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

The Lowdown on Lidar

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 284 posts

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#131

Post by shangxiao »

Karunamon wrote: post #93
kudu wrote: post #83

Why do HN mods keep changing the title from meaningful ones, which make the reader interested in the content, to generic, vague ones? You'll see that there's definitely a correlation between the moment that HN mods change the title and the post dropping off the top frontpage spot.

Agreed - the original title, about a guy beating a LIDAR ticket, was much more descriptive than this headline, which effectively says "This article is about LIDAR".

It was the fact that the guy was Joshua Bloch which got me to read the presentation - and I'm totally glad I did! I would never have read it if it was just named "The Lowdown on Lidar"

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#132

Post by squeaky-clean »

kudu wrote: post #83

Why do HN mods keep changing the title from meaningful ones, which make the reader interested in the content, to generic, vague ones? You'll see that there's definitely a correlation between the moment that HN mods change the title and the post dropping off the top frontpage spot.

I saw the earlier title of this post while flipping through HN on my phone, and I wanted to read the full article during my lunch break. Now here I am, I checked the front page and was very confused where the post I was interested in went, and why some post apparently describing Lidar is at the top.

I guess they're trying to keep the title to match the title of the link/article. But sometimes the article just has a bad title. This slideshow is a great read, but with a title that puts me to sleep.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#133

Post by e40 »

saosebastiao wrote: post #92
quux wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't any traffic lights and crosswalks on this street?

There are some crosswalks, 8 blocks away from each other. No lights for at least a mile. In WA state, every intersection is automatically a legal crosswalk with pedestrian right of way (unless marked with a "No Pedestrian Crossing" sign), but the lack of enforcement combined with the high speeds makes that right of way effectively meaningless.

I walk a lot in CA. Not long ago I saw a cop not yield to a pregnant woman pushing a baby in a stroller, in a 4 lane road. She was in the crosswalk, clearly marked. There was no light or stop sign, but she was in the middle of the 4 lanes when the cop drove past her in the closest lane. I really couldn't believe what I was seeing.

When the cops don't even respect the laws, the laws are meaningless.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#134

Post by aroch »

MattGrommes wrote: post #74

As a college intern at a national lab my boss' boss got a speeding ticket on the military base we worked on. He spent some time doing research and when he presented his evidence in court the judge apparently told him he wasn't going to have to pay the fine but the judge wasn't going to find him not guilty because he wasn't going to risk invalidating all speed gun findings. I don't recall if it was lidar but it's funn…

Lower courts (even in the Military) can't really establish any meaningful precedence

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#135

Post by personZ »

daniel_levine wrote: post #125
kudu wrote: post #83

Why do HN mods keep changing the title from meaningful ones, which make the reader interested in the content, to generic, vague ones? You'll see that there's definitely a correlation between the moment that HN mods change the title and the post dropping off the top frontpage spot.

The title has been changed to the title the original author used, which seems appropriate. I think HN's title modding is done to prevent rampant link baiting and other titling by 3rd parties, instead entrusting it with the original author

The title has been changed to the title the original author used, which seems appropriate.

Titles have a context (which the author considered when they chose it). That context doesn't exist when it sits enumerated on the HN front page, invalidating the canonical title argument.

For instance when the author of this piece shared this, they did so under their own twitter account (coupling it with a name), and the supporting commentary "I gave this talk at a CA traffic ticket defense attorney seminar. Comments appreciated.". If these two elements didn't exist, and it was just tossed onto some pile of titles, it would be ignored.

I write a blog about software development, particularly financial and database related matters. I have vague titles like "Dealing with Variance" that makes total sense in the context of my blog and its readership, but is completely meaningless title outside of it.

While I do think there has been good transparency about title changes (a mod usually comments), the whole "what the original author intended" argument is misled.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#136

Post by cfqycwz »

daniel_levine wrote: post #125
kudu wrote: post #83

Why do HN mods keep changing the title from meaningful ones, which make the reader interested in the content, to generic, vague ones? You'll see that there's definitely a correlation between the moment that HN mods change the title and the post dropping off the top frontpage spot.

