Looking at prices, I think you are wrong and automotive Lidar is still in the 4 to 5 figure range. HESAI might ship Lidar units that cheap, but automotive grade still seems quite expensive: https://www.cratustech.com/shop/lidar/
Those are single unit prices. The AT128 for instance, which is listed at $6250 there and widely used by several Chinese car companies was around $900 per unit in high volume and over time they lowered that to around $400.
The next generation of that, the ATX, is the one they have said would be half that cost. According to regulator filings in China BYD will be using this on entry level $10k cars.
Hesai got the price down for their new generation by several optimizations. They are using their own designs for lasers, receivers, and driver chips which reduced component counts and material costs. They have stepped up production to 1.5 million units a year giving them mass production efficiencies.
That model only has a 120 degree field of view so you'd need 3-4 of them per car (plus others for blind spots, they sell units for that too). That puts the total system cost in the low thousands, not the 200 to 400 stated by GP. I'm not saying it hasn't gotten cheaper or won't keep getting cheaper, it just doesn't seem that cheap yet.
>it's hidden behind a couple of touch screen actions involving small virtual buttons and it does not pull over immediately
It was on the home screen when I've taken it, and when I tested it, it seemed to pull to the first safe place. I don't trust the general pubic with a stop button.
>Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state.
FWIW, your first OWI in Wisconsin, with no aggravating factors, is a civil offense, not a crime, and in most states it is rare to do any time or completely lose your license for the first offense. I'm not sure exactly what OP is getting at, but DUI/OWI limits and enforcement are pretty lax in the US compared to other countries. Our standard .08 BAC limit is a lot higher than many other countries.
That's true, but note that getting much more severe on enforcement and punishment for DUI/OWI will result in an even higher prison population, more serious life consequences for poor and minorities, etc, when the US is constantly getting trashed for how bad those things are already.
To be a bit snarkier, and not directed at you, but I wish these supposedly superior Europeans would tell us what they actually want us to do. Should we enforce OWI laws more strictly, or lower the prison population? We can't do both!
I suspect you could step up enforcement in ways that don’t involve prison time simply by taking away people’s licenses, and then having a fast feedback loop to catch people driving without a license.
In addition to what the sibling said regarding the impracticality of not driving in most of the US, which I completely agree with, I'd also ask exactly what you want to do with your "fast feedback loop to catch people driving without a license". What do you do with the people who drive anyways because not driving is so impractical and get caught?
We already took their license, we can't double-take it to show we really mean it. Fining them seems a bit rough when they need to drive to get to the job to make the money to pay those fines. Or we're right back to jail time and an even higher prison population.
> I'd also ask exactly what you want to do with your "fast feedback loop to catch people driving without a license".
Unless the vehicle is stolen, seize and impound the vehicle. If the driver is the owner, auction it off and give them back the proceeds, minus costs.
I feel like I'm living in some different world where drunk driving is a-okay when I face these types of objections to actually enforcing the rules around it.
It's more that you don't seem to engage much with the trade-offs of all of the possible options. This debate has been going on for decades and society has swung back and forth multiple times already. "Let's enforce things much more harshly" is not at all a new take. Enforcing things harshly enough to actually cut down on the rates of DWI will most definitely cause serious damage to a bunch of lives, including many poor and minorities, and there isn't going to be some clever way around that.
It is a possible position at the end of the day though. You may come across as more honest and experienced if you just explicitly say that you think it's worth that damage to cut down on DWI related accidents. I would even agree that we should probably swing that pendulum a bit more towards enforcement. It seems kind of silly and naive to me though to pretend that you can just hand-wave the resulting damage away,
I don’t think the pendulum has ever really swung towards high-effectiveness interventions, only, as you call them, harsh ones.
As far as DUIs are concerned I’m specifically not in favour of harsh jail time and fines due to their lack of effectiveness and collateral damage.
