Russia was so advanced that it could shape elections all over the West in almost magical ways using cyber. Now a drone is beyond the skills of Russia. This drone news proves Russia is not a master of all new things cyber.
Hold on, are you seriously trying to draw a line between this and election influencing? I see this paragraph in TFA:
Russian Post was quick to distance itself from the drone crash, saying it was present at the launch merely as a guest. It said the drone was made by a company called Rudron/Expeditor 3M, which had organized the testing.
Now, you're seriously, and presumably with a straight face, trying to say that because of this failed test launch in the 54th most populous region in Russia, in Siberia near Lake Baikal on the border with Mongolia, which by the way was organized by a private company, that this is proof that the federal security services and whatever other government organizations are incapable of influencing the election outcomes in a number of other countries?
Because there's a response to that, but before I make that response, I'm just asking you to clarify that this is the claim you're actually making. That you're actually trying to draw a line between this private company's drone test and the Russian government's ability to covertly organize a propaganda campaign to try to influence the electorate in other countries via posts on social media and elsewhere (I'm not sure what's "magical" about that or what your phrase "using cyber" is supposed to mean). What about the spy poisoning in the UK? What does this drone crash teach us about the spy poisoning? Surely it must be something, right? Apparently every fucking thing that happens in Russia is connected to every other thing. According to your theory, apparently the federal government is only capable of doing whatever every single citizen in the country is also capable of doing, right? I mean, no way the federal government can have abilities not shared by the local drone company in fucking Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatia, Siberia, Russia. Right? That's what you're saying, right?
Also, how much do you get paid to post something like that? Do you get paid per post, or is it when you've accumulated a certain number of posts, or is it just a normal boring hourly wage? Do they require you to be based in St. Petersburg, or can you "work" from anywhere?
You're assuming that self-driving cars are a form of progress.
They are.
A lot of people oppose them, for privacy, security and financial reasons.
That's fantastic. In other news, when they're doing the actual job of driving people or things from place to place, independent of any privacy or security issues that the companies might add to the existing vehicle, what we're going to see is a reduction in driving injuries and fatalities. And, yes, I call that progress.
For instance, how many years of normal deaths are going to be made up in the first hacking of 1 million cars on the road?
I hope you don't expect an answer to that ridiculous question.
How are you going to like renting rides from a company that sells your data as opposed to owning a car.
Why would I choose to do business with a company selling my data? Is selling my data some sort of requirement for autonomous driving that I'm not aware of? Are these two things tightly and necessarily coupled?
You're an idiot Rick, and you have no problem illustrating that fact. Is that what you think it was programmed to do, Rick? Are the people working on this software sitting there saying "I don't want this to be perfect, let's just work until it works right most of the time and then go home." Is that really what you think these people are doing? If you saw the Uber video, it should be obvious to any thinking human that large parts of that system failed. I know there were a lot of medium-sized words in that sentence, so I'll try to break it down for you Rick: that means that it specifically did not work like it was designed to work.
Did you see the new story, Rick? It happened again. So, surely, after reading that article you're going to call for a ban on cars, or bus stops, or 38 year old women, or roads, or something, right? LIVES ARE AT STAKE RICK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BAN TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?
It seems like everyone except you knows that these cars, like literally every other computer, are only capable of doing what they were programmed to do (and, even then, only if every part of the system is working). It also seems like everyone except you also understands that progress is going to continue, there are multiple competing technologies or companies, and that progress is going to reduce the overall rate of deaths from car accidents at some point in the future. Just because we aren't at that point yet is no reason to issue some sort of blanket ban.
I'm assuming we're using more energy that is necessary to survive & thrive.
"We" as in people in the US, or Europe, or developing countries in general, or "we" as in everyone, as in all those people in Africa, Asia, and South America living in poorly-developed countries trying to improve their own situations? Are the people in Africa using too much energy? Because I think they need a lot more.
The only clean way to minimize those efficiency losses is to use less energy.
How are you planning on convincing the rest of the people in the world that they should use less energy? Countries categorized as "developing economies" are found all over central and south America, Asia, and Africa (all of Africa other than SA, actually). Countries like Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and Indonesia are classified as newly industrialized countries. Now, obviously, less-developed countries will seek to become more developed, because along with that comes a stronger economy, higher life expectancy, higher education and literacy, and higher incomes.
How are you going to convince all of those countries and people that they should just stop trying to develop, stay where they are? Because, obviously, in order to develop, they need energy. They will require more and more energy the more they develop. So, first, who are you to tell them they shouldn't develop? Second, since development is going to happen, wouldn't it make more sense to put efforts into producing cleaner energy instead of your Sisyphean quest to get everyone to just use less energy?
No, having multiple competing technologies is inarguably a good thing... But the emphasis should be on minimum standards, not creating a single, standard set of software. Otherwise bad things will happen.
Ahhh. Right, buy car X, 20% less likely to run over pedestrians or kill occupants based on our patented algorithm that no one else can use. Well, you said right there "inarguably", so I guess I can't argue with that logic.
the human population potentially collapses overnight.
I'm glad we're keeping things in perspective. Surely there isn't a happy medium that humans are capable of creating, right? It's either one extreme or the other. I don't know, maybe we can take some of the lessons we've learned with all of our hardened distros and the countless failures we've experienced and apply those lessons towards something like this. Is it really not possible for humans to work together like that? We really don't possess the capability to design a system that we can't break into? Or maybe we just possess the capability to break into anything we design. Either way, it's kind of a bleak outlook. I'd like to think we're better than that. I'd like to think that we don't end up with a future where the poorer can only buy cars with shitty software that is liable to potentially crash and kill them or anyone around them, while those with more money can afford something better. Maybe that's the future, maybe in the future every car is the same and the only difference is the actual software if that's where the competition is.
Maybe the software that controls the private vehicle infrastructure really is worth us getting together to solve the problem as a whole. Maybe we can take the lessons from Windows monoculture and hardened Linux distros and everything else that the minds from Google, Apple, Tesla, and others come up with and use that to help advance the entire system instead of hoarding everything. Maybe we should look at the example of internet communication and how that has benefited and helped everyone instead of warning against everyone following one thing. Maybe it's OK to follow one thing sometimes, maybe everything doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
Like Elon Musk said on Colbert's show, if you're in a sinking boat, and you have a design for a better bucket, you share the design. You don't set up multiple groups with different bucket designs and another committee to identify the minimum standards for a bucket. I may have misquoted him a little, but you get the idea.
Forget the dude (heh, the first 12 hours thought he was a she. That's gotta hurt).
Ok, after extensive consultation with my wife, and since no one else had addressed this, I feel the need to. I don't remember which article I first read, but I remember the driver being a woman, and thought that until I saw the video, when I thought to myself, "well, she's not all that attractive, but I don't want to be insensitive." Then I showed my wife the video, and she immediately pointed out that wasn't a very attractive woman. I again remained silent, so as not to sound insensitive. But in the back of my mind, I was thinking "is that a mole, or a piercing, or is that a soul patch?" Apparently the driver was Rafael Vasquez, which we're pretty sure is a guy.
This is a Shakespearean tragedy, no character does anything correctly.
1. A woman, homeless, crossing the street, with a bicycle. In her trek across 4 lanes worth of street, she appears to never even glance towards the one thing that could ruin her day.
2. A "safety driver", who is neither of those things.
3. A vehicle, controlled by Uber, which completely shits the bed.
That video definitely shows better lighting. For reference, the impact happens around the 0:33 mark of the above video, there's a sign on the right side of the road for reference.
But, that video is a little bit over-saturated. The light strings on the bridge look like a solid light, they aren't that bright. You can clearly make out the individual lights when you're actually there. Like usual, the reality is somewhere between these videos. I've been to the theater on that corner many times, and I remember it as being a poorly-lit street.
However, IF it was an electric car, she might have misjudged the vehicle's distance and speed.
That doesn't matter. She was crossing a road with 4 lanes coming at her, and when she stepped off the curb she should have seen the car on the Mill bridge. That bridge is covered in lights, too, you can see the bridge lights on the internal camera behind her. There's no reason the woman crossing the completely dark section of road wouldn't have been able to look towards Tempe and see the car coming. And who crosses 4 lines, in the dark, with a car approaching, without looking at the car to see if they need to pick up the pace? She never looked at the car. The Uber car obviously experienced some sort of catastrophic failure, but in the same way that this is a case study for computer science or engineering students, it's also a case study on how not to cross a street. The woman easily could have avoided being hit. I expect her to avoid getting hit the same way I expect the autonomous car to not hit her.
Her best hope of survival was a 100% functioning self driving car, anything less and she's dead.
