Live data from Hacker News

Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

insideevs.com

271–280 of 283 posts

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#271
post #3

> According to the SAE levels of driving automation, a Level 3-capable vehicle can take over certain driving tasks, but a driver is still required to be present and ready to take control of the car at all times when prompted to intervene. The first part of the article mentions the driver being able to take a meeting or watch a movie. That’s complete horseshit if they need to be ready to take control of the car at all…

Why? As far as I can tell, people already watch their smartphones while driving at level zero.

Not legally.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#272
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about how long back in time we can go and still find a Youtube video of a car driving itself as well as they do now. The video you posted is two weeks old.

Oh, I see, sorry. I think the "as well as they do now" is a constraint which means the answer will be null because of continuous improvement. But I believe the video with the blind guy does have a long form version somewhere, so if you consider that (different vehicle, much older technology) to be "as well as they do now" in the sense you meant then that's still roughly in the six year mark. xracy talked about autono…

I debated putting in the explicit reference to trains.

But it's funnier if I don't.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#273
post #64
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a new technology. L3/L4 autonomous vehicles have existed for 50+ years. Even in cars, it's not a new technology. But it's very easy to claim something without backing it up. Which is exactly what tesla has been doing with this "new technology" for the last 10 years. People are cautious about hearing news about self-driving, because in the past there have been some pretty major caveats.

How does Tesla not have something to back up their claim that self driving is coming? This was certainly not possbile 10 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X9XyHHTTQI How long back in time can we go and still find a Youtube video of a car driving itself as well as this one?

Because I've been in the driver's seat of a tesla vehicle when it attempted to turn into oncoming traffic, color me skeptical. No reason for it to turn left, but started to crank the wheel left into oncoming traffic. It's dangerous to call that autonomous, precisely because of how good it "looks" from the outside. The closer people are to this, the more they'll trust it.

case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34347778

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you could make the same argument for why the elevator should work even in a fire. But, you might have noticed if you live or work in a tall building, it explicitly doesn't work in a fire. We decided as a society you don't get to make that choice - because it's very rare this is actually a good idea but people would do it anyway.

There are multiple reasons why the two situations are not comparable: 1. The elevator does not belong to you. The building manager setting whatever policies on its usage that they want does not violate your right to use your property however you like. For it to be analogous, during a blizzard the road would have to refuse to let your car onto it. 2. While you use the elevator, no one else (such as fire crews) can use…

> I suppose the same is not true in a skyscraper. Do elevators shut down in those too?

Generally, yes. In very tall buildings it will often be possible to seek authorization to use elevators for evacuation but you need to specifically arrange for the elevators and rest of the building to be suitable, in most cases it makes more sense for the evacuation plan to rely on stairwells instead. Walking down even 100 flights is a huge annoyance, but it's not impossible for able-bodied adults.

You'll know if you visit a building where the elevators are to be used in evacuation because they'll say very clearly on them that's what you should do, it's part of the regulations authorizing such things in the US and other countries I looked at with this allowance.

In addition most tall residential buildings have "Remain in place" strategies where evacuation would rarely be needed because the building is supposed to be designed so that most occupants are in no danger from likely emergencies such as a fire in another residence.

> I wouldn't think that the idea that hardware should obey its operator would need to be defended in HN of all places.

"I am entitled to whatever I want" is indeed a pretty common libertarian nonsense we see on HN but it tend to get shot down more often than not. There's no reason that hardware should be designed to do unreasonable things just because that's "obeying its operator".

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#275
post #228
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to note that healthcare is much cheaper in Germany than in the US. In addition to that, compensation for injuries also tends to be much lower. That massively affects the costs of accidents.

In Germany if you are liable for an accident the health insurance of the affected people will bill you for all incurring costs. At market rate, not at "health insurance discount" rate. I wouldn't bet that the cost in that case is lower than in the US.

US users are apparently confused. Germany does not have universal healthcare, everything is priced differently if you pay out of pocket.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#276
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are responsible for two tons of metal flying down the road at 70 mph That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible.

"That's the thing - you're not. Once engaged, Mercedes takes liability, so you're no longer responsible ..." I didn't say you were legally responsible. You are morally responsible.

