Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

uk.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 323 posts

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#211

Post by jsmthrowaway »

konradb wrote: post #117
gregpilling wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, also why would it need oil changes since it would most likely be electric? Scheduled maintenance is a very occasional thing in electric vehicles.

I don't know much about engines nor cars but I am guessing that even with electric motors one needs gears? If so then there would be a need for gearbox oil.

There isn't a transmission/gearbox, but Teslas undoubtedly have differentials in some form which is where you would definitely find oil. I change the axle oil about once a millennium in my Jeep, so Tesla owners probably don't even think about it. To your point, though, there is probably a single reduction gear to lower the rotation speed of the motor and it might need oil. (Reverse does not require reconfiguring anything in an electric system, given that one just flips polarity. Electric motors have different torque characteristics which obviate the need for traditional gearing.)

I'm guessing service on Teslas is the usual: brake pads every century given that regenerative braking does most of the work, greasing bearings every now and then, coolant, tires, wipers. Internal combustion is extremely complicated in comparison.

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#212

Post by [deleted] »

konradb wrote: post #117
gregpilling wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, also why would it need oil changes since it would most likely be electric? Scheduled maintenance is a very occasional thing in electric vehicles.

I don't know much about engines nor cars but I am guessing that even with electric motors one needs gears? If so then there would be a need for gearbox oil.

[deleted]

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#213

Post by akvadrako »

MBCook wrote: post #145
peregrine wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got just the apple support document for you! https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205225 If your TV supports HDMI features you will only ever need one remote.

Sadly there's no way to disable having it power the TV off without also disabling the ability to control the TVs volume.

It works for me; they are separate settings.

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#214

Post by m4x »

Mystrl wrote: post #178
legolas2412 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been parroting this on every self driving thread. I finally found one person who agrees with my thinking that driving is as hard as general AI. Why is this idea so opposed by everyone?

General AI can drive but a self driving car doesn't have to do everything a general AI can do therefor driving is easier than general AI.

A fully autonomous self-driving car (if that is what you mean by self-driving) will have to be capable of reasoning it's way out of every possible situation, which requires general AI.

The sheer number of cars used and the variety of places they're used in means that thousands of cars get caught up in bizarre situations every day. Cars will be shutting down inconveniently all over the place unless they can apply general reasoning skill to navigate through the innumerable trials that drivers currently have to cope with.

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#215

Post by akvadrako »

ghaff wrote: post #103
old-gregg wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During 2015-16 I was given 3 or 4 opportunities to get a free Chromecast, and I got one. It sits barely used now, in one of the rarely visited HDMI inputs on my TV. I wonder how many of those "sold" devices were actually given away and forgotten. Chromecast cannot possibly be considered usable by most because it follows a weirdo, google-style, controlled-by-the-browser (but only Chrome) model. It is the most absurd w…

I find Chromecast to be pretty much the perfect model for displaying content on TVs. Put the intelligence in the device, not the TV. I wish that more tablet and phone apps supported it. But then I always have the browser fallback when they don't. Apple TV is OK and I have one. But I prefer to display stuff the way I'm already accustomed to doing so and then cast it to my TV when I want to.

The Apple TV works great for that. I pretty much only Airplay videos with Beamer.

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#216

Post by sumedh »

RivieraKid wrote: post #48
salimmadjd wrote: post #8

Of all the SV tech giants (obviously Tesla excluded), Apple has the best DNA to build cars. They know how manufacture in scale. They know how build a vertical product. They have the cash to do it and they have a strong brand. But most importantly, if the world moves to a car-sharing car-hailing model of autonomous cars. Ultimately, it becomes a consumer mobile play. This is where both Google and Apple own that experi…

Manufacturing experience gives them maybe a small edge. The real question is why would it be a wise move for any SV tech giant to move into the very competitive car industry. Is it a more profitable investment than healthcare, food or shipbuilding? The fact that they have mobile platforms is irrelevant, unless they plan to ban Uber from their app stores.

> The real question is why would it be a wise move for any SV tech giant to move into the very competitive car industry.

Couple of reasons.

- Self driving car is an interplay of Software and Hardware.

- Apple needs a new market to make some noise.

- Tim Cook needs something big to carve out his own legacy, maybe he thinks self driving tech is ticket to come out of Job's shadow.

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#217

Post by sumedh »

tsomctl wrote: post #62
gregschlom wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may result in the opposite effect though: pedestrians more willing to cross the street in front of you, and other cars trying to mess with you. (A friend of mine was telling me how he tried going really fast then braking hard behind a self driving car in front of him). The car swerved into the bike lane and almost hit a bicyclist before the driver regained manual control of the car)

Good thing California requires license plates on the front of vehicles. That way, if the bicyclist was hurt/killed, the video recorded by the self driving car would show your friend was the one liable.

Isn't the driver who hit from behind usually at fault. It does not matter if the car ahead of you hits the break for fun or not, you should always be aware and brake accordingly.

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#218

Post by doubleplusgood »

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #75
salimmadjd wrote: post #8

Of all the SV tech giants (obviously Tesla excluded), Apple has the best DNA to build cars. They know how manufacture in scale. They know how build a vertical product. They have the cash to do it and they have a strong brand. But most importantly, if the world moves to a car-sharing car-hailing model of autonomous cars. Ultimately, it becomes a consumer mobile play. This is where both Google and Apple own that experi…

OTOH Apple has terrible AI. Siri has actually been getting worse in absolute terms.

How do you measure, in absolute terms, the difference between Siri and Google Assistant or Bixby?

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#219

Post by petra »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #39

In some markets, it is more about getting it right than getting in at the right time. We've seen many carcasses of products that were ahead of their time, not because they were bad ideas but because they were not formulated for mass adoption. Apple's own Newton is one example. It took the iPhone formulation to make the product features successful in the market. A more recent example is the telepresence robot. Many en…

>> big tech companies new really big markets to move the needle

The problem is that most big markets are small at start.

Aren't there models to enter many smaller markets , like a VC , but instead of just supplying capital, the big company will also supply some key tech/knowledge/resources advantages, maybe some that are specialty developed for startups , all for equity?

Re: Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars

#220

Post by m4x »

tim333 wrote: post #198
legolas2412 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been parroting this on every self driving thread. I finally found one person who agrees with my thinking that driving is as hard as general AI. Why is this idea so opposed by everyone?

Because we have self driving elevators, self driving trains (the DLR), driverless busses ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/03/worlds-first-driv... ) and shortly self driving Volvos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q00jIBhkq4 None of those have human level AI. There's a lot you can do in the real world without that. It's interesting that Volvo seems, rather than out AIing their competitors to have gone to town…

Elevators and trains are not even in the same ballpark as cars, and the busses you linked to can't function on public roads. They don't have the ability to interact with other vehicles.

It's entirely valid to state that we can do lots with our current tech, because we can, but when the topic is self driving cars on public roads, it makes no sense to claim they're possible without general AI based on the fact that an existing bus can drive around a closed course.

Giving those busses the ability to navigate arbitrary situations on public roads is not simply an incremental improvement, it requires that you solve a fundamentally different problem.

Post reply on HN