That's not entirely true, but that's the whole issue. The simple fact is that this situation - clear weather, dry road, no traffic, no light, obstacle in the road - is exactly the situation where any self-driving car (it doesn't need to be level 5 or whatever) should excel. The article is exactly right - one or more systems had a catastrophic failure. The car should have come to a complete stop if necessary before the driver ever saw the woman crossing the street.
Personally, I think regulation is required. It's great if Google/Alphabet/Waymo is having success with their cars, or Lyft, or Tesla's experience with autopilot, but if we're going to have these cars on the road they should all be running the same software, it needs to be a collaborative effort. They can compete on human amenities inside the car, the software at a minimum (maybe sensors as well) should be a cooperative process where they share information and develop together. At the end, it gets certified by the government, so that all autonomous cars are controlled by the same software. They need a provision to update quickly when fixes become available as well. All this, while eliminating the government's ability to control everyone's cars whenever they want.
OK, well I think my work is done here. I'll leave the details to everyone else.
You often times will kill yourself trying to avoid the deer much more than you would if you just hit it.
You what now? If you try to avoid the deer, you kill yourself much more than you would if you had just hit it? Is that what the schools in Georgia teach?
Apparently the first person to die in a collision with a gas-powered car was killed in 1896 in London by a vehicle traveling at the "reckless pace" of 4 mph. It happened during a demonstration by the company who produced the vehicle at the Crystal Palace. The jury ruled it an accidental death and the coroner said he hoped "such a thing would never happen again."
Anyway, back to the scheduled rant on how great humans are at driving.
Actually, it's a fact that millions of miles HAVE been completed by self-driving cars. You're the one who added the additional rules of without-any-human-intervention and in-all-conditions. So we can't say how many miles have been completed under your conditions, but millions of miles have been driven by self-driving cars on public roads.
If the cars do the majority of the driving themselves, but need correction every now and then, that's fine. That doesn't mean they haven't driven millions of miles, and each correction ideally helps them learn. This is how we progress.
Hey, remember when you asked me to let you know when there are a few tens of thousands of miles of self-driving? Well, we've finally hit that. So, just sharing the news.
In all seriousness though, I don't think there's any way to know these numbers, but I bet the 5 million Waymo miles alone (I misstated 4 million above) contain at least tens of thousands of miles with no intervention. But, unless you're looking at sources that I'm not, I don't think it's possible to say exactly how many. The sources range from this, which looks like marketing, to this, which is over a year old.
Of the autonomous or near-autonomous systems, I'd much rather the likes of Tesla, Ford, GM, et al get it than Uber/Waymo. The latter would foist a rental model upon the world, and I'd like the option to own to continue to be a prevalent option.
They shouldn't all have different software. Cars self-driving on public roads should be running the same software certified by the government. This needs to be a collaborative development, not competitive. They can compete on the human amenities inside the cars, it should not be a marketing feature that some manufacturer is less likely to run people over than another manufacturer.
There are probably close to 10 million miles of self-driving, but that's not all one company. Waymo has at least 4 million of those miles. Uber has at least 1 million in Pittsburgh (I think), and I don't know how many in every other city. Maybe the Department of Transportation needs to take over autonomous driving development and certification to ensure that all companies involved are sharing their knowledge and using the same software. Autonomous driving doesn't need to be a free market thing, we don't need worse quality cars out there, we need all of them doing the same thing. I don't want Uber and Waymo competing with consumers on which company is less likely to hit you, they should have the same probability and it should be low. Let them compete on the amenities inside the car, not the software that controls it. All autonomous cars should also be capable of sharing data with each other, there's no reason to have all the Uber cars working together, and all the Waymo and Lyft or whatever else in their own little clubs. It's a public roadway, they should all run the same controlling software.
Well, because LIDAR doesn't react to things, it sees things.
There are several pieces to this thing. You have the sensors collecting data, the computers processing everything, and the outputs to make the car react. I don't know where the failure was, but it looks like either she was never detected, or she was but the car never reacted (or both). There was a major failure along that chain somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Russia was so advanced that it could shape elections all over the West in almost magical ways using cyber.
Now a drone is beyond the skills of Russia.
This drone news proves Russia is not a master of all new things cyber.
Hold on, are you seriously trying to draw a line between this and election influencing? I see this paragraph in TFA:
Russian Post was quick to distance itself from the drone crash, saying it was present at the launch merely as a guest. It said the drone was made by a company called Rudron/Expeditor 3M, which had organized the testing.
