this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
2 points (66.7% liked)

Not The Onion

21579 readers
1723 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...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, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Notice how they're mad at the video and not the car, manufacturer, or the CEO. It's a huge safety issue yet they'd rather defend a brand that obviously doesn't even care about their safety. Like, nobody is gonna give you a medal for being loyal to a brand.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These people haven't found any individual self identity.

An attack on the brand is an attack on them. Reminds me of the people who made Stars Wars their meaning and crumbled when a certain trilogy didn't hold up.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An attack on the brand is an attack on them.

Thus it ever is with Conservatives. They make $whatever their whole identity, and so take any critique of $whatever as a personal attack against themselves.

I blame evangelical religions' need for martyrdom for this.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. These people have no identity or ability to think for themselves because they never needed either one. The church will do all your thinking for you, and anything it doesn't cover will be handled by Fox News. Be like everyone else and fit in, otherwise... you have to start thinking for yourself. THE HORROR.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wondered how the hell it managed to fool LIDAR, well...

The stunt was meant to demonstrate the shortcomings of relying entirely on cameras — rather than the LIDAR and radar systems used by brands and autonomous vehicle makers other than Tesla.

[–] Weirdfish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If I could pass one law, requiring multiple redundant scanning tech on anything autonomous large enough to hurt me might be it.

I occasionally go to our warehouses which have robotic arms, autonomous fork lifts, etc. All of those have far more saftey features than a self driving Tesla, and they aren't in public.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The tl;dr here is that Elon said that humans have eyes and they work, and eyes are like cameras, so use cameras instead of expensive LIDAR. Dick fully inside car door for the slam.

I thlamed my penith in the car door

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I hope some of you actually skimmed the article and got to the "disengaging" part.

As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.

It's a highly questionable approach that has raised concerns over Tesla trying to evade guilt by automatically turning off any possibly incriminating driver assistance features before a crash.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tesla cars are stupid tech. As the cars that use lidar demonstrated, this is a solved problem. There don’t have to be self driving cars that run over kids. They just refuse to integrate the solution for no discernible reason, which I’m assuming is really just “Elon said so.”

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's even worse than that. Not only is it a solved problem, but Tesla had it solved (or closer to solved, anyway) and then intentionally regressed on the technology as a cost cutting measure. All the while making a limp-wristed attempt to spin the removal of key sensor hardware -- first the radar and later the ultrasonic proximity sensors -- as a "safety" initiative.

There isn't a shovel anywhere in the world big enough for that pile of bullshit.

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

If you get any strong emotions on material shit when someone makes a video...you have 0 of my respect. Period.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My 500$ robot vacuum has LiDAR, meanwhile these 50k pieces of shit don't 😂

[–] rbm4444@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Holy shit, I knew I'd heard this word before. My Chinese robot vacuum cleaner has more technology than a tesla hahahahaha

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Vacuum doesn't run outdoors and accidentally running into a wall doesn't generate lawsuits.

But, yes, any self-driving cars should absolutely be required to have lidar. I don't think you could find any professional in the field that would argue that lidar is the proper tool for this.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...what is your point here, exactly? The stakes might be lower for a vacuum cleaner, sure, but lidar - or a similar time-of-flight system - is the only consistent way of mapping environmental geometry. It doesn't matter if that's a dining room full of tables and chairs, or a pedestrian crossing full of children.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think you're suffering from not knowing what you don't know.

Let me make it a but clearer for you to make a fair answer.

Take a .25mw lidar sensor off a vacuum, take it outdoors and scan an intersection.

Will that laser be visible to the sensor?

is it spinning fast enough to track a kid moving in to an intersection when you're traveling at 73 feet per second?

[–] Forbo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're mischaracterizing their point. Nobody is saying take the exact piece of equipment, put it in the vehicle and PRESTO. That'd be like asking why the vacuum battery can't power the car. Because duh.

The point is if such a novelty, inconsequential item that doesn't have any kind of life safety requirements can employ a class of technology that would prevent adverse effects, why the fuck doesn't the vehicle? This is a design flaw of Teslas, pure and simple.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But they do, there are literally cars out there with lidar sensors.

The question was why can't I have a lidar sensor on my car if my $150 vacuum has one. The lidar sensor for a car is more than $150.

You don't have one because there are expensive at that size and update frequency. Sensors that are capable of outdoor mapping at high speed cost the price of a small car.

The manufacturers suspect and probably rightfully so that people don't want to pay an extra 10 - 30 grand for an array of sensors.

The technology readily exists rober had one in his video that he used to scan a roller coaster. It's not some conspiracy that you don't have it on cars and it's not like it's not capable of being done because waymo does it all the time.

