401–410 of 683 posts
We already have cameras on many of our homes, so it should be roughly the same process.
Towing sounds ridiculous. No one should be penalized for a crime someone else did. But taking away one’s car is a major penalty.
Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially dis…
I have 100% thought about a drivers rating system where users rate other drivers. Even better, not only notify insurance companies, but notify other drivers that the idiot in front of them is dangerous so they can react.
I can immediately think of half a dozen ways this would be abused.
The clique of brats in their daddies' Teslas at Sammamish High School bully the unpopular kid.
Black guy who drives through predominately white neighborhoods in the deep south.
Prius with a Harris/Walz bumper sticker in eastern Idaho.
Need I go on?
Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially dis…
It won’t work as you expect. Most of these drivers don’t have insurance. Second, you might make things worse, as now you have other Karen-like drivers who will eventually start threatening other people to report them, and that will escalate a situation from flipping a bird to a more dangerous situation. I sometimes watch dashcam rage videos on YouTube, and these drivers won’t care or even become more aggressive once…
That's an argument for automating the system, taking the biased human actor out of the process.
Genuine question: What is stopping some small percent of drivers from installing cameras and using ML to identify cars driving dangerously (e.g. speeding, running reds, changing multiple lanes at once, etc.), and when their license plate is identifiable, finding and informing their insurance company? If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially dis…
Why would they need to do this when the car makers give them all the data they want already? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Odds are I haven't since I'm always careful to stop twice when turning right on red. (Once before the crosswalk, and again at the far side of the crosswalk to check for cross traffic before executing the turn.)
The second stop is legally irrelevant—if your first stop is insufficient you've run the red as far as the camera is concerned. The second stop may actually be illegal in its own right depending on the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am hoping for an urban camouflage fashion revolution as a response to more pervasive monitoring: https://www.axios.com/2019/09/07/fooling-facial-recognition-... Public access to object recognition models may be important.
I'd like to see that too, but time and time again we've seen that: a) laypeople aren't usually moved by privacy violations more abstract than someone physically watching you do something. b) most people aren't willing to don practical accessories that noticably change the perception of your face unless it emphasizes qualities considered sexy. c) safety gear generally isn't considered sexy I think that this stuff woul…
Ironic related story in the news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2024/08/29/passport-ph...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second stop is legally irrelevant—if your first stop is insufficient you've run the red as far as the camera is concerned. The second stop may actually be illegal in its own right depending on the state.
It's what I was taught to do in driver's ed. I know of no state where turning right on a red light is compulsory so I don't see how coming to a complete stop at any point could possibly be considered illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're comparing a motherboard with dual CPUs at 12+ cores each, a GPU, and 16GB of RAM -- to perhaps an ESP32. Very different design goals.
Sentry consumes around 200W on Intel Atom and camera based detection enabled. I'd say it's a total overkill. It even heats up the display pretty good when it's relatively chilly outside. Source: MYP 22 Intel based
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 83% of USA population live in urban areas If you combine dense urban areas with suburbs. It's about 33% in dense areas and 55% in suburban areas. Which actually doesn't improve the driving situation. > and that proportion is still steadily growing Which is why I specifically mentioned motorcycles. In areas of the world with even greater urban density than the USA there are a lot of these on the road. > The same tre…
> It's about 33% in dense areas and 55% in suburban areas. Which actually doesn't improve the driving situation. Are the suburbs not one of the easier places for autonomous vehicles? I’d think the lower traffic, larger roads, and reliance on cars to get around (due to low density and lack of transit) would make them the ideal place for self-driving cars to succeed.
It’s way more common to take a taxi in the city than the ‘burbs. Behavior for car ownership and expectations around waiting on rides is different. Self driving taxis are an easy transition in cities. In the suburbs, you need to sell people on expensive vehicles that cost a lot per trip (whether owned or hailed).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you in that much of a hurry to not be able to wait 30 seconds for the traffic light?
That’s not the point, a surveillance state where the panopticon autonomously gives $250 tickets is the issue Rules aren’t meant to be cold hard algorithms to blindly punish people with; we wouldn’t automate a judge with an algorithm why is it somehow different to automate a police officer with one?