Now, you're seriously, and presumably with a straight face, trying to say that because of this failed test launch in the 54th most populous region in Russia, in Siberia near Lake Baikal on the border with Mongolia, which by the way was organized by a private company, that this is proof that the federal security services and whatever other government organizations are incapable of influencing the election outcomes in a number of other countries?
Because there's a response to that, but before I make that response, I'm just asking you to clarify that this is the claim you're actually making. That you're actually trying to draw a line between this private company's drone test and the Russian government's ability to covertly organize a propaganda campaign to try to influence the electorate in other countries via posts on social media and elsewhere (I'm not sure what's "magical" about that or what your phrase "using cyber" is supposed to mean). What about the spy poisoning in the UK? What does this drone crash teach us about the spy poisoning? Surely it must be something, right? Apparently every fucking thing that happens in Russia is connected to every other thing. According to your theory, apparently the federal government is only capable of doing whatever every single citizen in the country is also capable of doing, right? I mean, no way the federal government can have abilities not shared by the local drone company in fucking Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatia, Siberia, Russia. Right? That's what you're saying, right?
Also, how much do you get paid to post something like that? Do you get paid per post, or is it when you've accumulated a certain number of posts, or is it just a normal boring hourly wage? Do they require you to be based in St. Petersburg, or can you "work" from anywhere?
You're assuming that self-driving cars are a form of progress.
They are.
A lot of people oppose them, for privacy, security and financial reasons.
That's fantastic. In other news, when they're doing the actual job of driving people or things from place to place, independent of any privacy or security issues that the companies might add to the existing vehicle, what we're going to see is a reduction in driving injuries and fatalities. And, yes, I call that progress.
For instance, how many years of normal deaths are going to be made up in the first hacking of 1 million cars on the road?
I hope you don't expect an answer to that ridiculous question.
How are you going to like renting rides from a company that sells your data as opposed to owning a car.
Why would I choose to do business with a company selling my data? Is selling my data some sort of requirement for autonomous driving that I'm not aware of? Are these two things tightly and necessarily coupled?
You're an idiot Rick, and you have no problem illustrating that fact. Is that what you think it was programmed to do, Rick? Are the people working on this software sitting there saying "I don't want this to be perfect, let's just work until it works right most of the time and then go home." Is that really what you think these people are doing? If you saw the Uber video, it should be obvious to any thinking human that large parts of that system failed. I know there were a lot of medium-sized words in that sentence, so I'll try to break it down for you Rick: that means that it specifically did not work like it was designed to work.
Did you see the new story, Rick? It happened again. So, surely, after reading that article you're going to call for a ban on cars, or bus stops, or 38 year old women, or roads, or something, right? LIVES ARE AT STAKE RICK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BAN TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?
It seems like everyone except you knows that these cars, like literally every other computer, are only capable of doing what they were programmed to do (and, even then, only if every part of the system is working). It also seems like everyone except you also understands that progress is going to continue, there are multiple competing technologies or companies, and that progress is going to reduce the overall rate of deaths from car accidents at some point in the future. Just because we aren't at that point yet is no reason to issue some sort of blanket ban.
I'm assuming we're using more energy that is necessary to survive & thrive.
"We" as in people in the US, or Europe, or developing countries in general, or "we" as in everyone, as in all those people in Africa, Asia, and South America living in poorly-developed countries trying to improve their own situations? Are the people in Africa using too much energy? Because I think they need a lot more.
The only clean way to minimize those efficiency losses is to use less energy.
How are you planning on convincing the rest of the people in the world that they should use less energy? Countries categorized as "developing economies" are found all over central and south America, Asia, and Africa (all of Africa other than SA, actually). Countries like Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and Indonesia are classified as newly industrialized countries. Now, obviously, less-developed countries will seek to become more developed, because along with that comes a stronger economy, higher life expectancy, higher education and literacy, and higher incomes.
How are you going to convince all of those countries and people that they should just stop trying to develop, stay where they are? Because, obviously, in order to develop, they need energy. They will require more and more energy the more they develop. So, first, who are you to tell them they shouldn't develop? Second, since development is going to happen, wouldn't it make more sense to put efforts into producing cleaner energy instead of your Sisyphean quest to get everyone to just use less energy?
Because at this rate we're going to end up with dozens of different self-driving cars, all of which have their own quirks and warts.
I brought that up in another thread about this. Apparently that's a good thing, and a situation where every car runs the same software is a bad thing.
I'm embarrassed. I'm going to go kill myself much more than I would have if I was less embarrassed.
It was the grammar I was questioning, apparently that went over everyone's head.
too much yellowish sodium lights.
I think those are the only kind we have in the Phoenix area. Not the best.
LiDAR which should have spotted her hundreds of feet sooner
This is true.
No, having multiple competing technologies is inarguably a good thing... But the emphasis should be on minimum standards, not creating a single, standard set of software. Otherwise bad things will happen.
Ahhh. Right, buy car X, 20% less likely to run over pedestrians or kill occupants based on our patented algorithm that no one else can use. Well, you said right there "inarguably", so I guess I can't argue with that logic.
the human population potentially collapses overnight.
I'm glad we're keeping things in perspective. Surely there isn't a happy medium that humans are capable of creating, right? It's either one extreme or the other. I don't know, maybe we can take some of the lessons we've learned with all of our hardened distros and the countless failures we've experienced and apply those lessons towards something like this. Is it really not possible for humans to work together like that? We really don't possess the capability to design a system that we can't break into? Or maybe we just possess the capability to break into anything we design. Either way, it's kind of a bleak outlook. I'd like to think we're better than that. I'd like to think that we don't end up with a future where the poorer can only buy cars with shitty software that is liable to potentially crash and kill them or anyone around them, while those with more money can afford something better. Maybe that's the future, maybe in the future every car is the same and the only difference is the actual software if that's where the competition is.
Maybe the software that controls the private vehicle infrastructure really is worth us getting together to solve the problem as a whole. Maybe we can take the lessons from Windows monoculture and hardened Linux distros and everything else that the minds from Google, Apple, Tesla, and others come up with and use that to help advance the entire system instead of hoarding everything. Maybe we should look at the example of internet communication and how that has benefited and helped everyone instead of warning against everyone following one thing. Maybe it's OK to follow one thing sometimes, maybe everything doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.
Like Elon Musk said on Colbert's show, if you're in a sinking boat, and you have a design for a better bucket, you share the design. You don't set up multiple groups with different bucket designs and another committee to identify the minimum standards for a bucket. I may have misquoted him a little, but you get the idea.
Forget the dude (heh, the first 12 hours thought he was a she. That's gotta hurt).
Ok, after extensive consultation with my wife, and since no one else had addressed this, I feel the need to. I don't remember which article I first read, but I remember the driver being a woman, and thought that until I saw the video, when I thought to myself, "well, she's not all that attractive, but I don't want to be insensitive." Then I showed my wife the video, and she immediately pointed out that wasn't a very attractive woman. I again remained silent, so as not to sound insensitive. But in the back of my mind, I was thinking "is that a mole, or a piercing, or is that a soul patch?" Apparently the driver was Rafael Vasquez, which we're pretty sure is a guy.
This is a Shakespearean tragedy, no character does anything correctly.
1. A woman, homeless, crossing the street, with a bicycle. In her trek across 4 lanes worth of street, she appears to never even glance towards the one thing that could ruin her day.
2. A "safety driver", who is neither of those things.
3. A vehicle, controlled by Uber, which completely shits the bed.
That video definitely shows better lighting. For reference, the impact happens around the 0:33 mark of the above video, there's a sign on the right side of the road for reference.
But, that video is a little bit over-saturated. The light strings on the bridge look like a solid light, they aren't that bright. You can clearly make out the individual lights when you're actually there. Like usual, the reality is somewhere between these videos. I've been to the theater on that corner many times, and I remember it as being a poorly-lit street.
However, IF it was an electric car, she might have misjudged the vehicle's distance and speed.
That doesn't matter. She was crossing a road with 4 lanes coming at her, and when she stepped off the curb she should have seen the car on the Mill bridge. That bridge is covered in lights, too, you can see the bridge lights on the internal camera behind her. There's no reason the woman crossing the completely dark section of road wouldn't have been able to look towards Tempe and see the car coming. And who crosses 4 lines, in the dark, with a car approaching, without looking at the car to see if they need to pick up the pace? She never looked at the car. The Uber car obviously experienced some sort of catastrophic failure, but in the same way that this is a case study for computer science or engineering students, it's also a case study on how not to cross a street. The woman easily could have avoided being hit. I expect her to avoid getting hit the same way I expect the autonomous car to not hit her.
