Its disappointing that C++ was chosen to build something that is going to live in-process. Rust would have been so much safer. All the segfaults you get when running DucDB supports this statement.
964 karma · joined September 19, 2017
Let’s wait to get more info as to what the driver was doing and if they were incapacitated.
The FSD beta is pretty aggressive on making sure the driver is paying attention via both steering sensors, the in-cabin camera and the touch screen.
In HN speak - “to learn to build a filesystem, build a web server first!”
Any other altruistic Prime Directive (ala Star Trek) is a luxury affordable only by a species that has figured out a way past the eventual explosion of their system’s star.
If we cannot, at a nation-state level, apply ourselves to 30-50 year goals, we might as well just give up on the survival of humanity.
Sample return step 1 (collect samples) is already underway.
We will have a Donner Party-like memorial on Mars. And there will be a McDonald’s next to it.
You’re not going to win this argument because it is an argument against the basic nature of humanity, the basic urge of a species to expand over all available domain.
What is the definition of “compatible” here?
The point of “one specification, multiple implementations” is to explicitly leave the door open for slightly deviant implementations.
I see no possibility where existing large automakers will let Google (Waymo) own the FSD stack (and thus own the data and huge piece of value chain) and be relegated to a mere maker of a dumb car.
And if GM is not going to buy Waymo tech, Tesla will definitely not.
A huge amount of R&D is never published. Eg: lithography tech at ASML.
- someone changing lanes into me while cruising
- car tried to cut across from lane to my right to lane to my left. Got blocked from going to left lane and slammed brakes in front of me
- saw brake lights farther than I could in a snowstorm
It’s like having someone with 100% attention and 360 visibility watching your back at all times.
SHA1 (and MD5) need to be treated the same way you would treat O(n^2) sorting in a code review for a PR written by a newbie.
Google has tried and failed at commercializing similar technology in other verticals (like building environmental automation from their DC tech). The reason is actual incumbents (rightly) see the value of their position while Google comes at it as “our AI is the value, you just make dumb things”.
I expect the automakers to ship mediocre stacks that are put together by existing players like Bosch.
As an ex-Googler I would be floored if Waymo actually lands a sell-into deal with an automaker. A fully vertical taxi service is their path today because they tried and failed to sign any partnerships.
The thing they need to improve and are doing so rapidly is actual trajectory policy calculations.
And that’s not going to get better with more sensors seeing the same things it already sees.
As someone who drives a Tesla with the FSD beta, the vehicle has been getting progressively better since 2018.
It’s drives smoother and brakes more predictably dive they stopped using the front radar.
See also - medical health record systems.
That’s a very confident statement to make without data to back it up.
Strong disagree. I see a huge number of benefits from the touchscreen in my Tesla. Continuous improvements to how the fundamental controls operate. New features that could only have been possible due to the controls not being hardware…
And generally speaking my vehicle seems to save me from human lapses in judgement even when I’m paying perfect attention so I’m not convinced about the argument that they purely increase distraction.
These are decades long investments and technologies. The next Artemis doesn’t launch for something like 2 years. Starship/Superheavy will be flying by then. I don’t see the point of declaring non-compete just because it’s not flying at exactly this moment.
SpaceX’s refueling for approach may need iteration but they have shown incredible ability to iterate. It’s also cheaper by orders of magnitude.
If you were running a business and deciding on a 5 year vendor contract, would you just ignore the vendor who had a 10x better product but required you to wait a bit (and you were not in a rush?)
Re-linking my earlier response about Raptor engines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33620423
They are the only current player building with stainless steel.
Software alone doesn’t let you catch a rocket out of the air when it lands.
We literally just pulled out old shuttle engines from storage for today’s launch. And new ones will cost 146M a pop. And they aren’t as sophisticated as the SpaceX Raptor.
I have a hard time understanding the stance of “if it’s not ready exactly when SLS launches then it’s not comparable.” We are talking about decade spanning technologies and investments here