4 ms·
>I'm not confident we can argue Google or anyone else has done much better. You might notice Google has never announced testing their cars where snow occurs, fo
by hueving 11y ago
>I'm not confident we can argue Google or anyone else has done much better. You might notice Google has never announced testing their cars where snow occurs, for example.
This is a sensor limitation. They have fully admitted this several times (heavy rain too). Equating the fact that this guy can't handle any emergency situations with a sensor limitation all of the lidar systems suffer from is stupid.
Google has shown many times that they have logic to handle routes around obstructions, construction, etc as well as cars running red lights, pedestrians walking into the street, etc. At least read up on something before you call it smoke and mirrors.
- ocdtrekkie 11y agoI actually have read up on it before I called it smoke and mirrors. While this is a year ago now, this is well after their cars were heavily marketed as being pretty sufficient and capable of detecting problems. ...Yet it couldn't detect the existence of a stoplight if it wasn't explicitly mapped ahead of time. And apparently, according to a Googler, the mapping required to make a road work with Google's self-driving car system is "impractical" to do at a nationwide scale. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/... I'm not saying it won't ever happen, I'm not saying there haven't been developments in the technology. But people seem to have a disconnect in expectations of where the technology is, and where marketing departments for these tech companies want you to believe the technology is.
- hueving 11y agoBut they did solve the problem with mapping. I wouldn't call that smoke and mirrors. The implementation is difficult, but at least it's a solution.