41–50 of 62 posts
> People rediscover radar attack that has been known and fixed over six decades ago. Amazing. We've gone full circle now. I wonder if this is a problem of generational differences in knowledge transfer ... or rather the lack of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how much effort is warranted though. If people want to mess up traffic they can drop a concrete block off an overpass, run a heavy chain across the road, change signage, use tire shredders or do any number of antisocial things. Many of which are extremely cheap and not preventable. Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers. But how much…
> Probably the most novel factor would be that sensor disruption is more deniable than many other threats to drivers. There's another aspect to it: sure you could disrupt traffic with all the means you cited, but you had to be there physically, and you'd run the very likely risk of being caught and beaten up by angry drivers. With invisible and electronic means like this, all it takes is to put a box with the jamming…
Dropping a handful of nails over an overpass is unlikely to be noticed, much less attract retaliation from the victims
What's funny is that so much effort is going into these radar systems for non-autonomous vehicular systems that can be resolved by teaching people how to correctly set their side mirrors to cover their blind spots. You eliminate your blind spots by moving your side mirrors out enough that you can't see the sides of your car without tilting your head a little. You don't need to see your own car in your side mirrors. h…
> I don't need it, because I now keep my side mirrors set correctly I know where cars are beside me before the radar knows. It's not there to replace you looking. It's there as an extra information source in case you make a mistake when looking. Maybe you're lucky with the your car, but even with curved ends of mirrors in mine, there's still a blind spot where I would not see a bike on the passenger's side and the li…
> there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail.
...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why include a (much more expensive) FSD computer in every Tesla then, if it was just a cost-saving measure and radar is actually needed for self-driving? FSD works better today with vision only than any other solution with vison+radar.
The computer was needed anyway to get sensor fusion and reasoning about environment around, so it's not something that was "added" or "more expensive". Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to sup…
When did Tesla have LIDAR?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't need it, because I now keep my side mirrors set correctly I know where cars are beside me before the radar knows. It's not there to replace you looking. It's there as an extra information source in case you make a mistake when looking. Maybe you're lucky with the your car, but even with curved ends of mirrors in mine, there's still a blind spot where I would not see a bike on the passenger's side and the li…
I didn't say the radar was there to replace looking. All you do is set your mirrors correctly and then there's no more blind spot. That's the entire point of the radar system, to "fix" the alleged blind spot problem. The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place. > there's extremely rarely a reason to check the mirror on the side close to the rail. ...
> The problem doesn't exist if people were just taught how to properly adjust their mirrors in the first place.
The problem being solved here is that, no matter how many mirrors of any configuration one has, they are still a squishy human who will eventually make a mistake, given that mirrors are used hundreds of times per driving trip. Or they bad-luck into a situation where another driver changes the situation faster than a reasonable, human mirror-checking regimen would reveal. These systems add a layer of safety for when, not if, that happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been addressed already, though not by manufacturers. If you live (or drive through) an area where brick attacks are known to happen, you just put protective films on the windshield. It usually still ends up damaged but you can continue to drive just fine (I know because I have).
Really? It helps against a brick?
Now as far as keeping thieves out it is far less useful as it can be cut with a very sharp object (same things firefighters do if they need to take someone out of a car with such films).
In fact, for safety, I did keep the rear glass without a film.
Fortunately, I no longer need to drive though that place but when I did, it made a world of a difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? It helps against a brick?
I imagine the window still shatters but keeps together instead of spraying glass everywhere. Similarly to glass with an embedded wire mesh.
The glass is gone anyways, but the goal is never to save the glass (that’s impossible, I guess) but to dramatically minimize the risk of personal injury.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, blue-tinted, blinding LED headlights everywhere, maybe that's what you meant. The laser lights maybe aren't blue-tinted but blinding nevertheless.
As a cyclist, I hate peeking over my left shoulder and seeing two red lights at a distance behind me, then all the sudden some Jeep (or r/Heep) blasts by me. Oh, that Jeep was running red lights on the front. I thought that vehicle was heading away from me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The computer was needed anyway to get sensor fusion and reasoning about environment around, so it's not something that was "added" or "more expensive". Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to sup…
>Also, their original solution did sensor fusion with LIDAR, but the vendor find out and blew a gasket - because the LIDAR sensors weren't designed for safety-critical operation and to my understanding became a potential liability for the maker if they continued to supply them for incorrect use knowingly. When did Tesla have LIDAR?
I unfortunately don't have link about supplier dropping them - I do recall it was a bit of a scandal at the time but it quickly got overshadowed with other issues and well, FSD not working right was "business as usual"