They have remote drivers that CAN take control in very corner case situations that the software can’t handle. The vast majority of driving is don’t without humans in the loop.

Based on my image search engineering, the answer to your question is 2.

Based on my one semester of air breathing propulsion that I took 25 years ago, I’m guessing there is more going on inside the turbine part of the engine that both allows sustainable fuels that current turbofans can’t and also allows compression ratios at lower fan speeds that allows an open fan with fewer blades. Again, I barely passed air breathing propulsion back then and haven’t used ANY of that knowledge since, so I’m mostly talking out of my ass.

I’m honestly more scared of that. Professional CDL drivers are WAY better at driving than other people. But their trucks are way more dangerous and harder to handle. So putting driverless tech in that is going to be harder and more dangerous.

I was clearly only talking about cars, not pedestrians. Driverless cars have already shown they are pretty good at avoiding pedestrians and cyclists and scooters and dogs. Even in the case of the pedestrian hit by the Cruise car, that pedestrian was hit by another car first and then thrown into the path of the Cruise. The one case of a dog hit by a car was a dog running out from behind parked cars with no time for a human to stop, let alone the Waymo… and dogs don’t usually wave and signal to drivers on the road.

As far as retrofitted cars, this is about improving the current system not requiring 100% compliance. Do you ban people from driving on the roads if they don’t wave at you on a one-car wide road? No. So you don’t have to ban cars that don’t have this tech. But when more and more cars DO have the tech, then you get improvements over time.

I was asking in good faith because the way you talk is not easily comprehensible. I can barely follow whatever argument you are trying to make. I think you are trying to say that we shouldn’t allow them on the road until we have fully decided who is at fault in an accident?

Also, only one death has occurred so far involving driverless cars, which is where a speeding SUV rammed into a stopped driverless car and then the SUV continued on and hit 5 other cars where it killed someone. That’s it. The only death involved a driverless car sitting still, not moving, not doing anything… and it wasn’t even the car that hit the car in which the person died. So I would say it is hypothetical when talking about hypothetical deaths that are the fault of a driverless car.

So the fact that after 50 million miles of driving there have been no pedestrian or cyclist deaths means they are unbelievably unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists? As far as I can tell, the only accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists AT ALL after 50 million miles is when a Waymo struck a plastic crate that careened into another lane where a scooter ran into it. And yet in your mind they are unbelievably unsafe?

Just fine the one time I rode in one. It had a problem with a moving truck blocking the entire street, where it sat trying to wait to see if the moving truck was just stopped and going to move or if it was parked for good. The Waymo executed a 3 point turn and then had two construction trucks pull into the street the other direction, and they refused to back up. So the Waymo was stuck between not going forward and not going back… it just pulled forward toward the trucks and then reversed toward the moving truck. Back and forth. Then I yelled out the window for the fucking trucks to move out of the fucking road, which they couldn’t drive down anyway. After that it was smooth, even getting into the parking lot.

My buddy said at his office the Waymos have an issue with pulling too far forward at the pick up spots, which makes it impossible for cars to go around them, but humans do dumb shit like that, too.

“Waymo reports the statistical data it has, which happens to be pretty good.”

So let me make sure I understand your argument. Because nobody can be held liable for one hypothetical death of a child when an accident happens with a self driving car, we should ban them so that hundreds of real children can be killed instead. Is that what you are saying?

As far as I know of, Waymo has only been involved in one fatality. The Waymo was sitting still at a red light in traffic when a speeding SUV (according to reports going at extreme rate of speed) rammed it from behind into other cars. The SUV then continued into traffic where it struck more cars, eventually killing someone. That’s the only fatal accident Waymo has been involved in after 50 million miles of driving. But instead of making it safer for children, you would prefer more kids die just so you have someone to blame?

They’re not saying general road safety is 20x better. They’re comparing an automated car ONLY on surface streets with lights, intersections, pedestrians, dogs, left turns, etc… to a professional truck driver mostly on highway miles.

That’s when vehicle to vehicle communication will come into play. When we can automate the driving and link the cars’ comm systems together, it becomes a network management problem.

It’s a satellite based nav system. This would be a new development that is presumably ground based.

GPS and Galileo satellites are in MEO, not GEO. GEO is a very specific altitude to keep a satellite directly over the same spot on Earth at all times (synced to the spin of Earth). MEO, on the other hand, is a wide range of altitudes roughly half the altitude of GEO. GPS sits right around 9800 nautical miles, which is 11200 miles. That’s still really far away, so your point stays the same. Galileo is in a similar orbit, I think around 200 miles lower but I can’t remember. GLONASS is there, too. Beidou from China has birds in both MEO and GEO. QZSS from Japan uses one GEO bird and three birds in a highly inclined orbit at GEO altitude.

Your two points are good. I think a third point would be that this is a different RF spectrum, while GPS and Galileo are on roughly the same RF spectrum. Jamming GPS and Galileo at the same time isn’t difficult. Jamming a very different RF spectrum at the same time is much harder.

I freaking loved my Bolt. I was planning to get another before I started construction and needed a truck. Then I was planning to get a Bolt after this truck since I wouldn’t need it anymore, but they killed it.

No.

They were only able to receive signals from the bare minimum to achieve a solution (4 GPS and 1 Galileo). Their achieved accuracy was +/- 1.5km and +/- 2m/s. That is good enough in astronomic scales to get you to a planet, but it isn’t going to help failed landings or autonomous landings.

I don’t think there was any new tech involved, just a receiver put on a moon lander to see if it could detect signals. And this won’t really do anything for Mars for two reasons: 1) the signal strength would be too small for any reasonable antenna to detect GPS L1/L5 at Mars distances, and 2) the distance would make the geometry be unusable to trilaterate a solution… think about a triangle where two lengths are 100 million miles and the third length is 100 miles. That is a completely worthless geometry for trilateration of a position solution. Even if we could somehow detect a GPS signal at Mars, best case is we get atomic clock time.

they should’ve used Alibaba/Qwen for their other markets, too.

Which would get them banned from all government use. Smart call.

Man, I had almost forgotten about that bit of absolute lunacy. I had just switched from working F9 certification to Vulcan cert when that happened, and I’ll just say nobody I worked with was surprised they blew up another one.

Regardless of how OpenAI procured their data, I’m absolutely shocked that a company from China would obtain data unauthorized from a company in another country.

He’s a useful idiot who hates one thing so much that he will ignore any and all good things bad about that thing, and will ignore any and all bad things about something that isn’t that thing.