Her best hope of survival was a 100% functioning self driving car, anything less and she's dead.
That's not entirely true, but that's the whole issue. The simple fact is that this situation - clear weather, dry road, no traffic, no light, obstacle in the road - is exactly the situation where any self-driving car (it doesn't need to be level 5 or whatever) should excel. The article is exactly right - one or more systems had a catastrophic failure. The car should have come to a complete stop if necessary before the driver ever saw the woman crossing the street.
Personally, I think regulation is required. It's great if Google/Alphabet/Waymo is having success with their cars, or Lyft, or Tesla's experience with autopilot, but if we're going to have these cars on the road they should all be running the same software, it needs to be a collaborative effort. They can compete on human amenities inside the car, the software at a minimum (maybe sensors as well) should be a cooperative process where they share information and develop together. At the end, it gets certified by the government, so that all autonomous cars are controlled by the same software. They need a provision to update quickly when fixes become available as well. All this, while eliminating the government's ability to control everyone's cars whenever they want.
OK, well I think my work is done here. I'll leave the details to everyone else.
Good luck, we're all counting on you.
Huh. When you kill yourself much more, is that like being really pregnant?
You often times will kill yourself trying to avoid the deer much more than you would if you just hit it.
You what now? If you try to avoid the deer, you kill yourself much more than you would if you had just hit it? Is that what the schools in Georgia teach?
Apparently the first person to die in a collision with a gas-powered car was killed in 1896 in London by a vehicle traveling at the "reckless pace" of 4 mph. It happened during a demonstration by the company who produced the vehicle at the Crystal Palace. The jury ruled it an accidental death and the coroner said he hoped "such a thing would never happen again."
Anyway, back to the scheduled rant on how great humans are at driving.
Actually, it's a fact that millions of miles HAVE been completed by self-driving cars. You're the one who added the additional rules of without-any-human-intervention and in-all-conditions. So we can't say how many miles have been completed under your conditions, but millions of miles have been driven by self-driving cars on public roads.
If the cars do the majority of the driving themselves, but need correction every now and then, that's fine. That doesn't mean they haven't driven millions of miles, and each correction ideally helps them learn. This is how we progress.
Hey, remember when you asked me to let you know when there are a few tens of thousands of miles of self-driving? Well, we've finally hit that. So, just sharing the news.
In all seriousness though, I don't think there's any way to know these numbers, but I bet the 5 million Waymo miles alone (I misstated 4 million above) contain at least tens of thousands of miles with no intervention. But, unless you're looking at sources that I'm not, I don't think it's possible to say exactly how many. The sources range from this, which looks like marketing, to this, which is over a year old.
Of the autonomous or near-autonomous systems, I'd much rather the likes of Tesla, Ford, GM, et al get it than Uber/Waymo. The latter would foist a rental model upon the world, and I'd like the option to own to continue to be a prevalent option.
They shouldn't all have different software. Cars self-driving on public roads should be running the same software certified by the government. This needs to be a collaborative development, not competitive. They can compete on the human amenities inside the cars, it should not be a marketing feature that some manufacturer is less likely to run people over than another manufacturer.
There are probably close to 10 million miles of self-driving, but that's not all one company. Waymo has at least 4 million of those miles. Uber has at least 1 million in Pittsburgh (I think), and I don't know how many in every other city. Maybe the Department of Transportation needs to take over autonomous driving development and certification to ensure that all companies involved are sharing their knowledge and using the same software. Autonomous driving doesn't need to be a free market thing, we don't need worse quality cars out there, we need all of them doing the same thing. I don't want Uber and Waymo competing with consumers on which company is less likely to hit you, they should have the same probability and it should be low. Let them compete on the amenities inside the car, not the software that controls it. All autonomous cars should also be capable of sharing data with each other, there's no reason to have all the Uber cars working together, and all the Waymo and Lyft or whatever else in their own little clubs. It's a public roadway, they should all run the same controlling software.
Well, because LIDAR doesn't react to things, it sees things.
There are several pieces to this thing. You have the sensors collecting data, the computers processing everything, and the outputs to make the car react. I don't know where the failure was, but it looks like either she was never detected, or she was but the car never reacted (or both). There was a major failure along that chain somewhere.
The car appears to be a Ford Fusion (probably hybrid).
Is that your professional opinion? Because anyone who has been on Mill Ave in Tempe at night knows that Uber drives Volvo SUVs.