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

Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 582 posts

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#301

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only. Lidar using cars are going to replace at least the ones that don't make use of this obvious answer to obstacle detection challenges.

I find it comical that people continue to go back to this rage well against "a certain company" for their vision-only approach when the truth is they have the best automatic driving system an individual can buy, rivaling Waymo and beating the Chinese brands.

Why are the commenters not pissed at the dozens of other car companies who have done absolutely nothing in this space? Answer: because it's not nearly as fun to be pissed at Kia or Mercedes or whoever. Clearly they are just enjoying the shared anger, regardless of whether it is justified.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#302

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

bilsbie wrote: post #211

Are we sure these things aren’t damaging our eyes? It’s lasers shooting all over the place right?

I get pretty ticked when people shine laser lights in my direction regardless of their intensity, so I'm not too thrilled about the idea of invisible lasers hitting me square in the pupil without my knowledge.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#303

Post by superxpro12 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #301
zelphirkalt wrote: post #119

Since lidar has distance information and cameras do not, it was always a ridiculous idea by a certain company to use cameras only. Lidar using cars are going to replace at least the ones that don't make use of this obvious answer to obstacle detection challenges.

I find it comical that people continue to go back to this rage well against "a certain company" for their vision-only approach when the truth is they have the best automatic driving system an individual can buy, rivaling Waymo and beating the Chinese brands. Why are the commenters not pissed at the dozens of other car companies who have done absolutely nothing in this space? Answer: because it's not nearly as fun to…

There is certainly some truth that "some company" overpromised and underdelivered. They advertise "full self driving" but then hide in the fine-print that "oh jk, not really, but its still full self driving if anyone asks ;) ;) ;)"

I think the frustration stems from the obvious falsehoods in the advertising, and the doubling-down on the tech, despite the well-documented weaknesses of the implementation.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#304

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

btreecat wrote: post #214
bilsbie wrote: post #211

Are we sure these things aren’t damaging our eyes? It’s lasers shooting all over the place right?

When designed, built, installed and calibrated correctly, the power and wavelengths used are not considered harmful to humans.

That's a lot of qualifiers. And replace "humans" with "cameras" and I'm reminded that despite their well-intentioned efforts Volvo has failed there already.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#305

Post by sfn42 »

jeltz wrote: post #207
small_model wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very recent issue with Waymo https://dmnews.co.uk/waymo-robotaxi-spotted-unable-to-cross-... . This is 17 years after they bet the farm on LIDAR, with no signs its ever going to be cost effective or that it's better than multiple cameras, with millisecond reaction 360 degrees, that never gets tired, drunk, distracted, and also has other cheaper sensors and NN trained on Billions or real world data.

Tesla does not handle rain well either. This is not a LIDAR problem, it is a problem with self driving cars in general.

People also don't handle rain well.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#306

Post by xp84 »

Zigurd wrote: post #268

Before y'all say that now everyone will be able to get Waymo's sensor suite for hundreds of dollars instead of tens of thousands, that's the easy part. Waymo benefits from Google's unparalleled geospatial data. Waymo also has a support architecture that doesn't depend on real time remote operation, which can't be implemented reliably in almost all cases. You can't be following your supposedly unsupervised cars with a…

I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but does Alphabet actually intend Waymo to be a trillion dollar retail car business itself, selling cars to everyone? Or would they be happy to sell all those super cool things to OEMs? In a world where “everyone” can make a car affordable that can run Waymo’s software, they may be happy to license all that to “everyone” and simply collect fat royalty checks, à la Microsoft in the 90s, allowing them to make a ton of incremental money without all the capex of making their own cars.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#307

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

pinko wrote: post #282
btreecat wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When designed, built, installed and calibrated correctly, the power and wavelengths used are not considered harmful to humans.

What are the chances some non-trivial proportion of the millions of cars on the road will not have their LIDAR designed, built, installed or calibrated correctly? I suspect this is going to be a recognized public health issue in a decade or two. (It will likely be an issue well before that, but unrecognized...)

There's going to be an expanding market for laser-proof sunglasses.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#308

Post by dmonitor »

Crespyl wrote: post #234
RobotToaster wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One highlight from the video, he says most cameras are fine, it's just iphones that don't have a very good IR filter. Which sounds correct, in my experience most cameras have pretty substantial IR filters that have to be removed if you want to photograph IR. I also wonder if the smaller sensor size on phones contributes, since the energy is being focused onto a smaller spot. Either way, for that to happen he was film…

Is it possible that the iPhone filters are weaker due to FaceID requirements? I seem to recall that FaceID (and similar systems, like Windows Hello) depend on IR to get a more 3D map of the face, so it'd make sense that they want to be more sensitive in that range. Laptops aren't generally being used in the same areas as cars though, so you wouldn't expect to see as many cases involving Windows Hello compatible lapto…

That wouldn't make sense on the back of the phone.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#309

Post by kevlened »

galangalalgol wrote: post #246
veltas wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude that's not a 'puddle' as the article claims, that's a body of water that it's not even visually obvious whether it's safe to drive through. Maybe I'm a bad driver but I'd hesitate to drive through that in a small car either.

I think the difference is the prior knwoldege a commuter has of that section of road. Does it always flood shallowly in heavy rain?

Even without prior knowledge, seeing others safely navigate the same section will lower your estimated risk.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#310

Post by taylortrusty »

superxpro12 wrote: post #303
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it comical that people continue to go back to this rage well against "a certain company" for their vision-only approach when the truth is they have the best automatic driving system an individual can buy, rivaling Waymo and beating the Chinese brands. Why are the commenters not pissed at the dozens of other car companies who have done absolutely nothing in this space? Answer: because it's not nearly as fun to…

There is certainly some truth that "some company" overpromised and underdelivered. They advertise "full self driving" but then hide in the fine-print that "oh jk, not really, but its still full self driving if anyone asks ;) ;) ;)" I think the frustration stems from the obvious falsehoods in the advertising, and the doubling-down on the tech, despite the well-documented weaknesses of the implementation.

Have you driven in Tesla FSD recently? If anything it’s undersold. It’s an absolute miracle. I use it everyday.
Post reply on HN