this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
6 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

17075 readers
571 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
 

In the piece — titled "Can You Fool a Self Driving Car?" — Rober found that a Tesla car on Autopilot was fooled by a Wile E. Coyote-style wall painted to look like the road ahead of it, with the electric vehicle plowing right through it instead of stopping.

The footage was damning enough, with slow-motion clips showing the car not only crashing through the styrofoam wall but also a mannequin of a child. The Tesla was also fooled by simulated rain and fog.

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Notice how they're mad at the video and not the car, manufacturer, or the CEO. It's a huge safety issue yet they'd rather defend a brand that obviously doesn't even care about their safety. Like, nobody is gonna give you a medal for being loyal to a brand.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

These people haven't found any individual self identity.

An attack on the brand is an attack on them. Reminds me of the people who made Stars Wars their meaning and crumbled when a certain trilogy didn't hold up.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.

This has been known.

They do it so they can evade liability for the crash.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why would a car that expensive not have a LiDAR sensor?

[–] FrChazzz@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Read about this somewhere. Iirc, Elon felt cameras were better than LiDAR at a time when that was kinda true, but the technology improved considerably in the interim and he pridefully refuses to admit he needs to adapt. [Edit: I had hastily read the referenced article and am incorrect here; link to accurate statements is linked in a reply below.]

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't even understand that logic. Use both. Even if one is significantly better than the other, they each have different weaknesses and can mitigate for each other.

[–] NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It was always just to save money and pad the profit margins

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A LiDAR sensor couldn't add more than a few hundred to a car, surely

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

They ditched radar at a time when radar only added probably about $50 a car according to some estimates.

It may technically get a smidge more profitable, but it almost seems like it's more about hubris around tech shouldn't need more than a human to do as well. Which even if it were true, is a stupid stance to take when in that scenario you could have better than human senses.

[–] Darjuz@feddit.it 0 points 3 months ago
[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My 500$ robot vacuum has LiDAR, meanwhile these 50k pieces of shit don't 😂

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Vacuum doesn't run outdoors and accidentally running into a wall doesn't generate lawsuits.

But, yes, any self-driving cars should absolutely be required to have lidar. I don't think you could find any professional in the field that would argue that lidar is the proper tool for this.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

...what is your point here, exactly? The stakes might be lower for a vacuum cleaner, sure, but lidar - or a similar time-of-flight system - is the only consistent way of mapping environmental geometry. It doesn't matter if that's a dining room full of tables and chairs, or a pedestrian crossing full of children.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I think you're suffering from not knowing what you don't know.

Let me make it a but clearer for you to make a fair answer.

Take a .25mw lidar sensor off a vacuum, take it outdoors and scan an intersection.

Will that laser be visible to the sensor?

is it spinning fast enough to track a kid moving in to an intersection when you're traveling at 73 feet per second?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I think you’re suffering from not knowing what you don’t know.

and I think you're suffering from being an arrogant sack of dicks who doesn't like being called out on their poor communication skills and, through either a lack of self-awareness or an unwarranted overabundance of self-confidence, projects their own flaws on others. But for the more receptive types who want to learn more, here's Syed Saad ul Hassan's very well-written 2022 paper on practical applications, titled Lidar Sensor in Autonomous Vehicles which I found also serves as neat primer of lidar in general..

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well look at you being adult and using big words instead of just insulting people. Not even going to wastime on people like you, I'm going to block you and move on and hope that everyone else does the same so you can sit in your own quiet little world wondering why no one likes you.

[–] Nindelofocho@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

You’re an idiot.

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Wow, what's with all the hostility against him.

It's maybe because i also know a bit about lidars that his comment was clear to me ("ha, try putting a vacuum lidar in a car and see if it can do anything useful outside at the speeds & range a car needs").

Is it that much of an issue if someone is a bit snarky when pointing out the false equivalence of "my 500$ vacuum has a lidar, but a tesla doesn't? harharhar".

