed on human drivers simply don't look attainable. Getting a system to the 90% point was relatively easy as demonstrated by Google's Prius fleet years and years ago. Getting it to the 95% is hard. Getting it that last little bit good enough to handle everything everywhere without fail looks impossible. Until expectations decline, I just don't see mass adoption for personal vehicles in the next decade.
We require infrastructure and other life supporting systems to get a PE's (professional engineer) stamp. We don't let every wackadoo design high rises or bridges after all.
Software for critical systems where life is on the line should get a similar treatment. Startup culture that flaunts rules until after they get to critical mass kinda works for disruption of certain sectors, but is barreling towards disaster when life is on the line. I can't speak to all of the legalities, but we should not be Beta testing new revisions of software/settings on public roadways without the equivalent of a PE stamp of approval after many hours of rigorous testing in a controlled environement. Instead the NOW NOW NOW rush behind autonomous cars has thrown caution to the wind, and resulted in demonstrably awful software being deployed to the streets without much oversight.
I'd argue that whoever flubbed the object detection and put lethally bad software onto the car (and the managers who let it happen) deserve manslaughter charges.
As a RF/Microwave design engineer of 20 years I found the summary and article to be pretty incoherent.
As best I could discern that gist of things through the mangled technobabble and hype the argument is that if you can fully map an interference pattern between two sources you can then perform some calculations by measuring the resulting new interference pattern between two new signals. I sort of see what they are going after, but many details are lacking as to who you make this work.
Caveats: 1) Both signals must be coherent, i.e. same exact frequency and phase locked. WiFi signals are usually not phase locked, and channels are chosen arbitrarily. 2) Measuring the result requires a bunch of sensitive RF downconverters. These burn power. The results are a type of analog computer, so don't expect more than a couple digits of accuracy. 3) Anything that changes the interference pattern ruins the characterization. So if you move in your room, the characterization has to be re-done. Super useful... 4) With a handful of receivers in a room the rate of computation would be excruciatingly slow, making this a pointless party trick that only the nerdiest of geeks would ever appreciate.
Companies need MUCH less leeway to dictate rules in the first place. There should NEVER be mandatory arbitration allowed in the first place for any service rendered. One consumer is in an unacceptable situation when they need a service and every provider requires draconian rules that are non-negotiable. Congress and the states should set the rules for doing business and companies who want to do business should have to comply. If your business plan requires short circuiting the rights of every last one of your customers you should not exist.
What? Do you think that journalists just sit around until stories fall in their lap? Of course you have to have an idea, investigate it, write about it, and finally promote your work so you can get paid. In what alternative way do you suggest journalists operate?
With Apple's ~40% market share you would need a 1.5:1 dis-loyalty ratio for market share to be stable between the two platforms, which is about what it is (14% vs 9%).
If my fob gets lost it takes a trip to the dealer and about $250 to get a new one. My other car can get a spare made for a few bucks at the local hardware store.
On that basis alone I have vowed to either gets cars with no keyless crap, or require a third fob up front as part of the deal.
I'd settle for a hardwired red LED whenever the camera was active. It needs to be truly hardware connected and not software bypass-able. I believe we all deserve to know when any camera is active, so I'd rather it not be bypass-able without a soldering iron.
I personally want cheaper data rather than faster data. I actively avoid data because my phone is basically direct tap to my bank account for these vampires. I want a fair amount of data for a fair price at a decent speed. Speed today is more than fine, but I hate feeling like I am getting robbed every time I do much of anything on my phone.
They have no choice. As you state: "How many people does it take to run the cloud service?" If they are not doing something to lay a path beyond just a cloud service that is easy relatively easy to replicate they will stop getting investments and their whole little house of cards will fall apart.
For now they need the dog and pony show to go on to keep money coming in to allow them to continue to buy market share by subsidizing rides below cost (despite awful net wages for the drivers).
That Keanu moment was when I got ads for products on a device that had no known linkages (wife's ipad with only her account on it) to the one I had actually had done a search from. The ability to track me for ad purposes is amazingly aggressive and persistent. I find that creepy as hell.
How would you feel if a clerk at the local supermarket randomly walked up and addressed you by your full name and asked if they could help you find an oddly specific and correct product? I'd probably grab tin foil and run out of their scared out of my mind.
But that is exactly the state of digital advertising, it is their stated goal to know you and serve up the exact right products at the exact right time.
We are in the midst of moving to a new office. Our office is all engineering (75% software, 25% hardware). The big wigs of course hired some expensive consultants to help plan the new place.
Sure enough the presentation had a big heap of glass and open office space. The designs look amazing and futuristic in renderings for sure. Even the chair colors were chosen to "inspire".
It is ALL BS. Engineers need quiet caves to work in, nice quiet places to focus on work. Preferably with walls and doors that keep sound, odors, and view of active hallways out. When has a real project ever failed due to improper chair color choice?!
Glass boxes are not soundproof, and lead to distraction every time someone walks within view. Glass in lieu of whiteboards is just a disaster.
