Not The Onion

15641 readers

2770 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:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...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

kescusay@lemmy.world

1502

Tesla Fans Furious at Video of Tesla Crashing Into Wall Painted Like Road (futurism.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

407 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com -8 points 2 weeks 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 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

(“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.

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 weeks ago

So someone saying "why does my 500$ vacuum have a lidar but not the car" isn't suggesting that?

I guess in some technical way you're right, but it for sure is the implication...

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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.