Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Aspyre's commentslogin

Good job. INTP. :)

Personality Probability INTP 0.215613 INTJ 0.198558 INFP 0.133773



Cool! Glad to see mention of 1P here. I'm a fan of it myself.


If you want to compare conditions, were any of those videos taken without moon light? How do we know the city didn't increase the street lighting following the incident?


It was 38 mph in a 45.


The overriding principle is normally about driving to the conditions, not achieving a "target" speed.


This is one of the core problems of the car culture: ignoring the envelope except where mandated by law. A speed limit means, literally, "you are not allowed to go any faster than this" - but is interpreted as "you are supposed to go at this speed, or better 5 above". Nowhere else is this so prevalent: "there are 50 apples here, so you can't eat any more" is "you must eat all 50 of them" by the same logic.


Am I the only one that's only reading the comments after seeing the first two words of the title?


Why was this article resurrected from Jan 2017? What makes this relevant now?


Wrong. At least 95% of the people who made the cut and didn't get fired after a few weeks handled being the only operator of the vehicle with ease.


And they will continue to handle it with ease right up to the moment when they hit another cyclist.

What makes you so confident that the mere two years of running the program is enough to reliably calculate that number, when drivers like the one in the article managed to last more than a year until they got fired?


How would the footage be tampered when it was taken by the police directly from the dashcam itself at the scene?

Also, there was no moon on that night and all of the video comparisons that have been put out are low-light cameras. They are not very realistic.

Also, noone seems to think it's a possibility that the agencies responsible for the lighting in this area to have made improvements immediately after the inicident before the public speculation started.


> all of the video comparisons that have been put out are low-light cameras

If a self-driving car can't see 50 feet at night, maybe they should buy some low-light cameras?

> Also, noone seems to think it's a possibility that the agencies responsible for the lighting in this area to have made improvements immediately after the inicident before the public speculation started.

None of this matters. (I also find it pretty unlikely - the lights shown in Uber's video look plenty close together already to safely light the road. Even on an unlit road, the car's own headlights should've revealed the pedestrian far sooner.)

A self-driving car should be able to see (via the car's headlights, infrared, LIDAR, etc.) a safe distance ahead of the car at all times. The car should detect the unsafe condition and refuse to continue - not mow down pedestrians.

If it can't cope with a moonless, unlit road, it should not be on that road.


The numbers you are comparing do not measure the same thing.


Care to expand on that?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: