Hacker News Reader

As I’ve commented above, “conflicting sensors” doesn’t make much sense as an argument. If sensors A and B conflicted, you could just ignore sensor B and get performance at least as good as just having sensor A.

Does sensor B have enough other benefits to outweigh the costs of adding it? I don’t know, but that’s the actual crux of this problem.

View on HN

Sensor B “enhancing” sensor A is the exact same situation as a sensor conflict. How do you tell them apart? You’re oversimplifying the issue as if it was a matter of simple addition.

It's a shame people at Boeing seem to have the same outlook on this question. Cost a few hundred people their lives recently. When two sensors disagree, you don't know which one is right, but you know there's something wrong. You're going to fail, but at least you can fail safe. With only one sensor, you don't have that option.

Hence my question, "How much precision do you need to keep from running into a parked truck?"

I don’t see how “enhancing” and “conflict” are the same. As gkop pointed out, the two sensor types may have different ranges of view, or may agree about situations where just sensor A may be uncertain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com