There's a reason why waymo doesn't use smaller sensors they use the minimum of what works well. Which is expensive, which people looking at a mid-range car don't want to take on the extra cost, hence it's not available

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Only Tesla does not use radar with their control systems. Every single other manufacturer uses radar control mixed with the camera system. The Tesla system is garbage.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yeah, you'd think they'd at least use radar. That's cheap AF. It's like someone there said I have this hill to die on, I bet we can do it all with cameras.

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

someone

Yeahhh pretty sure I know who

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure it's a him thing, though it definitely could be. An inexpensive Chinese radar element could have eliminated all these problems and they could still use cameras as the main system. It would have cost them dollars to add it to the parts list and it's just a minor input to the collision avoidance stuff.

I would expect him to do a cost-savings thing and pull parts, but they're not really all that cost adverse. ( until you get to QC )

Maybe it was a DOGE kid he hired to come up with ideas or something. Doing with cameras only is more like a technical challenge, nobody looks at that and goes, WOW they can just do that with cameras, they go wow, that's a horrible idea full of dust, dirt and mud issues.

That said, he has made worse plans :)

[–] _g_be@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your perspective is very generous to Elon. "It's a cheap part, why would they omit it? Probably it was some dumb kid working there".

Usually cost-cutting measures that make significant compromises are top-down pushes, profit is their concern. Might not have been the CEO himself but, in my perspective, it would have been from the top levels.

Your perspective is very generous to Elon. “It’s a cheap part, why would they omit it? Probably it was some dumb kid working there”.

What's the opposite of occam's razor? The most convoluted, unbelievable answer full of assumptions is the correct one? Because it seems like rumba is operating from there.

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think you’re suffering from not knowing what you don’t know.

and I think you're suffering from being an arrogant sack of dicks who doesn't like being called out on their poor communication skills and, through either a lack of self-awareness or an unwarranted overabundance of self-confidence, projects their own flaws on others. But for the more receptive types who want to learn more, here's Syed Saad ul Hassan's very well-written 2022 paper on practical applications, titled Lidar Sensor in Autonomous Vehicles which I found also serves as neat primer of lidar in general..

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 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".

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well look at you being adult and using big words instead of just insulting people. Not even going to wastime on people like you, I'm going to block you and move on and hope that everyone else does the same so you can sit in your own quiet little world wondering why no one likes you.

[–] Nindelofocho@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You’re an idiot.

[–] yarr@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Does anyone else get the heebies with Mark Rober? There's something a little off about his smile and overall presence.

[–] sundrei@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.

This has been known.

They do it so they can evade liability for the crash.

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I bet the reason why he does not want the LiDAR in the car really cause it looks ugly aestheticly.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It costs too much. It's also why you have to worry about panels falling off the swastitruck if you park next to them. They also apparently lack any sort of rollover frame.

He doesn't want to pay for anything, including NHTSB crash tests.

It's literally what Drumpf would have created if he owned a car company. Cut all costs, disregard all regulations, and make the public the alpha testers.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would definitely help with the discussion is if Mark Rober the scientist left a fucking crumb of scientific approach in his video. He didn’t really explain how he was testing it just slam car into things for views. This and a collaboration with a company that makes lidar made the video open to every possible criticism and it’s a shame.

Discovery channel level of dumbed down „science”.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Found the Tesla owner!

😋

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was super annoying how scared he acted when he knew it was styrofoam and it wasn't even going to leave a scratch on the car. I would have like it much better if the car crashed into and actual wall and burst into flames.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Instinctively, human brains generally don't like large objects coming to them unbidden at high speed. That isn't going to help things, even if you're consciously aware that the wall is relatively harmless.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Dipshit Nazis mad at facts bursting their bubble is unreality" is another way of reading this headline.

[–] thistleboy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe the outrage is that the video showed that autopilot was off when they crashed into the wall. That's what the red circle in the thumbnail is highlighting. The whole thing apparently being a setup for views like Top Gear faking the Model S breaking down.

[–] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Autopilot shuts itself off just before a crash so Tesla can deny liability. It's been observed in many real-world accidents before this. Others have said much the same, with sources, in this very thread.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would a car that expensive not have a LiDAR sensor?

[–] FrChazzz@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Read about this somewhere. Iirc, Elon felt cameras were better than LiDAR at a time when that was kinda true, but the technology improved considerably in the interim and he pridefully refuses to admit he needs to adapt. [Edit: I had hastily read the referenced article and am incorrect here; link to accurate statements is linked in a reply below.]

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't even understand that logic. Use both. Even if one is significantly better than the other, they each have different weaknesses and can mitigate for each other.

[–] NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was always just to save money and pad the profit margins

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A LiDAR sensor couldn't add more than a few hundred to a car, surely

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

They ditched radar at a time when radar only added probably about $50 a car according to some estimates.

It may technically get a smidge more profitable, but it almost seems like it's more about hubris around tech shouldn't need more than a human to do as well. Which even if it were true, is a stupid stance to take when in that scenario you could have better than human senses.

[–] Darjuz@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago