3 ms·
The cost of both entry and failure for hacking on quadcopter vs car is orders of magnitude apart? Unless you know something about the upcoming price of cars th
by tbrake 10y ago
The cost of both entry and failure for hacking on quadcopter vs car is orders of magnitude apart?
Unless you know something about the upcoming price of cars that you'd like to share ;).
- nzjrs 10y agoReally? In 5 years how many cars will be equipped with the basal level of sensors that make these sorts of hacks possible? My guess is more people will have compatible cars in their house than qudrotors.... Cost and chance of failure is poorly (or not at all) evaluated by the kinds of dangerous beginners likely to crash their car-pilot into a bridge.
- tbrake 10y agoThe point wasn't about the ubiquity of the feature set in cars but rather the cost of bricking one/crashing one being well beyond what it is for a quadcopter. And the point still stands. The people who are out there with quadcopters are the same people who would be doing these hacks at home on cars; some hobbyist/tinkerer subset of nerd. I don't share your low opinion of their threat evaluation functions either.
- nzjrs 10y agoFair enough. Agree to disagree then.
- Fnoord 10y agoI find it plausible that self driving cars with the same software can perfectly understand each other via predefined behaviour patterns. If you follow that premise, it becomes less safe to drive manually. So, under this premise, the modus operandi is to be automatic pilot instead of manual where perhaps manual driving is even illegal because it is less predictable. The question wouldn't be, if this change happens; its when. Where's the turning point? One could argue its up to our politicians to decide. I'd be interested in data from other trends such as smoking. When was the turning point there, and what was the "market penetration" of smokers vs non-smokers or proponents and opposers?