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 months ago

(“ha, try putting a vacuum lidar in a car and see if it can do anything useful outside at the speeds & range a car needs”).

Because no one suggested that.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

But, yes, any self-driving cars should absolutely be required to have lidar.

So they think self-driving cars should have lidar, like a vacuum cleaner. They agree, and think it's a good idea, right?

I don't think you could find any professional in the field that would argue that lidar is the proper tool for this.

...then in the next sentence goes on to say that lidar is not the correct tool. In the space of a paragraph they make two points which directly contradict one-another. Hence my response:

What is your point here, exactly?

They could have said "oops, typo!" or something but, no, instead they went full on-condescending:

I think you're suffering from not knowing what you don't know.

I stand by my response:

arrogant sack of dicks

And while I'm not naive enough to believe that upvotes and downvotes are any kind of arbiter of objective truth, they at least seem to suggest, in this case, that my interpretation is broadly in line with the majority.

[–] Forbo@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You're mischaracterizing their point. Nobody is saying take the exact piece of equipment, put it in the vehicle and PRESTO. That'd be like asking why the vacuum battery can't power the car. Because duh.

The point is if such a novelty, inconsequential item that doesn't have any kind of life safety requirements can employ a class of technology that would prevent adverse effects, why the fuck doesn't the vehicle? This is a design flaw of Teslas, pure and simple.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But they do, there are literally cars out there with lidar sensors.

The question was why can't I have a lidar sensor on my car if my $150 vacuum has one. The lidar sensor for a car is more than $150.

You don't have one because there are expensive at that size and update frequency. Sensors that are capable of outdoor mapping at high speed cost the price of a small car.

The manufacturers suspect and probably rightfully so that people don't want to pay an extra 10 - 30 grand for an array of sensors.

The technology readily exists rober had one in his video that he used to scan a roller coaster. It's not some conspiracy that you don't have it on cars and it's not like it's not capable of being done because waymo does it all the time.

There's a reason why waymo doesn't use smaller sensors they use the minimum of what works well. Which is expensive, which people looking at a mid-range car don't want to take on the extra cost, hence it's not available

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Good God it's like you're going out of the way to intentionally misunderstand the point.

Nobody is saying that the lidar on a car should cost the same as a lidar on a vacuum cleaner. What everyone is saying is that if the company that makes vacuum cleaners thinks it's important enough to put lidar on, surely you're not the company that makes cars should think that it's important enough to put lidar on.

Stop being deliberately dense.

[–] GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

You're either taking to a fanboy or Elon on ket. You ain't gettin' through.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Stop being deliberately dense.

Its weaponized incompetence.

I bet they do the same shit with their partner when it comes to dishes, laundry, and the garbage.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

lol, what partner

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu -1 points 3 months ago

Whether lidars are reliable enough to run on autonomous cars has nothing to do with whether they are cost efficient enough to run on vacuum cleaners though. The comparison is therefore completely irrelevant. Might as well complain that jet fighters don't allow sharing on Instagram your location, because your much cheaper phone does.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Only Tesla does not use radar with their control systems. Every single other manufacturer uses radar control mixed with the camera system. The Tesla system is garbage.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

yeah, you'd think they'd at least use radar. That's cheap AF. It's like someone there said I have this hill to die on, I bet we can do it all with cameras.

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

someone

Yeahhh pretty sure I know who

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I bet the reason why he does not want the LiDAR in the car really cause it looks ugly aestheticly.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"Dipshit Nazis mad at facts bursting their bubble is unreality" is another way of reading this headline.

[–] thistleboy@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I believe the outrage is that the video showed that autopilot was off when they crashed into the wall. That's what the red circle in the thumbnail is highlighting. The whole thing apparently being a setup for views like Top Gear faking the Model S breaking down.

[–] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago

Autopilot shuts itself off just before a crash so Tesla can deny liability. It's been observed in many real-world accidents before this. Others have said much the same, with sources, in this very thread.