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

Comma Two Devkit

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 255 posts

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#131

Post by [deleted] »

StavrosK wrote: post #41
enragedcacti wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding a vehicle is the equivalent to writing drivers (heh) for your particular car. It entails reverse engineering your car's builtin driver assist features to determine which CAN messages do things like actuate the brakes and gas, turn the wheel with a given amount of torque, or communicate radar values from the cars builtin radar sensor. For many cars the CAN messages will be the same as similar models so porting…

Wait wait wait, are you telling me I can actuate the brakes and gas and turn the steering wheel via the CAN bus? So I can realize my dream of turning my car into an RC car just with a Raspberry Pi and a $4 dongle? That is the best news of the year! Which cars have these sorts of actuators? How can I see if mine does?

[deleted]

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#132

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

StavrosK wrote: post #75
ObsoleteNerd wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any car with drive by wire and/or modern safety features (lane assist, forward crash avoidance, etc) can be controlled (to an extent) via the CANBUS. It’s different for (almost) every car, but you’d be amazed how easy and fun cars are to hack on, as long as you keep it off the streets.

It's definitely lots of fun, but I didn't know it was easy, I thought the CAN bus was read-only. I can't wait to discover what my car supports.

If it was read-only... how would you be able to 'clear a check engine light'...?

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#133

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

derefr wrote: post #119
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #16

Comma.ai represents a strange attitude towards life in which you try to turn hard, serious problems (like self-driving), into trivial problems (write some Python and run it on Android phones and plug it into your car!) and try get away with it. It only has a chance of working if you are cool enough in SV such as geohot. I interviewed there once and it was extremely off-putting how clear their demand for fast progress…

> If you ran comma.ai in your car and had a serious crash, you could possibly be found criminally negligent. I don't know that it's much different than using cruise-control and then having a serious crash. If there's criminal negligence when using cruise control, it's because you weren't aware-enough to shut it off when the conditions cruise-control is built for no longer applied; the mere fact of using cruise-contro…

You can get a learners permit to teach your teenager completely legally. You couldn't do the same with a 10 year old...

If a serious crash involving comma.ai went to trial, it would look like the driver was using unapproved, unregulated software, unnecessarily, putting others at risk. Recent Autopilot incidents show us that expecting a human to take over within a second is not reasonable. I would be very worried that the court would indeed find the driver negligent.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#134

Post by lawnchair_larry »

kick wrote: post #101
throwawaymath wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hotz tweeted from the official Comma.ai account that rather than providing the requisite response, the company would instead be cancelling Comma One entirely, and turning its attention to “other products and markets,” since Hotz says that the prospect of a life “dealing with regulators and lawyers… isn’t worth it.” ...Wow. Maybe don't develop autonomous driving tech then?

Their tech is within the top two right now, and Hotz has demonstrated a deep responsibility with it. Plus, it's all libre software. Skipping regulators seems fine, given (unlike their competitors) they're acting responsibly. Their eye-tracking tech is really cool, too, and prevents the Tesla problem of drivers losing focus.

Their tech is nowhere close to the top two.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#135

Post by vineyardmike »

ehaisnfn wrote: post #91
awal2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When somebody installs Linux on their computer without knowing what they are doing they might make break their computer. When somebody tries to install after-market self-driving equipment in their car without knowing what they are doing they could easily kill people.

That's really a bullshit comparison. It either works, or it does not. That's quite literally the same as oem systems. It either works, or throws an error and does not.

Yeah and Many people probably don’t want a car that’s “self driving” (or insert your definition of what OpenPilot does) to “throw an error” while going down the highway. That’s not safe for the car or the nearby drivers.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#137

Post by [deleted] »

chris11 wrote: post #124
bransonf wrote: post #31

Can anyone here comment on actually using a Comma product? I don’t even drive a car, but I don’t see why anyone would buy something like this yet. My point being that it’s not full self driving, and frankly its safety is entirely questionable. Self driving is supposed to make driving less stressful, but does having a system like this actually do that? Or does it make you more stressed because you have to be conscious…

I have an eon and love it for highway driving. It makes long trips relaxing. It's basically the combination of really good adaptive cruise control and active lane keep assist. And I feel it's safe within those limitations. Open Pilot keeps me in my lane on the highway following a safe distance behind other cars. I have a Toyota with TSS 2.0, so the steering is powerful enough on curves. My only complaint about steeri…

[deleted]

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#138

Post by mynegation »

> On stage, I asked Hotz about safety issues and concerns, but he expressed confidence that Comma One wasn’t doing anything existing technology on the market doesn’t already offer.

This is a nonsensical reply. Begs the question what is it that Comma does not do that every proper self-driving or driver assistant solution does.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#140

Post by shiftpgdn »

Barrin92 wrote: post #110
kick wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their tech is within the top two right now, and Hotz has demonstrated a deep responsibility with it. Plus, it's all libre software. Skipping regulators seems fine, given (unlike their competitors) they're acting responsibly. Their eye-tracking tech is really cool, too, and prevents the Tesla problem of drivers losing focus.

>Their tech is within the top two right now, how can anyone make that statement in the same breath as declaring that dodging regulators is fine? Who the hell evaluates the quality of the product if not regulators? Are we supposed to take George Hotz's or the companies word for it?

I am a comma user, engineer and autonomous vehicle enthusiast. Comma truly is second only Tesla if we leave out Waymo, but Waymo is only operating in Geofenced areas.

I have used every single pilot assist out and they're all quiet frankly terrible in comparison. I will give GM Supercruise a nod in how well it's done but again, it's Geofenced.

Post reply on HN