Open offices result in LESS, not more communication. The more the entire office overhears everything you say, the less you feel like talking to someone about issues/bugs/etc. The madness needs to end.
The goal should not be best design, but highest productivity. End this madness!
Or charge a realistic markup for delivery. Call it a “Seamless surcharge” and set it to match the real cost. I would also like to see a takeout discount for not using up valuable dining space.
So protest, but don't make any noise or inconvenience anyone. Definitely never protest on a bicycle Got it.
People politely filed millions of protests through proper channels and got nowhere. So at what point in the breakdown of institutions will it become OK to inconvenience people to get some of our rights back?
The question sounds like the quality of requirements documents I've been handed. Life is full of self-important people telling you to do the impossible with inadequate information, tools, time, and money. Sounds like the kids got an early insight into the "Joy of work."
"Nothing like a well tuned ICE exhaust note, and well....I like the smells and vibrations too."
You do realize that most of the recent cars that "sound great" rely on computer generated sounds pumped through speakers to achieve that throaty V8 sound while you are revving that nearly silent turbo charged fuel efficient V6? It will not be long before they will have to pipe in fake exhaust small to keep knuckleheads like you satisfied.
And true sports cars are a tiny minority of the cars sold, so it kind of is a useless point to get all pissy about.
Perhaps we should be doing a pissing contest between a Tesla Roadster and an arbitrary sports car of your choosing?
I can say that our crappy little Leaf is a lot more fun around town than our crappy Ford Focus. I think that is not an unreasonable comparison, as they are both 4 door econo-box type cars. Even wimpy electric cars give you inst-torque which makes them feel more zippy and fun in the urban jungle than piston driven cars with far more horsepower.
Boring hats are already weeks beyond their originally quoted delivery dates, for a hat. I can imagine the safest way to keep your kid's hands off a flame thrower is to let them order one from Musk.
Slashdot Mirror
Or for not tailgaiting in the first place.
I don't envy those setting that slider. There is likely are pretty decent range of scenarios where you are in a no-win position.
A rock and wadded up paper grocery bag look the same on lidar. Hit a rock and it will be a headline. Panic stock for a paper bag and it will be a headline.
From an intellectual stand point you'd rather have a false panic stop than a dead homeless lady. From a marketing standpoint you don't want an overly cautious car giving Uber-AI riders whiplash on a daily basis.
In the end I am still very bearish on autonomous cars. The problem of meeting unreasonable sets expectations that exceed the expectations placed on human drivers simply don't look attainable. Getting a system to the 90% point was relatively easy as demonstrated by Google's Prius fleet years and years ago. Getting it to the 95% is hard. Getting it that last little bit good enough to handle everything everywhere without fail looks impossible. Until expectations decline, I just don't see mass adoption for personal vehicles in the next decade.
We require infrastructure and other life supporting systems to get a PE's (professional engineer) stamp. We don't let every wackadoo design high rises or bridges after all.
Software for critical systems where life is on the line should get a similar treatment. Startup culture that flaunts rules until after they get to critical mass kinda works for disruption of certain sectors, but is barreling towards disaster when life is on the line. I can't speak to all of the legalities, but we should not be Beta testing new revisions of software/settings on public roadways without the equivalent of a PE stamp of approval after many hours of rigorous testing in a controlled environement. Instead the NOW NOW NOW rush behind autonomous cars has thrown caution to the wind, and resulted in demonstrably awful software being deployed to the streets without much oversight.
I'd argue that whoever flubbed the object detection and put lethally bad software onto the car (and the managers who let it happen) deserve manslaughter charges.
As a RF/Microwave design engineer of 20 years I found the summary and article to be pretty incoherent.
As best I could discern that gist of things through the mangled technobabble and hype the argument is that if you can fully map an interference pattern between two sources you can then perform some calculations by measuring the resulting new interference pattern between two new signals. I sort of see what they are going after, but many details are lacking as to who you make this work.
Caveats:
1) Both signals must be coherent, i.e. same exact frequency and phase locked. WiFi signals are usually not phase locked, and channels are chosen arbitrarily.
2) Measuring the result requires a bunch of sensitive RF downconverters. These burn power. The results are a type of analog computer, so don't expect more than a couple digits of accuracy.
3) Anything that changes the interference pattern ruins the characterization. So if you move in your room, the characterization has to be re-done. Super useful...
4) With a handful of receivers in a room the rate of computation would be excruciatingly slow, making this a pointless party trick that only the nerdiest of geeks would ever appreciate.
Companies need MUCH less leeway to dictate rules in the first place. There should NEVER be mandatory arbitration allowed in the first place for any service rendered. One consumer is in an unacceptable situation when they need a service and every provider requires draconian rules that are non-negotiable. Congress and the states should set the rules for doing business and companies who want to do business should have to comply. If your business plan requires short circuiting the rights of every last one of your customers you should not exist.
