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

131–140 of 582 posts

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

#131

Post by adrianN »

vntok wrote: post #85
adrianN wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who needs facial recognition if you can identify people based on gait?

Judicial systems where a 6% error rate is deemed way too high to lead to a conviction.

Then you combine it with some other technique, eg tracking daily routes of individuals, to lower the error rate. You only need a handful of bits to distinguish all inhabitants of the average city. But imho that error rate would likely be low enough for some judge to authorize more invasive surveillance of suspects thus identified.

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

#132

Post by imtringued »

small_model wrote: post #23
khafra wrote: post #6

Oh hell yeah, we can finally stop the braindead attempts to make a safe self-driving car with just cameras.

Yes, silly using just cameras, I mean humans have Lidar sensors, that why they can drive, why didn't new just copy that....oh wait. It all seriousness though, Tesla are producing cyber cabs now which are 10th the price of Waymo's and can drive autonomously anywhere in the world. I think we can see where this is going. (Hint: not well for Waymo) Also the article is speculative 'MicroVision says its sensor could one da…

I don't understand what you're saying.

Stereo based depth mapping is kind of bad, especially so if it is not IR assisted. The quality you get from Lidar out of the box is crazy good in comparison.

What you can do is train a model using both the camera and Lidar data to produce a good disparity and depth map but this just means you're using more Lidar not less.

>It all seriousness though, Tesla are producing cyber cabs now which are 10th the price of Waymo's and can drive autonomously anywhere in the world. I think we can see where this is going. (Hint: not well for Waymo)

This feels like a highly misleading claim that might technically be true in the sense that there are less restrictions, but a reduction in restrictions doesn't imply an increase in capability.

The comment about Waymo seems to be particularly myopic. Waymo has self driving technology and is operating as a financially successful business. There is no conceivable situation where the mere existence of competition with almost the same capabilities would shake that up. Why isn't it companies like Uber, who have significantly fallen behind, that are in trouble?

>Also the article is speculative 'MicroVision says its sensor could one day break the $100 barrier'. One day...

And so is the comment about Tesla cyber cabs.

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

esskay wrote: post #79
zemvpferreira wrote: post #10

The mind salivates at the idea of sub-$100 and soon after sub-$10 Lidar. We could build spatial awareness into damn near everything. It'll be a cambrian explosion of autonomous robots.

RIP to every single camera in existence if that happens. Lidar is awful with damaging camera lenses.

[deleted]

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

#134

Post by rfv6723 »

squigz wrote: post #121
rfv6723 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reaction actually proves the point. Aggression thrives in anonymous spaces because the lack of oversight removes the weight of accountability. When people feel unobserved, they quickly abandon the social friction that once held tribes and clans together. You are essentially providing a live demonstration of why a society without any form of monitoring inevitably slides into the Hobbesian trap.

I don't think a random internet comment proves anything about society at large. People don't hesitate to be aggressive even when they're not anonymous and there's a threat of accountability - see, all crime, or people just acting shitty toward others. Mass surveillance does not cause everyone to magically get along.

History shows that whenever surveillance gaps appear, chaos follows. The explosion of crime during early urbanization was the specific catalyst for the creation of modern police forces because traditional social bonds had failed to provide oversight in growing cities. Japan maintains its safety through a deep-rooted culture of mutual neighborhood monitoring that leaves little room for anonymity. Even China successfully quelled the violent crime waves of its early economic boom by implementing a sophisticated surveillance network.

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

#135

Post by donkey_brains »

rfv6723 wrote: post #89
oblio wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, I guess, even more advanced surveillance.

Humanity has never known a world without surveillance. Responsibility cannot exist without being watched. Primitive tribes lived under the constant eye of the group, and agricultural eras relied on the strict oversight of the clan. Modern states simply adopted new tools for an ancient necessity. A society without monitoring is a society without accountability, which only leads to the Hobbesian trap of endless conflic…

Mass surveillance is a relatively recent development. Dense urban civilizations are not. And yet their denizens have not historically devolved into a “nasty, brutish, and short” existence. In fact, cities have been centers of culture and learning throughout history. How does this square with your theory?

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

#136

Post by IsTom »

eurekin wrote: post #126
IsTom wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human eye is opaque to Absorbing the laser isn't necessarily any good. Very hypothetically it could lead to cataracts.

Sun emits much stronger IR, near-IR, UV

And staring directly at the sun is not recommended.

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

#137

Post by skandinaff »

brador wrote: post #61

Is this Human safe at these volumes? There was a time you could get your feet sized by putting them into an X-ray box at the shoe store. Removed from stores once the harm was known.

Well, the energy levels used in those devices should be miniscule, and the wavelengths used are well studies. The problem with x-rays - was lack of studies on health effects, and regulations on those effects. I think, since that time, we've studies radiation (be it light, rf or other parts of spectrum) much more. There is indeed a possibility that we're overlooking some bio-electromagnetic interaction effects; for instance now there is some evidence that led lights might not be harmless - but again, it's not the they affect biological structures somehow, but the lack of spectral components has some effects. It is an interesting topic to research. But, the lidar "should" be safe

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

#138

Post by Terr_ »

pedro_caetano wrote: post #100
esskay wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RIP to every single camera in existence if that happens. Lidar is awful with damaging camera lenses.

Is there any deeper study on long term effects regarding retinal damage? I would imagine, even with safe dosages, there would be some form of cumulative effect in terms of retinal phototoxicity. More so if we consider the scenario that this becomes a standard COTS feature in cars and we are walking around a city centre with a fleet of hundreds of thousands of these laser sources.

I suspect we can't quantify human eye-damage enough to easily rule-out chronic effects... until it's too late for the patient.

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

#139

Post by wasmainiac »

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.

Just say Tesla, why censor yourself.

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

#140

Post by bregma »

eurekin wrote: post #126
IsTom wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human eye is opaque to Absorbing the laser isn't necessarily any good. Very hypothetically it could lead to cataracts.

Sun emits much stronger IR, near-IR, UV

Absolutely, and is a major cause of cataracts. Somewhat near 100% of people with lenses in their eyes will get cataracts eventually if they are ever exposed to unfiltered sunlight.
Post reply on HN