4 ms·

Autofocus systems are designed to stop race cars in travel today already. And besides, why argue hypotheticals here when I look out my window and I see teslas s

Autofocus systems are designed to stop race cars in travel today already. And besides, why argue hypotheticals here when I look out my window and I see teslas self driving just fine? The system is proven despite your feelings about it. And if it was truly unsafe or compromised we'd have seen a good deal of evidence a this point what with the amount of users self driving and the mileage they've been traveling, not to mention how many people in the media are so desperate to find such evidence and publish some pulitzer attempt about it given the sentiment around Musk these days.

ModernMech 2y ago
> why argue hypotheticals here when I look out my window and I see teslas self driving just fine? I'll reiterate: 2019 - Tesla didn’t fix an Autopilot problem for three years, and now another person is dead That's not a hypothetical. How do you figure this result indicates the Tesla theory of camera-only navigation is working out "just fine"? This level of professional negligence should be considered a crime. > And if it was truly unsafe or compromised we'd have seen a good deal of evidence We see that evidence all the time. Teslas veering into oncoming traffic, hitting parked vehicles, driving through loony tunes walls where other cars stop, being fooled by smokescreens where other cars are not, and decapitating multiple people in a similar way that would have been mitigated by LiDAR. And now apparently real-ending motorcyclists. This whole self driving scam is an exercise in the 80/20 rule. They spent 20% of the time to get 80% of the results, and that's why you claim "I see teslas self driving just fine" But Tesla has been promising the other 20% will be here in 5 years for 10 years. That last 20% is the difference between the system being "Full" self driving and a fraud. Right now what we see is a vaporware fraud, and they're not going to be able to deliver.
mturmon 2y ago
> And besides, why argue hypotheticals here ... You are the one who raised the 1940s optical rangefinder question, and now talking about autofocus, which is a totally different problem than dense ranging from optical stereo disparity. If you don't want to argue hypotheticals, don't do it. If you choose to argue technical details in the absence of expertise, expect pushback from people with domain knowledge. I spent 5 years working on long-distance optical stereo as part of a DARPA program, with a team that was very committed to stereo vision. Our limited success left me with an appreciation of the challenges versus lidar.

ModernMech 2y ago

> why argue hypotheticals here when I look out my window and I see teslas self driving just fine? I'll reiterate: 2019 - Tesla didn’t fix an Autopilot problem for three years, and now another person is dead That's not a hypothetical. How do you figure this result indicates the Tesla theory of camera-only navigation is working out "just fine"? This level of professional negligence should be considered a crime. > And if it was truly unsafe or compromised we'd have seen a good deal of evidence We see that evidence all the time. Teslas veering into oncoming traffic, hitting parked vehicles, driving through loony tunes walls where other cars stop, being fooled by smokescreens where other cars are not, and decapitating multiple people in a similar way that would have been mitigated by LiDAR. And now apparently real-ending motorcyclists. This whole self driving scam is an exercise in the 80/20 rule. They spent 20% of the time to get 80% of the results, and that's why you claim "I see teslas self driving just fine" But Tesla has been promising the other 20% will be here in 5 years for 10 years. That last 20% is the difference between the system being "Full" self driving and a fraud. Right now what we see is a vaporware fraud, and they're not going to be able to deliver.

mturmon 2y ago

> And besides, why argue hypotheticals here ... You are the one who raised the 1940s optical rangefinder question, and now talking about autofocus, which is a totally different problem than dense ranging from optical stereo disparity. If you don't want to argue hypotheticals, don't do it. If you choose to argue technical details in the absence of expertise, expect pushback from people with domain knowledge. I spent 5 years working on long-distance optical stereo as part of a DARPA program, with a team that was very committed to stereo vision. Our limited success left me with an appreciation of the challenges versus lidar.