151–160 of 298 posts
I bought my car with the express intent of getting a compatible car for Comma. My comma absolutely increased the utility of my car to me. Been on 3 huge road trips that I wouldn’t have considered without the device. 12 hours on the road isn’t something I would do everyday, but absolutely bearable with a comma.
Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car. I've looked through some of the code and I think for me to buy into the safety the quality of the code would need to be improved, well commented, and audited.
> Not sure I'm so keen on Python driving my car. It uses CPython, which is reference counted, letting them ensure predictable timing/hard real-time system.
It's running on Android.
I bought my car with the express intent of getting a compatible car for Comma. My comma absolutely increased the utility of my car to me. Been on 3 huge road trips that I wouldn’t have considered without the device. 12 hours on the road isn’t something I would do everyday, but absolutely bearable with a comma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sensationalized stories about self-driving deaths. I disagree that they're sensationalized. Self-driving systems are designed to improve user safety, but when they end up making mistakes that human drivers _wouldn't_ make then it's appropriate to thoroughly investigate these systems. > is because they were self-driving. Well, precisely. We tolerate driving accidents because we know that the mobility that cars provi…
> human drivers _wouldn't_ make But human drivers make a lot of mistakes that computer drivers _wouldn't_. If it is safER than humans - it is better. No need to be perfect.
But human drivers make human errors, understandable, explainable, common errors that we are used to, and therefore we underestimate their severity.
Self-driving cars will make space-alien machine-logic crazy weird and definitely not human errors, they will cause fatalities in situations where any reasonable human wouldn't, and that is much scarier than human errors, and therefore we overestimate their severity.
And that makes self-driving a very, very hard sell, it's simply not enough to be statistically better on just the numbers, you have to be psychologically better, and that's a huge hurdle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways. Either you're selling something and taking some responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that you don't want people to use on the road. This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we…
It’s because the standard product doesn’t have autopilot, they sell a driver assistance tool. The tool they sell does not have autopilot. The device is open, and you can flash with their open source code from GitHub to give you hacky autopilot. This is how they get around the legal issue. It’s like a “we sell you a legal product. We advise you don’t flash this code on it which we are hosting on GitHub wink wink ”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. This is just a safety precaution. Why wouldn't they put this in there? It may not hold up in court but it can't hurt. I don't think this means they "know it could fail in dangerous ways". The safety model in comma.ai is actually quite brilliant. It can't perform any action faster…
"It may not hold up in court but it can't hurt" If you sell someone something with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, and they get killed using it, it absolutely hurts. You may be able to weasel out of being held accountable for it, in which case it won't hurt you , but the larger issue here is that this kind of misleading copy can lead to people making poor decisions. You may have put it in the fine print that it's not a rea…
If I buy a cell phone holder for my car, and it distracts me and I get into an accident? What if Car Play lags and i'm distracted and I get into an accident? What if radio plays an ambulance and I freak out and get into an accident? What if my sunglasses make me mistake a red light?
This product does lane assist. It does a good job according to consumer reports [0], higher than all other lane assists. It doesn't detect stop signs or traffic lights or drive for you. It keeps your lane. It acts predictably and gives the driver enough time to react.
Unfortunately the liability model is messed up. I think this product is relatively tame and should allow to exist. And you need to pay attention. They even have inward facing cameras to make sure you're paying attention, more than most other companies. They do everything they can to be safe but of course they're not stupid and they'll put in a sweeping statement on liability.
This is really pushing forward the self-driving industry and is an incredible feat of engineering. It's much more open and transparent than every other lane keeping software, and it's being developed with a lot of thought and care from a talented engineer as opposed to some nameless faceless bureaucratic commission in Ford or some other dinosaur.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/37833/consumer-reports-ranks-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>THIS IS ALPHA QUALITY SOFTWARE FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A PRODUCT. It is weird that one of the only things I see above the fold on the company's home page is a "Buy Now" button considering they don't actually sell "a product".
Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways. Either you're selling something and taking some responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that you don't want people to use on the road. This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we…
Exactly the same as Tesla then?
Though I do think they are both terrible reckless.
"The driver is always responsible" might or might not be a good enough legal scapegoat, but morally inexcusable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like 20% of the features only for certain cars. Pretty bold claim ;P
It's for 1/10th of the price, so twice better then? Just kidding, my point is that Tesla is selling it in about the same terms. Beta software for extra money, no guarantees.
Autopilot = lane keep on the highway, it's as mature as lane keep is on Toyota or Honda. It's also included for no additional cost in all tesla, so it's actually 100% cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah - I don't think this would hold up, you can't really have it both ways. Either you're selling something and taking some responsibility for certain failures, or it's research that you don't want people to use on the road. This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. Basically, "don't use this on the road" wink wink, but we…
> This comes across as them selling a product they know could fail in dangerous ways, but they don't want to be responsible for any of it. Exactly the same as Tesla then? Though I do think they are both terrible reckless. "The driver is always responsible" might or might not be a good enough legal scapegoat, but morally inexcusable.
Tesla expects you to use its product on the road and expects it to work within the constraints they tell you with you also paying attention.