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

Comma Two Devkit

comma.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 255 posts

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#231

Post by gambiting »

iMuzz wrote: post #19

Quick bit of feedback for any Comma employees lurking: It took me a very long time to realize that this was a self-driving solution for existing vehicles. The hero just says "Driven over 6 million miles" and then a "Buy Now". When I scrolled down and looked at the product and read: > We’ve added an infrared camera to provide 24/7 driver monitoring, an integrated panda, a custom cooling solution, and an OBD-C port wit…

I literally thought I was looking at some funky games console first....but which you mount on your dashboard for some reason? And even after reading the entire website I didn't get that it was meant to be for autopilot - I only got that after reading your comment.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#232

Post by jjuel »

bathtub365 wrote: post #152
missosoup wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. Regulatory capture is a thing. Regulators, at least in part, exist to maintain a barrier to entry for any new players trying to enter a field dominated by large players. Several major tech companies only exist because they broke rules in their early days. And most people agree the outcome was a net benefit to society.

As someone who drives on public roads (and has family and friends who drive on public roads) this is a frightening comparison and attitude.

You are already sharing a road with people who are constantly distracted, drunk, or other. I would say the roads would be a much better place if there were more people who had a computer driving them.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#233

Post by nojvek »

A lot of commaai bashing here.

I was very skeptic too. However using their system for almost an year everyday, I can deffo say it makes me a safer highway driver.

I have overall more awareness of the road since I don’t always have to keep eyes on the lane in front. I look around more around the car and look side mirror/rear mirror more. Once this asshole driver was zipping left and right over taking and was gonna squeeze through us, I could spot him/her from distance and I gave more space. If I didn’t he would have deffo crashed into us. Granted half an hour later he/she did get into a crash.

Another time, car in front suddenly brakes, system immediately alerted and started braking. Even If I was manually driving, I couldn’t have had the same reaction time. Car ahead crashed, ours didn’t.

Some humans are very dangerous highway drivers since they don’t maintain distance with car infront.

This is testament to both commaai and Toyota. I can set I want 2 seconds-ish reaction time with car infront and it always mantains that safe distance. Really neat.

Also commaai driver mobitoring has gotten quite good. Move your eyes off the road for a bit and it yells with an alert to touch the steering wheel and get eyes back on the road. That alone makes you more attentive.

All I can say is give it a shot, it’s quite an ingenous solution to make other brands of cars, highway self lane following.

I’m not gonna say self driving, because essentially it’s a driver monitoring + alert system + lane following system. Very narrow but does a good job at it.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#234

Post by sokoloff »

slg wrote: post #188
missosoup wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaaaand that's why Americans need to pay 500 bucks for an insulin injector pen while Indians pay 10 bucks for the same device. The problem with regulatory capture and arguing it's a good thing, is that there's a downside/cost to the barrier it creates. And often that downside outweighs the upside. To be clear, no one is arguing regulation shouldn't exist. Just that the nature of regulation is to be captured by incumb…

I didn't say regulatory capture is a good thing. I said that barriers to entry can be good in certain instances. In the instance of medical devices, the problem in the US has nothing to do with barriers to entry. If you can drive across the border to Canada and buy an identical product for a fraction of the price it would cost in the US, that isn't because the barrier to entry is too high in the US. The product alrea…

In what way is that scenario not suggestive of a barrier to entry to the US market for the maker of the product already being sold in Canada?

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#235

Post by sokoloff »

bathtub365 wrote: post #230
sokoloff wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As are people with 15 year old rusted hoopties, drivers who had a fight with their significant other, disagreement with a colleague or whose sports team just lost, drivers who slept poorly the last few nights, drivers who are ill and taking cold medicine, cars with lamps out, worn tires, worn ball joints, bad shocks, no ABS, no vehicle stability control, etc. I’m okay with enthusiasts repairing and modifying their ca…

I agree, driving is dangerous. Why is the response to add another dangerous hazard? This argument is ridiculous.

Do you have evidence to support the hypothesis that cars equipped with aftermarket equipment are in general or with this specific system are more dangerous? Do you think such evidence should exist/be considered prior to banning a potential device?