The title has been changed to the title the original author used, which seems appropriate. I think HN's title modding is done to prevent rampant link baiting and other titling by 3rd parties, instead entrusting it with the original author

I think this policy makes a lot of sense--it's best to ban editorialization of headlines altogether as there's no good objective way for mods to differentiate bad editorialization (sensationalism, inaccuracy) from good editorialization (adding pertinent information, clarifying, and de-sensationalizing).

However, there is also a strong argument to be made that there are good articles with lame titles (such as this one) which would otherwise be glossed over without a title change. Maybe the best solution would be to add a summary field to submissions, restricted to an 80-character, purely factual synopsis of the article's contents. It could show up smaller, beneath the submission headline, like a subtitle.

This way, you gain the benefits of editorialization (providing pertinent info highlighting the article's appeal to HN readers) while minimizing most of the downsides (loss of info provided in the title, misconstruction of the author's intent).

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#137

Post by eric_h »

diminoten wrote: post #118
timdierks wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I submitted the link with the title you note for the following three reasons: 1. Josh Bloch is an author of particular interest to this community. 2. When I searched to see if the page had already been submitted, I noted that recent HN posts on LIDAR were on technical laser ranging (e.g. in mapping applications), not on speed enforcement. 3. I thought it was an article that would be of interest to HN readers, so I th…

From the guidelines: > Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or adding a parenthetical remark saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. and > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.

The original title is, indeed, misleading. The article is not about LIDAR specifically, but about how LIDAR is (mis)used in speed enforcement. IMO, the title change was warranted.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#138

Post by mseebach »

mortov wrote: post #61
taeric wrote: post #4

I confess I was expecting to not care for this. I'm not sure how any of it should be surprising, as it seemed fairly straight forward analysis of the tools. That said, this was a ridiculously fun read. More detailed than expected for some parts, and always informative. I'm glad it did not come across as anti speed detectors. Really more of a "know the limitations."

Often (but not always) in the UK, the laser is accompanied by video footage which shows where the beam has been trained and it is a combination of both the video and laser reading (shows on the video) which is the evidence. (all tripod mounted - so I suspect many of the issues detailed are well known). Sounds like that would give good supporting evidence for a challenge. However, traffic violations is most places are…

In the UK, speed cameras seem to be accompanied by road markings:

http://southport.qlocal.co.uk/southport/news_list/New_Speed_...

I always assumed that the radar was only for deciding to take and submit the pictures, the actual speed measurement (especially if challenged) would be done using the markings on the road.

That only requires the speed camera to have a reliable to 1/100 second clock which isn't exactly rocket science.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#139

Post by lnanek2 »

Karunamon wrote: post #93
kudu wrote: post #83

Why do HN mods keep changing the title from meaningful ones, which make the reader interested in the content, to generic, vague ones? You'll see that there's definitely a correlation between the moment that HN mods change the title and the post dropping off the top frontpage spot.

Agreed - the original title, about a guy beating a LIDAR ticket, was much more descriptive than this headline, which effectively says "This article is about LIDAR".

Yeah, I had to read a lot of slides wondering why it was repeating the same thing over and over before I realized he was trying to beat a ticket. It definitely isn't a general purpose tech primer like the new title makes it sound, it's just focused on covering an error situation that gives you a legal out.

Re: The Lowdown on Lidar

#140

Post by grecy »

goodcanadian wrote: post #84
grecy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't believe [average speed detector is] not implanted at least in all interstate freeways. They are very common in Australia. It takes a photo of your license plate, then another 10km (or whatever) down the freeway. If the two photos are less than x seconds apart, you get a speeding ticket.

I was going to say something similar. However, the ones I have seen are only applied to large trucks. So far, at least, cars can speed through with impunity.

The Melbourne->Geelong road (Australia's busiest, and deadliest) has many, and they will ding regular cars.
Post reply on HN