81–90 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone living in a country where there are very lax building codes, I would welcome regulation that mandates what colors you're allowed to use!
Why is that? I can see why there would be regulations on brick quality, but why color?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
Economists, based on empirical research, by and large agree that "Regulatory Capture" will normally make regulations work in the interest of the major companies in an industry, rather than the public interest. This is a social science result, not a meme.
Definition: Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
I was under the impression that most of the requirements only applied to registering a car in that State not operating the vehicle?? So, for example, NY requires yearly safety inspections and you'll get a ticket if your inspection lapsed. But you don't have to get a safety inspection to drive in NY if your car is registered in a state that doesn't require safety inspections. I could be mostly off base on this one. Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
One problem is that regulations tend to accumulate. I like what Canada does with its "one for one rule" which removes one piece of old outdated regulation for every new regulation made. In fact, at first when British Columbia implemented this law, they did 2 for 1 to clean out old laws, until later switching to 1 for 1. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.
That's not accurate. They seem more concerned that every bit of power given to government to do something right will eventually be used to do something wrong.
----
GOV: We know this law is overreaching, but we promise we'll only use it the "right" way.
... 2 years goes by ...
GOV: If you don't , we'll tack on a charge of breaking , even though you didn't violate what it's supposed to be about, and add 20 years to your sentence.
----
It's seen over and over. The US citizen's distrust of government getting more power than it absolutely needs isn't paranoid, it's based on the actions of the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone living in a country where there are very lax building codes, I would welcome regulation that mandates what colors you're allowed to use!
Why is that? I can see why there would be regulations on brick quality, but why color?
If an industry or contractor balks at these ideas (and they do every now and again) there are several other larger modern cities a few miles away with access to the Interstate and train yards. These don't share the "historic preservation" codes of this little town.
If the town allowed a free-for-all on design it would wreck it's main source of income and likely cause decay over the years as tourism dropped off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The report makes reference to "Assessment of Safety Standards for Automotive Electronic Control Systems" by NHTSA, which itself reviews ISO 26262, MIL-STD-882E, DO-178C, the FMVSS, AUTOSAR, and MISRA C. In this context, they mean verification and validation in the systems engineering sense. Software would be included in that it is a part of the whole system.
I have a hard time understanding the current AV SW stack. On one hand, at the low level, sensor, motor control, etc you likely have traditional hard real time/MISRA C code, but on the higher layers you probably things like DNN, image recognition, which are much less deterministic. So I am not sure how do you reconcile these two worlds, and prove it is safe and always work in timely manner. It seems the only sound app…
First, as etendue says, it is not easy. The problem of mixing “Boolean” verification with probabilistic, less-deterministic verification is especially hard. I discussed this a bit in [1], if you care to take a look.
Also, I think most current AVs are not driven by DNNs at the top level (comma.ai [2] is one exception). See [3] for some discussion of that, and of verifying machine-learning-based systems.
Finally, one possible way to check that AV manufacturers “do the right thing” in correctly verifying the combination of DNNs, Misra C, digital HW, sensors and so on is perhaps to create a big, extensible catalog of AV-related scenarios, which ideally should be shared between the manufacturers and the certifying bodies – see [4]. I think there is some hint of that in the DOT pdf – still working my way through it.
[1] https://blog.foretellix.com/2016/07/22/checking-probabilisti...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...
[3] https://blog.foretellix.com/2016/09/14/using-machine-learnin...
[4] https://blog.foretellix.com/2016/07/05/the-tesla-crash-tsuna...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
I think it might be deeper than that. I don't feel that the US government, on it's own, is incapable of drafting up reasonable legislation. The problem is that the US government is 100% for sale to the highest bidder, and corruption runs deep (we just call it "campaign contributions" as if that makes it better). If sensible regulation is proposed, it'll last 30 seconds before the good senator from [some self-driving…
I have worked with engineers that write technical regulations. They are generally focused on doing a good job at the task at hand. To think some mid level person that is hired into a normal job and never meets a politician in their career cares about campaign contributions is asinine.
What do you think the people at NASA and NAVSEA and NIST do all day?
I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible and promote the technology. It's a good thing that these are going into place, since autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this kind of fragmentation already exists today with different driving laws between states. A legal student driver in one state might not be allowed to drive in another. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's strange that vehicles are regulated at the state not federal level. They're a big component in interstate commerce, and therefore ought to be within the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate, even under a relat…
And it is a massive problem. For example vehicle window tinting laws vary wildly from state to state (and arguably they're more liberal in states that get hotter, and more restrictive in states with gang issues) so you can own a vehicle that is legally tinted in your home state, but gets ticketed when it crosses a state border. Daylight running lights are another example, some states require them, while others do not…
Similarly, most people don't care about tint. Those that do but are agonized about being able to travel to other states can simply figure out the maximum allowed in the region they plan on traveling in. I guess that reaches the level of irritating, but what are the massive consequences for Joe Driver if he can't darken his windows?