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

211–220 of 255 posts

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#211

Post by socks »

fabiensanglard wrote: post #171
enragedcacti wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenPilot doesn't require you to flash anything to your car, everything is done using the same CAN messages that the stock ADAS system sends. Further, the microcontroller that communicates between OpenPilot and the vehicle is hardcoded to block any CAN messages OpenPilot sends that are deemed to be too fast to react to: https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/a2ae18d1dbd1e59c38...

I am not impressed with this source code. Maybe you can tell my why i am wrong. The safety.h you pointed to is using "int" for variable declaration instead of using stdints to control size. Is there are reason for that? From safety.h, I tried to follow addr_allowed function parameters. I get here ( https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/c025b96e8a15640ee4... ) and see this: int addr = GET_ADDR(to_send); int bus =…

GitHub > commaai/panda > Search > 'GET_BUS' >

panda/board/drivers/llcan.h

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#212

Post by throwaway100773 »

bildung wrote: post #207
missosoup wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Americans are paying 500 bucks for a pen precisely because of regulatory capture. None of the manufacturers of the cheaper version have been successful in jumping the regulatory barrier to entry which the incumbents lobbied for, and tens of thousands of Americans suffer for it each year.

I have a hard time believing e.g. most european countries have less regulation in the medical sector than the US. Probably less corruption/"lobbying" (because corporate campaign distribitions are more strictly regulated in most other countries), but corruption quite different from regulation, even if both affect how law gets written.

Many times it’s hard to distinguish the difference between regulation and corruption. Sometimes they’re one disguised as the other. Not sure what method you have for distinguishing between the two, so please share!

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#214

Post by sokoloff »

slg wrote: post #178
eloff wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand yes, on the other the company wouldn't exist. Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers. It's a way to pull the ladder up behind you once you've achieved success. I don't know how we can better balance those seemingly conflicting aspects.

> Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers. Call me crazy, but when it comes to products that could so easily cause death, a barrier to entry is a good thing.

Taking another angle, when it comes to a product that could so easily save a net of 10s of thousands of Americans every year once fully developed, barriers to entry might be counter-productive.

(I’m actually fairly bearish on level 5 self-driving being “close”, but if it was, speeding that up would almost surely be worth throwing the switch on the trolley tracks for both the lives saved and the reduction in wasted attention of those who would have otherwise used a lot of their lifetime driving.)

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#215

Post by taneq »

bathtub365 wrote: post #144
eloff wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is deliberate. It's also why you have to download and install the self driving software separately. AFAIK regulators stepped in and killed comma as a self driving solution, so this is their way of still going forward and trying to maintain plausible deniability. It might not pass muster in a court of law, I don't know, but it should probably keep the regulators off their back.

It seems irresponsible for an engineering company to avoid regulators.

At risk of being snarky, I'm not sure 'engineering company' is the right moniker. They're an R&D shop making bleeding edge research available on a homebrew platform that can interface with recent vehicles to provide a level 2/3 driver assistance package.

The stuff required to pass the regulators is the long, slow, boring process of pushing reliability and failure modes into "safe" territory, while documenting the fact. This is the 'engineering' part. Making a system that works (probably, most of the time) isn't engineering, it's hacking.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#216

Post by taneq »

slg wrote: post #176
missosoup wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're already driving on roads shared with garbage solution like tesla's '''autopilot''' this thing is no different other than the creators not being able to afford the regulatory bribe to deploy it.

Comma is bragging about 6 million miles drive. Tesla's Autopilot has over 2 billion miles driven. This has two cameras (EDIT: and apparently 1 radar that already exists in the vehicle). Tesla's has 12 cameras, 12 sonars, and 1 radar. This is backed by a company that apparently has received $8 million in funding. Autopilot is backed by a company with a market cap of $84 billion. You are welcome to your opinion of Tesl…

I haven't seen any videos of OpenPilot vehicles swerving towards gore points or ploughing into stopped vehicles, though.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#217

Post by sokoloff »

bathtub365 wrote: post #164
o-__-o wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Next time you drive, look around you at some of the other drivers. The ones with cell phones in their hands are more dangerous than someone with a comma.ai dev kit. Fun story: I wanted to build a hypermilling coach/trainer system about 10 years ago and got to the point of having a poor mans ACC in a Scion. It didn’t brake though, only coasted to lose speed (thus requiring driver input). So I got the wild idea of tapp…

I agree, both cell phone drivers and people with unlicensed, untested, unregulated homebrew self-driving setups are dangers to everyone around them.

As are people with 15 year old rusted hoopties, drivers who had a fight with their significant other, disagreement with a colleague or whose sports team just lost, drivers who slept poorly the last few nights, drivers who are ill and taking cold medicine, cars with lamps out, worn tires, worn ball joints, bad shocks, no ABS, no vehicle stability control, etc.

I’m okay with enthusiasts repairing and modifying their cars and driving them on public roads, because I’d rather have that than a world where only certified cars, maintained at certified dealers, using only certified parts are permitted on the roads.

Maybe you're not a "car person". Apply the same principles to whatever field you have passion for. Only certified Intel parts may be added by Intel technicians to Intel computers, which must run only certified operating systems. Or only certified Edison lightbulbs may be added to certified Edison light fixtures by certified Edison technicians. Only certified firmware may be run on devices you're being allowed to rent from the certified manufacturer.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#218

Post by sokoloff »

cranky_coder wrote: post #130
pbreit wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quality of a product is pretty much always determined by the marketplace, not regulators.

I feel like the Boeing 737 MAX situation is a clear demonstration that this isn’t really the case, especially in the realm of safety regulations.

It seems to me like the market has developed a better idea of the product quality there than the regulators initially did.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#219

Post by taneq »

bathtub365 wrote: post #174
chris11 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it’s still operating within the bounds of the factory electronic steering That's Comma AI's approach. Their hardware spoofs the stock computer so it can send commands to the car's active safety systems. So there are some stock limitations, like the steering torque, that openpilot doesn't bypass.

This doesn't address the fundamental issue: a car is being controlled by an untested and unregulated system on public roads.

That's true, but how much oversight is really applied to the existing software systems on modern vehicles? Did national regulators review the design and coding on the electronic stability controls? I doubt it. Is the CAN bridge between the entertainment system and the critical systems bus (with ABS, ESC, power steering etc.) suitably hardened to protect against hackers (hint: no.) Who has reviewed the electrically assisted power steering?

Most things in a modern car are controlled by software that's far more opaque than OpenPilot. Don't get me wrong, a lot of their software and hardware architecture choices scare the heck out of me, but at least it's transparent.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#220

Post by Aeolun »

bathtub365 wrote: post #174
chris11 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it’s still operating within the bounds of the factory electronic steering That's Comma AI's approach. Their hardware spoofs the stock computer so it can send commands to the car's active safety systems. So there are some stock limitations, like the steering torque, that openpilot doesn't bypass.

This doesn't address the fundamental issue: a car is being controlled by an untested and unregulated system on public roads.

That could be a way to describe all human drivers :P
Post reply on HN