Windex007

Not in love with the "big boy" from factor but when I believe they're going to enter "long term support" territory I absolutely would be interested.

I don't really care what they look like. If any truck actually could meet the promises these made, I'd buy the shit out of them:

-All electric

-Sophisticated sensor suite to improve operational safety

-Working performance comparable to F150

-low maintenance

-Can be used as home power backup

-not a Deathtrap

-not a Killing machine

It hits the electric points, but that's it. It's a bad truck. It doesn't fulfill any of the "smart" promises. Death trap killing machines in constant recall that can't handle rain... Let alone do work.

The aesthetic doesn't even make my list of complaints. It's like the whole industry has been trying to make trucks as shitty as possible for like 30 years. Give me a '94 ranger electric conversion kit and it's game fucking over cyber truck.

Creepiest thing about this is that the implication that the adult has been hung upside down

Whisper is fantastic and has different sized models so you can zero in to what gives you the best mix of speed/accuracy for whatever hardware you'll be running it on

Considering he asked twitter programmers to print out their pull requests Im not even sure he's not cosplaying a programmer

I completely agree that if there are tools that can allow a vehicle to "see" better than a human it's absurd not to implement them. Even if musk could make a car exactly as good as a human, that's a low bar. It isn't good enough.

As for humans: if you are operating a vehicle such that you could not avoid killing an unexpected person on the road, you are not safely operating the vehicle. In this case, it's known as "over driving your headlights", you are driving at a speed that precludes you from reacting appropriately by the time you can perceive an issue.

Imagine if it wasn't a deer but a chunk of concrete that would kill you if struck at speed. Perhaps a bolder on a mountain pass. A vehicle that has broken down.

Does Musk's system operate safely? No. The fact that it was a deer is completely irrelevant.

Yeah. I mean, I understand the premise, I just think it's flawed. Like, you and I as vehicle operators use two cameras when we drive (our two eyes). It's hypothetically sufficient in terms of raw data input.

Where it falls apart is that we also have brains which have evolved in ways we don't even understand to consume those inputs effectively.

But most importantly, why aim for parity at all? Why NOT give our cars the tools to "see" better than a human? I want that!

If you watch the video, the deer was standing on a strip of off coloured pavement, and also had about the same length as the dotted line. Not sure how much colour information comes through at night on those cameras.

The point here isn't actually "should it have stopped for the deer" , it's "if the system can't even see the deer, how could it be expected to distinguish between a deer and a child?"

The calculus changes incredibly between a deer and a child.

Yeah I got a pretty nauseating explanation of "The June 4th Incident"

To be fair, if they're driven by an LLM I would still expect it to be wrong.

I didn't realize that LoRa didn't care about carrier frequency, that's for sure the root of my faulty assumption! Thanks for taking the time to explain