JoshCole

42 ms·

271.
CVPR Workshop on Automonous Driving Keynote – Andrej Karpathy, Tesla (2021)(youtube.com)
1 points by JoshCole 4y ago|0 comments
272.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Bear with me here. You find random Hacker News comments convincing. But what if you look at the evidence instead of commenters? Let me save you some time by linking you to an engineering talk by the head of AI at Tesla. I'll link you d
273.
by JoshCole 4y ago
There are 30,000+ car accident related deaths in the US alone every year. There are 365 days in a year. That works out to an opportunity for roughly ninety videos of fatal car accidents every day. Watch the ninety videos of people dying bef
274.
by JoshCole 4y ago
From my original post: - There is a timestamp where it plans a bad route briefly. That is something to investigate and fix even if it didn't ultimately keep that route. - It also enters a lane with markings indicating that it shouldn&#
275.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Radar isn't hearing. It has different properties than your eyes and your ears. You know how your eyes can sometimes get things wrong? For example, you can see a mirage of an oasis when you are in the desert? Well, radar has failures li
276.
by JoshCole 4y ago
In my other reply I tried to say you were wrong in a way that was rude, which I regret, so I want to try again in a more respectful way. Initially, it was the thought of most people who thought about the problem that more sensors would be b
277.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Read my post again. I clearly articulated that there is a timestamp where it plans a bad route briefly. That is something to investigate and fix even if it didn't ultimately keep that route. It is a very serious issue and no one should
278.
by JoshCole 4y ago
If you rely on radar when you shouldn't rely on radar, people can die. So the answer to half your question is that even a minuscule probability of misidentification has intolerable consequences. If you rely on radar, because you can&#x
279.
by JoshCole 4y ago
This would be true if we could rely on radar being an idealized sensor in which its error follows a normal distribution and in which visions error also follows a normal distribution. Under that world we could just use sensor fusion techniqu
280.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Radar gives false positives. Pretend you are a computer for a second. You get told by radar that right in front of you there is an obstacle. You are five feet from crashing. The only option to avoid it would be to slam on your breaks. Meanw
281.
by JoshCole 4y ago
You are extremely misinformed. I'll go through the points one by one. > I thought these cars had lidar? Scale of rollout is a strategic imperative brought on by the advantage of massive datasets. Lidar was very expensive relative to
282.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Just to clarify, since people seem to disagree with me that this person lied: my evaluation of his sentence paragraph has more than 50% of his statements as false, with only one statement being compelling. (truth? "And door handles tha
283.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> It appears to be “no electric car buyer with $140k to spend could ever rationally choose anything other than a Tesla”. My argument is that it isn't credible that buying the Mercedes is so obviously superior that is, and I quote th
284.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> “Lying” is a bit emotive, suggests you might be a bit too invested here to get the argument the GP was making. Emotion doesn't come into it. You built an argument upon a poor foundation. In strictly logical terms even if your arg
285.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I've opened Tesla's doors, enjoyed the suspension of the Tesla finding it comfortable, and when I adjusted my mirrors I used buttons on the steering wheel. Usually I don't have to adjust the mirrors, because the car can autom
286.
by JoshCole 4y ago
At both price points on the link the Tesla vehicle metrics are dominant over the Mercedes vehicle metrics. In fact, the $110k cost Tesla has better metrics than the $130k cost Mercedes: it is faster, accelerates faster, has higher horsepowe
287.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Lets move away from the ordering experience. My experience with Tesla service is that I notice an issue, then with my phone, I put in a service request. They come to my house while I'm sleeping and fix the issue. Super easy. Painless.
288.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Opened the Mercedes site again to check some more. Tesla allows escalation to ordering in two clicks. After more like seven clicks Mercedes was ready to let me 'save my build' rather than letting me order. They also still continua
289.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Current price on your link is ~$100k not $140k. It was much more confusing to use the first site, but click through I found something that was also about $100k when you chose the budget options. Meanwhile, for all numbers that both Tesla an
290.
by JoshCole 4y ago
> __completely__ insane. It isn't completely insane. First off, it isn't irrational to allocate an excessive amount of capital to sustainability. The meme that this level of provision is short-sighted is myopic to the extreme,
291.
by JoshCole 4y ago
To answer your question, they did open source their innovations. In the future you should consider not asking rhetorical questions that you don't know the answer to. Also, when you don't know the answer, you probably shouldn'
292.
by JoshCole 4y ago
He doesn't actually argue against the Bayesian view of statistics: > The word ‘Bayesianism’ is used for a variety of things, a whole spectrum of things at one end of which I have no quarrel with whatsoever and at the other end of wh
293.
by JoshCole 4y ago
I'll show you are wrong by showing that your ideas aren't consistent. I'll show your ideas aren't consistent by showing your ideas are self-refuting. Your post denies its own utility. Observe: Lets say you are correct. A
294.
by JoshCole 4y ago
Brevity isn't incomposability. If it was, your argument applies to sentences. If it did, humans wouldn't be able to successfully discuss anything complex.
295.
by JoshCole 4y ago
His beliefs are irrelevant. Appealing to them shows you are using rhetorical technique rather than logic. You are attacking his character by implying stupidity for his beliefs rather than attacking the core of his ideas. You follow up the r
296.
by JoshCole 4y ago
He isn't the only one who can solve the bot problem.
297.
by JoshCole 5y ago
You mock attempts to share critical feedback with you. It is clear you don't value criticism. It is plain to see why someone who doesn't value criticism wouldn't understand why someone else would value it. Nevertheless, plent
298.
by JoshCole 5y ago
Claim 1: > Of course many of those in this very thread that argue against those who say “bad things” about Musk are being engaged by his paid mouthpieces. Claim 2 > More the fool you, though, if you naïvely believe that the ultra-weal
299.
by JoshCole 5y ago
moistly, I think you are in an epistemic pit because you think misleading others is smart. Notice that you don't present evidence that everything is monitored and influenced, because it isn't an evidence rooted belief. Notice that
300.
by JoshCole 5y ago
> If you remove the ads and the surveillance, Twitter is 60 lines of Perl. If you remove ads and surveillance Twitter isn't 60 lines of Perl. Just their frontend, without even getting into problems of scale, is already much heavier

More ›