3 ms·

Not really a strong argument. Birds prove that you can fly with only deformable surfaces (flapping wings), and in particular without dedicated devices to inhal

Not really a strong argument. Birds prove that you can fly with only deformable surfaces (flapping wings), and in particular without dedicated devices to inhale air and push it out fast (engines). But if you had to build airplanes with deformable surfaces but not engines, you would never be competitive (at least for first century of aviation technology...).

SilasX 10y ago
Which proves -- in the case of flight -- that an "unnatural" refactor can be better along certain dimensions than what nature came up with: airplanes are better in terms of average speed and payload transported by air per unit energy consumed. The parent's point was that, for driving, the "natural" human way is still better along one relevant dimension [1]: how much sensory data is required (SDCs need a lot more). SDC engineers would regard it as an improvement if they could get SDCs to work using only the sensory data that a human would get. The parent was saying that Uber could show superiority by similarly doing more with less. [1] Humans also drive with coarser control over the car i.e. no direct computer interface, just gripping the wheel and pushing the pedals.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  The parent is clearly saying that this is a plausible route for Uber engineers using the biological proof-of-concept, which I have rebutted. They are not just saying it would be an improvement.
  - parhurs 10y ago
    You cannot rebuke that claim via an aerospace analogy because they are not equivalent fields. It remains to be seen whether lidar is better for cars than "vision".
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      "Undermine" would have been a better choice of words than "rebut". Indeed, my first comment claimed explicitly to show his wasn't a strong argument, and I think that is obviously the case even if the fields aren't identical. (When are they ever?)
bobsil1 10y ago
Bio creatures can also fly at low speeds, powered by bugs. Planes get nowhere close. Passive sensing lets your eyes see stars and comets: long range, power efficient, avoids sensor conflicts with other objects.

SilasX 10y ago

Which proves -- in the case of flight -- that an "unnatural" refactor can be better along certain dimensions than what nature came up with: airplanes are better in terms of average speed and payload transported by air per unit energy consumed. The parent's point was that, for driving, the "natural" human way is still better along one relevant dimension [1]: how much sensory data is required (SDCs need a lot more). SDC engineers would regard it as an improvement if they could get SDCs to work using only the sensory data that a human would get. The parent was saying that Uber could show superiority by similarly doing more with less. [1] Humans also drive with coarser control over the car i.e. no direct computer interface, just gripping the wheel and pushing the pedals.

jessriedel 10y ago
The parent is clearly saying that this is a plausible route for Uber engineers using the biological proof-of-concept, which I have rebutted. They are not just saying it would be an improvement.
- parhurs 10y ago
  You cannot rebuke that claim via an aerospace analogy because they are not equivalent fields. It remains to be seen whether lidar is better for cars than "vision".
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    "Undermine" would have been a better choice of words than "rebut". Indeed, my first comment claimed explicitly to show his wasn't a strong argument, and I think that is obviously the case even if the fields aren't identical. (When are they ever?)

bobsil1 10y ago

Bio creatures can also fly at low speeds, powered by bugs. Planes get nowhere close. Passive sensing lets your eyes see stars and comets: long range, power efficient, avoids sensor conflicts with other objects.