this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1673 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

15043 readers
1933 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mark Rober just set up one of the most interesting self-driving tests of 2025, and he did it by imitating Looney Tunes. The former NASA engineer and current YouTube mad scientist recreated the classic gag where Wile E. Coyote paints a tunnel onto a wall to fool the Road Runner.

Only this time, the test subject wasn’t a cartoon bird… it was a self-driving Tesla Model Y.

The result? A full-speed, 40 MPH impact straight into the wall. Watch the video and tell us what you think!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KayLeadfoot@fedia.io 105 points 1 day ago (5 children)

"But humans can do it with their eyes!" - says the man not selling a human brain to go with the optical sensors

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

“But humans can do it with their eyes!”

That's the best part, they kinda can't.
There are videos from before they pulled the sensors of some pretty cool stuff where teslas slammed the breaks before anything visibly happened, based on lidar sensors sensing trouble a couple cars up the road, completely blocked to vision.

super cool safety tech, and then they pulled it....

one example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcC2ZMePKI

[–] Rexios@lemm.ee 14 points 1 day ago

Pretty sure that wasn’t even lidar. It was radar which is even cheaper and pretty much every other new car has if they don’t have lidar.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] elvith@feddit.org 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

On the internet, nobody knows you’re just a brain in a ~~jar~~ car.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Check out moneybags over here who can afford a jar car.

[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Please don't vandalize their JarCar it has my mom's brain tissue in it.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"But humans can do it with their eyes!"

The thing is, RADAR can see things humans can't. There was a whole article a while back about a Model X that avoided an otherwise unavoidable accident by bouncing radar under the car in front of it and seeing that car slam on the brakes.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I will point out that if you (or your camera-only driver assist) can't stop without hitting the car in front of you when they slam on the breaks, then you're driving too close to them... You really shouldn't ever put yourself in a position where the person in front of you could cause you to unavoidably hit them.

That said... Yeah, radar/lidar are far better than camera alone and there's no good reason not to include them in the sensor suite unless you value profits over lives.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

And I will point out that if the car in front of you isn't paying attention and rams a stopped car in the middle of the road, you are fucked no matter what.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Not if you have the following distance to stop, but point taken: a crash decelerates you faster than breaks can and typical following distances are assuming breaking distance, not hard sudden halts.

So increase your following distance. It also has the benefit that it makes it easier to see what's ahead of the car in front of you.

There's pretty much no accident that's unavoidable (barring someone else plowing into you) if you drive defensively enough (assuming good traction and good breaks, but obviously you should increase your following or decrease your speed to compensate for that as well)

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Not if you have the following distance to stop

Maintaining a stopping distance like that is nigh impossible in a dense urban area. You'd be constantly cut off and causing tons of traffic.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Really? I do it pretty frequently without issue...

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 5 hours ago

You definitely do not.

dude is living proof brains are optional

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The thing is, yes humans can do it with their eyes. But even with the giant amount of progressing power from the brain they are still not great at it.

So of the ultimate goal is to the minimum/cheapest to be almost as good as human then yes, optical sensors only are enough.

Of the goal is to prevent deaths and significantly reduce the number of accidents compared to then lidar is the best option.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 20 hours ago

Very interesting!

What’s the payoff period, I wonder, assuming everyone could afford optical only before everyone could afford better tech.