So if I'm a passenger in a car and the driver hits someone - I'm morally responsible?

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple reasons why the two situations are not comparable: 1. The elevator does not belong to you. The building manager setting whatever policies on its usage that they want does not violate your right to use your property however you like. For it to be analogous, during a blizzard the road would have to refuse to let your car onto it. 2. While you use the elevator, no one else (such as fire crews) can use…

> I suppose the same is not true in a skyscraper. Do elevators shut down in those too? Generally, yes. In very tall buildings it will often be possible to seek authorization to use elevators for evacuation but you need to specifically arrange for the elevators and rest of the building to be suitable, in most cases it makes more sense for the evacuation plan to rely on stairwells instead. Walking down even 100 flights…

>There's no reason that hardware should be designed to do unreasonable things just because that's "obeying its operator".

You're not talking about designing a piece of hardware to do unreasonable things. You're talking about designing a piece of hardware to be unable to do arbitrary things. Why do I say arbitrary? Because the designer is not omniscient. They cannot conceive of all the possible future situations in which their product will be used. Are you really unable to imagine situations where it might be necessary to drive on the road regardless of the conditions outside?

That aside, this has nothing to do with libertarianism or "doing whatever you want". I'm not saying if you decide to drive on the road in such conditions you should not be liable if you cause an accident. I'm saying, simply, "people should be able to use their property however they like". That doesn't seem like such a controversial idea to me. Or are you saying you shouldn't be able to do that? You don't trust yourself to use your property responsibly?

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of those 10 seconds would the car spend trying to notify the driver. "Warning, take the wheel! Death imminent" takes a good 6 seconds to say :P

the “hull alarm” sound from eve online would be perfect for this

Or the Red Alert from Star Trek

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose the same is not true in a skyscraper. Do elevators shut down in those too? Generally, yes. In very tall buildings it will often be possible to seek authorization to use elevators for evacuation but you need to specifically arrange for the elevators and rest of the building to be suitable, in most cases it makes more sense for the evacuation plan to rely on stairwells instead. Walking down even 100 flights…

>There's no reason that hardware should be designed to do unreasonable things just because that's "obeying its operator". You're not talking about designing a piece of hardware to do unreasonable things. You're talking about designing a piece of hardware to be unable to do arbitrary things. Why do I say arbitrary? Because the designer is not omniscient. They cannot conceive of all the possible future situations in wh…

What if there were some situation where I needed to rig the battery of my car to discharge so fast it explodes? Since the hardware can be physically driven to do that, obviously the software should support doing it. The designers of the software are just nannying me by not enabling the 'self destruct' capability that my property has. They just don't trust me to use it responsibly.

Re: Mercedes is the first automaker to offer Level 3 self-driving in the US

#280
post #260
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be even nicer to have investments in public transport infrastructure to allow large population centers to not depend on cars for the majority of A to B trips. The problems of last mile train stations in the US are completely self-inflicted, to cater for the current status quo of car-centric development, you don't need massive parking lots in central train stations for the majority of big population centres in Eu…

> It'd be even nicer to have investments in public transport infrastructure to allow large population centers to not depend on cars for the majority of A to B trips. Your suggestion requires that we demolish and redo entire swathes of cities before we would gain any benefits. My suggestion can be implemented piecemeal on specific corridors and start gaining benefits immediately. Path dependence is a thing. Political…

That's just kicking the can further down than what's been already kicked. If the only matter for political will is short-term gains then there's absolutely no possibility of revamping decrepit and inadequate structures such as the lack of public transportation in the US.

At some point it'll be needed to do it, the longer the wait the more painful it will become. As you pointed out, it's already pretty fucking painful to achieve it, introducing new features unto an inadequate system is just compounding the issues in the long-term for just a small short-term gain, it's not really smart to do it.

Instead of starting to properly address the issue of transportation at scale, your suggestion will just add a component of "smartness" to a system that is already overloaded and definitely not good for society. Car-dependency is not a net positive. I'm not against people using and having cars but depending on them for transportation between large population centres is an absurd waste of resources for a society...

Simple and easy solutions have a tendency to create even larger problems, it's unfortunate there's no political will in the USA to revamp its transportation system because it's clear to not be the most efficient way for your society to move around.

Post reply on HN