Interventions to allow a short feedback loop to stop the crimes being prevented simply haven’t been tried at scale for DUIs - think efforts like NYC’s anti-idling laws where you can collect a portion of the fine for reporting idling trucks.
Based on, among other things, my experience living for years without a car in both a medium-sized city and a small town, I find it unpersuasive to claim that anyone, including poor and minorities are better served by having community members drive drunk rather than not driving at all. We’ve quantified the costs of drunk driving (hundreds of billions of $) - I’d welcome anyone to quantify the economic benefits we get from allowing those with DUIs to continue to drive.
Taking away licenses is a bad way to enforce driving rules because so many people have to be able to drive or their life collapses. The problems of aggressive license revocation are similar to the problems of aggressive prison time.
I get where you're coming from, but it's pretty hard to be sympathetic given the crimes we're talking about and the impact they have on others.
Like that would sound nuts if we applied it to other things - e.g. "take away the professional license of a mid-career pilot/surgeon/schoolteacher/engineer because he was drinking on the job and his life collapses".
Various people can't drive because of e.g. visual impairments, age, poverty, etc. - I find it an ugly juxtaposition to be asserting that we must allow people with DUIs to drive because otherwise their lives would "collapse" to the same point as those other people who can't drive.
> Like that would sound nuts if we applied it to other things - e.g. "take away the professional license of a mid-career pilot/surgeon/schoolteacher/engineer because he was drinking on the job and his life collapses".
The analogy is closer to "take away their ability to get any job" and then it sounds even more harsh.
> Various people can't drive because of e.g. visual impairments, age, poverty, etc. - I find it an ugly juxtaposition to be asserting that we must allow people with DUIs to drive because otherwise their lives would "collapse" to the same point as those other people who can't drive.
If you can't see well enough to drive, then life was unfair to you, and you can often get help with transportation that isn't available to someone that violated the law. For age, if you're young then your parents are supposed to care for you, if you're too old to drive you're supposed to have figured out your retirement by now. For poverty, you kinda still need a car no matter what, that's just how the US is set up in most areas. And it's not ugly to make the comparison to extreme poverty, to say that kicking someone down to that level is a very severe punishment.
> must allow
I wasn't saying what we should do, just that turning up the aggressiveness has serious unwanted consequences.
> The analogy is closer to "take away their ability to get any job" and then it sounds even more harsh.
If you take away the license of a pilot mid-career, they may be able to pivot to something else, but have a huge sunk cost of education and seniority where they ground out poor pay/schedules and then never made it to the part of the career with better pay. For a substantial segment of them, the career impact would be comparable to taking away the ability to drive from a random person.
> For poverty, you kinda still need a car no matter what, that's just how the US is set up in most areas.
You really don't. If you don't already live somewhere with public transit, you'll probably have to move. You'll have to make some sacrifices. But it's workable, I lived without a car and relied on city busses for all my transportation for several years. (And while I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, prior to that, I lived in a small town of ~4k people without transit service. I walked everywhere, and took the inter-city bus when I needed to leave the town.)
If you look closely at the bottom one, almost all the components are slightly askew, while the top one has everything at neat 90 degrees. And a smaller IC almost always means the more modern/expensive IC. Same for the other components. In fact, the top one has a much higher component count, the small components just don't show up well (look at the pads though).
Also look at the number unused/unconnected pins on the chip. The fake seems to be using a generic chip programed to act like the real thing. The extra pins are for functions it doesnt need in this use case. A professional-grade product will use a carefully-selected chip with no extra capabilities or unused pins.
The counter argument is if you don't incentivize flipping enough, it is the prisoners' dilemma: the option of everyone keeping their mouth shut and potentially going free is too attractive compared to flipping.
In addition to sibling's comments about jamming and self driving safety, there are many driving situations where there is no or poor GPS reception: tunnels, double deck bridges, double deck freeways, underpasses, urban canyons, actual canyons, etc. Also regional problems. The GPS constellation is in a 55° inclination, so if you are north of ~55N, or south of ~55S, you need a clear view of the southern/northern sky, respectfully, for reception, since there will be no overhead satellites.