What? Do you think that journalists just sit around until stories fall in their lap? Of course you have to have an idea, investigate it, write about it, and finally promote your work so you can get paid. In what alternative way do you suggest journalists operate?
If this was an Apple product there would be a full conspiracy theory freak-out already...
I've hear it both ways.
With Apple's ~40% market share you would need a 1.5:1 dis-loyalty ratio for market share to be stable between the two platforms, which is about what it is (14% vs 9%).
Meh.
If the FBI paid informants to get access to evidence and did not disclose this to a defendant it is a violation of due process.
At the very least they created a set of incentives for evidence to be planted and have not disclosed it willingly.
Have you bought an Android phone lately? Most come similarly a couple years out of date OS wise and will also see few if any updates after you buy it.
If my fob gets lost it takes a trip to the dealer and about $250 to get a new one. My other car can get a spare made for a few bucks at the local hardware store.
On that basis alone I have vowed to either gets cars with no keyless crap, or require a third fob up front as part of the deal.
I'd settle for a hardwired red LED whenever the camera was active. It needs to be truly hardware connected and not software bypass-able. I believe we all deserve to know when any camera is active, so I'd rather it not be bypass-able without a soldering iron.
I personally want cheaper data rather than faster data. I actively avoid data because my phone is basically direct tap to my bank account for these vampires. I want a fair amount of data for a fair price at a decent speed. Speed today is more than fine, but I hate feeling like I am getting robbed every time I do much of anything on my phone.
They have no choice. As you state: "How many people does it take to run the cloud service?" If they are not doing something to lay a path beyond just a cloud service that is easy relatively easy to replicate they will stop getting investments and their whole little house of cards will fall apart.
For now they need the dog and pony show to go on to keep money coming in to allow them to continue to buy market share by subsidizing rides below cost (despite awful net wages for the drivers).
I give them about 12 months before implosion.
That Keanu moment was when I got ads for products on a device that had no known linkages (wife's ipad with only her account on it) to the one I had actually had done a search from. The ability to track me for ad purposes is amazingly aggressive and persistent. I find that creepy as hell.
How would you feel if a clerk at the local supermarket randomly walked up and addressed you by your full name and asked if they could help you find an oddly specific and correct product? I'd probably grab tin foil and run out of their scared out of my mind.
But that is exactly the state of digital advertising, it is their stated goal to know you and serve up the exact right products at the exact right time.
Just say NO to a data connection to your car at all.
We are in the midst of moving to a new office. Our office is all engineering (75% software, 25% hardware). The big wigs of course hired some expensive consultants to help plan the new place.
Sure enough the presentation had a big heap of glass and open office space. The designs look amazing and futuristic in renderings for sure. Even the chair colors were chosen to "inspire".
It is ALL BS. Engineers need quiet caves to work in, nice quiet places to focus on work. Preferably with walls and doors that keep sound, odors, and view of active hallways out. When has a real project ever failed due to improper chair color choice?!
Glass boxes are not soundproof, and lead to distraction every time someone walks within view. Glass in lieu of whiteboards is just a disaster.
Open offices result in LESS, not more communication. The more the entire office overhears everything you say, the less you feel like talking to someone about issues/bugs/etc. The madness needs to end.
The goal should not be best design, but highest productivity. End this madness!
Seriously, if you barely sign on anyway, just quit.
Or charge a realistic markup for delivery. Call it a “Seamless surcharge” and set it to match the real cost. I would also like to see a takeout discount for not using up valuable dining space.
So protest, but don't make any noise or inconvenience anyone. Definitely never protest on a bicycle Got it.
People politely filed millions of protests through proper channels and got nowhere. So at what point in the breakdown of institutions will it become OK to inconvenience people to get some of our rights back?
And still a pointless excercise.
The question sounds like the quality of requirements documents I've been handed. Life is full of self-important people telling you to do the impossible with inadequate information, tools, time, and money. Sounds like the kids got an early insight into the "Joy of work."
"Nothing like a well tuned ICE exhaust note, and well....I like the smells and vibrations too."
You do realize that most of the recent cars that "sound great" rely on computer generated sounds pumped through speakers to achieve that throaty V8 sound while you are revving that nearly silent turbo charged fuel efficient V6? It will not be long before they will have to pipe in fake exhaust small to keep knuckleheads like you satisfied.
And true sports cars are a tiny minority of the cars sold, so it kind of is a useless point to get all pissy about.
Perhaps we should be doing a pissing contest between a Tesla Roadster and an arbitrary sports car of your choosing?
I can say that our crappy little Leaf is a lot more fun around town than our crappy Ford Focus. I think that is not an unreasonable comparison, as they are both 4 door econo-box type cars. Even wimpy electric cars give you inst-torque which makes them feel more zippy and fun in the urban jungle than piston driven cars with far more horsepower.
Boring hats are already weeks beyond their originally quoted delivery dates, for a hat. I can imagine the safest way to keep your kid's hands off a flame thrower is to let them order one from Musk.