2 ms·

I didn't mean to shit on big auto and I like their features. My car has collision detection that I find pretty reliable and useful. My main complaint is what I

by bko 6y ago

I didn't mean to shit on big auto and I like their features. My car has collision detection that I find pretty reliable and useful. My main complaint is what I see as the unfair attacks of comma.ai by engineers where we should be applauding his efforts and openness, especially compared to the competition. I don't see the Ford complaint as them introducing features slowly and carefully. To me its a code smell. But my biggest complaint is that its opaque. If they had a detailed description of the features, what sensors are used and their limitations, then I would be much happier. But instead they have nothing more than a name and a trademark. Again, the "alpha" level doesn't mean anything. Hotz is immature and some of his actions are regretful. It certainly doesn't live up to the thought and care he puts into his products. Of course, I don't know the guy but I have heard him speak for hours and was very impressed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
atty 6y ago
Why would having different features be a code smell? I would compare it more to purchasing version X or Y of photoshop, or something similar. If you buy and older or cheaper version of the software, you get a different feature set. I can completely agree the naming and descriptions are horrendous though. I think that as more of these technologies start to provide assistance in more areas of driving, more of the time, education and transparency are nearly as important as safety. And that’s an area where every one of these projects is failing to a greater or lesser degree.
- bko 6y ago
  It just strikes me as a patch work. Consider BLIS (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross-Traffic Alert. I imagine there's an engineer that created a function isBlindSpot(state, "right") as opposed to a more comprehensive system of object detection, where it'll be able to tell you if there's a blind spot but also be integral in Intersection Assist (a separate feature in the 2021 Mustang Mach-E). Of course I could be wrong, and the features could be an interface to a more comprehensive system, but my hunch is that it's more segmented.

by bko 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

atty 6y ago

Why would having different features be a code smell? I would compare it more to purchasing version X or Y of photoshop, or something similar. If you buy and older or cheaper version of the software, you get a different feature set. I can completely agree the naming and descriptions are horrendous though. I think that as more of these technologies start to provide assistance in more areas of driving, more of the time, education and transparency are nearly as important as safety. And that’s an area where every one of these projects is failing to a greater or lesser degree.

bko 6y ago
It just strikes me as a patch work. Consider BLIS (Blind Spot Information System) with Cross-Traffic Alert. I imagine there's an engineer that created a function isBlindSpot(state, "right") as opposed to a more comprehensive system of object detection, where it'll be able to tell you if there's a blind spot but also be integral in Intersection Assist (a separate feature in the 2021 Mustang Mach-E). Of course I could be wrong, and the features could be an interface to a more comprehensive system, but my hunch is that it's more segmented.