2. Car entered dead reconning mode used for tunnels and such
3. Car left ferry, acquired GPS
Then either:
4a. Location via dead reconning vasty disagreed with GPS because the car doesn't know about the ferry's movements, triggering some kind of failsafe.
Or:
4b. There's just a plain old bug in the condition to switch back to GPS and maybe people haven't noticed because you don't get as badly desynced in a tunnel.
>the car must have a pretty good dead reckoning system
Yeah all the pieces are there: accelerometers and gyros for stability control, compass for navigation, and the wheel speed sensors give you exact distance traveled.
My local roro ferry drops you off pretty close to downtown. If you don't get a good fix as you get off the boat before you get into the urban canyon, satnav is pretty hopeless for a few minutes.
Doesn't usually take 5 hours to figure out where it is though. At least not on my vehicles, even the one that's always getting confused.
TomTom's have for at least 15 years or so. They have accelerometers to measure the motion when cut off from the GPS satellites. I worked there, knew the guy who developed it, and saw him give a presentation about it.
That's cool... so I guess this works something along the ways of "calculate the speed via GPS before entering the tunnel, and then try to update this speed using the data from the accelerometer while in the tunnel"? Because as long a the car is moving at constant speed in a straight line, the accelerometer shouldn't register anything...
Well it registers gravity, so you can detect i.e. driving off a cliff. ;)
What helps is that tunnels don't usually branch, so once you're in it, your path is usually quite predictable.
TomTom maps also have a statistical model of what speed is expected along each stretch of road by hour and weekday/weekend (not 7 individual days, but 2 kinds of days). But I don't know if it uses that to help estimate your expected speed when dead reckoning, it's actually for route planning.
One of my co-workers came up with the great idea of gamifying driving: maintain a real time speed leader board, showing the top ten speeders along any stretch of road! So on every road in the world you could compete with other TomTom users who drove it. Kind of like checking in with 4Square, but more fun and dangerous! TomTom legal did not approve.
I suggested gamifying and monetizing driving with TomTomagotchi, a virtual pet that gets depressed if you don't drive it around enough, begs you to visit interesting landmarks and sponsored points of interest, like driving through McDonalds to feed it, or through the park to let it take a shit, or driving fast enough to make the leaderboard to entertain it. I'm sure Bandai's lawyers wouldn't approve.
I swapped out the satnav in a 2008 Honda for a modern unit and the car had a “speed pulse” wire. I looked it up and that wire is used for dead reckoning.
Dead reckoning shouldn't be a problem for a built-in nav device that has access to the car's odometer (or at least its speed). But as long as the car itself isn't moving, because it's parked in a ferry's car deck, I reckon (SCNR) it shouldn't do any dead reckoning...
>I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further.
Science educators have been fighting the scientific theory vs vernacular theory fight for decades without much progress, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
I think at some point, the scientific community needs to accept that many of the formal and precise ways they are taught to write in order to avoid ambiguity, have the exact opposite effect on everybody else. Unless we adjust the terminology so that the scientific and casual definitions more closely align, we're just going up have to keep explaining.
Technically true but I tried using a mac without creating an Apple ID and gave up. You can't access the store without it so you are locked out of Mac apps that aren't installed by default, and all apps that only distribute through the store now.
You don’t need the App Store to install most apps, and can just download .dmg or even .zip files with them; I feel like only a handful of developers go full-App Store-only (with good reason; it not only imposes extra restrictions on certain functionality but also takes a big cut of your sale).
I've used macbooks for 15 years and have never felt the need to create an Apple ID. Maybe I've just been lucky but I have never even encountered a piece of software that didn't offer a direct download or brew installation.
Perhaps that's not a loss, because why would you want to depend on apps that you essentially need an Apple account to use? I've had great luck with finding apps with Homebrew.
reply