The reason I ask is because there is a general topic of whether we should preemptively block new technology based on hypotheses, whether we should seek supporting evidence, or whether we should wait for confirming data before blocking freedoms to experiment. Said differently, do we ban everything until “proven” safe, allow everything until “proven” unsafe, or something in middle.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#236

Post by rsync »

taneq wrote: post #215
bathtub365 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems irresponsible for an engineering company to avoid regulators.

At risk of being snarky, I'm not sure 'engineering company' is the right moniker. They're an R&D shop making bleeding edge research available on a homebrew platform that can interface with recent vehicles to provide a level 2/3 driver assistance package. The stuff required to pass the regulators is the long, slow, boring process of pushing reliability and failure modes into "safe" territory, while documenting the fac…

"At risk of being snarky, I'm not sure 'engineering company' is the right moniker. They're an R&D shop ..."

... doing their R&D on public roadways, with unwitting / unwilling participants.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#237

Post by rsync »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #16

Comma.ai represents a strange attitude towards life in which you try to turn hard, serious problems (like self-driving), into trivial problems (write some Python and run it on Android phones and plug it into your car!) and try get away with it. It only has a chance of working if you are cool enough in SV such as geohot. I interviewed there once and it was extremely off-putting how clear their demand for fast progress…

"And then we have comma, which controls your vehicle on a non-realtime system..."

This can't be true ... ?

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#238

Post by traverseda »

mindentropy wrote: post #160
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #16

Comma.ai represents a strange attitude towards life in which you try to turn hard, serious problems (like self-driving), into trivial problems (write some Python and run it on Android phones and plug it into your car!) and try get away with it. It only has a chance of working if you are cool enough in SV such as geohot. I interviewed there once and it was extremely off-putting how clear their demand for fast progress…

> And then we have comma, which controls your vehicle on a non-realtime system... Lol. This is what I found extremely shocking and is the first thing that I noticed. I don't think anyone serious about embedded design would touch it. They are trying to ignore decades of experience in real time systems and build some hacky stuff and make it open source.

I don't understand how you'd do hard real-time when one of the major inputs, the neural-networks, aren't deterministic? In a hard real-time system, what happens if your neural-networks are late telling you where the lanes are?

In reality the comma-AI isn't controlling the car, a number of peripherals on the canbus are controlling the car. All those peripherals are hard-real time, and the comma-AI is bridging the non-deterministic neural networks and those hard-real-time peripherals.

At some point you need to deal with the non-deterministic neural networks, and bridge them into a hard real-time control system. People complaining that part of the system isn't real-time just seems like they haven't thought about it very much. Of course the UI and neural networks aren't going to be hard real-time.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#239

Post by djanogo »

chris11 wrote: post #124
bransonf wrote: post #31

Can anyone here comment on actually using a Comma product? I don’t even drive a car, but I don’t see why anyone would buy something like this yet. My point being that it’s not full self driving, and frankly its safety is entirely questionable. Self driving is supposed to make driving less stressful, but does having a system like this actually do that? Or does it make you more stressed because you have to be conscious…

I have an eon and love it for highway driving. It makes long trips relaxing. It's basically the combination of really good adaptive cruise control and active lane keep assist. And I feel it's safe within those limitations. Open Pilot keeps me in my lane on the highway following a safe distance behind other cars. I have a Toyota with TSS 2.0, so the steering is powerful enough on curves. My only complaint about steeri…

Even without openpilot the TSS should have alerted you to brake.

On a recent long trip (24 hour drive) TSS 2.0 by itself made the driving stress free.

It seems like comma is extending the boundaries of TSS by a little bit beyond what Toyota/Honda can legally do at their scale.

Re: Comma Two Devkit

#240

Post by eloff »

Benjammer wrote: post #153
eloff wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On one hand yes, on the other the company wouldn't exist. Regulators are important, but they also serve incumbent interests as they raise the barrier to entry for newcomers. It's a way to pull the ladder up behind you once you've achieved success. I don't know how we can better balance those seemingly conflicting aspects.

I can never really understand this argument. Why can't we carefully craft regulations to scale in their burden with the company's ability to bear said burden in some way? Scale with revenue or head count numbers? Similar to how income at the lowest bracket isn't taxed, to lessen the burden on people much less able to pay.

I like this idea a lot. We don't currently do this, but it would get most of the benefits without most of the downside. Seems like a win.
Post reply on HN