Tesla does collect LIDAR data (people have seen them doing it, it's just not on all of the cars) and they do generate depth maps from sensor data, but from the examples I've seen it is much lower resolution than these Waymo examples.
Seems like some kind of weird quirk that the government doesn't already have this information readily available. Why isn't there a registration process for the person that leased the car?
The answer you seek is right there in the article (emphasis mine):
> Tesla offers its vehicles on long-term leases, and in such a scenario the leasing company is typically the registered keeper of the car.
> Drivers of rented or company cars caught speeding have to be named before they can face prosecution and companies which fail to return paperwork to police can be prosecuted instead.
A company leases the car, and that car may then be available to multiple employees. The police need the company to confirm which employee was driving the vehicle at the time of the office.
The answer is not in the article. The question is: why isn't there a registration process for the person that leased the car? How are rented or company cars even relevant, since that's a different company between Tesla and the driver that would have the information about the driver? It seems like a weird quirk that there's not a registration process closer that leads somewhere closer to the actual driver. Is it a privacy issue? Is it just because enforcement is easier against a larger company?
Because it's the UK and half their shit doesn't make sense fundamentally. But to try to come up with a real answer, I bet some rich people use this feature of their registration system to get a bit of privacy. They can just get a lease vehicle and not even the cops know who has it. Seems plausible.
If you lease a car the owner of the vehicle isn't the driver, but the lease company itself. Tesla was contacted to provide the drivers name (as is their legal obligation) and when they didn't they were fined.
Exactly the same is true if you own the car outright. You as the owner of the vehicle will be contacted and asked to provide the details of the person who was driving at the time.
I just realized something: doesn't this allow the actual drivers to escape the non-monetary penalties?
In the UK, if a driver is caught speeding, they'll (generally) also get points on their license and after accumulating 12 points, they'll (generally) lose their license for a while. Points decay on some frequency which I forget.
Anyway, what's to stop someone from driving a company car and then just paying the fines via the company and refusing the name the driver?
> Anyway, what's to stop someone from driving a company car and then just paying the fines via the company and refusing the name the driver?
In Germany when that happens and the company cannot (or does not want to) name the driver... they may get ordered by the authority to keep a logbook. And such an order shows up at any police checkpoint - and if the cops run the plate, they will ask for the logbook. And check the logbook. And if the logbook isn't up to speed... that means some hefty fines.
Germany isn’t required to keep a log book? In Netherlands we had to keep details on clock, distance, driver, and reason for all use of the company vehicles.
The police should have information on people who have broken the law (assuming the laws are reasonable and proportionate – for the moment, let's make that assumption). The police should not have information on non-criminals, except as far as it is genuinely necessary for an investigation. (To the extent that the police do things other than investigating crimes and making arrests, the relevant information should be compartmentalised and handled separately.) I am willing to tolerate large amounts of inefficiency, and even some bad guys getting away, if it ensures that the police do not begin to get results by looking only under the street light (which, if nothing else, will lead to sophisticated offenders getting away more easily). Pre-emptively requesting records just in case they're needed is a very, very bad practice, and we must oppose it if we want to live in a free society.
This is also why I tolerate the widespread use of CCTV cameras, but strongly oppose CCTV networks. Closed-circuit television needs to be closed-circuit, with friction of access requests proportionate to the amount of footage requested, or it goes from an accountability tool to a mass surveillance tool.
While I largely agree, this isn't a question of having broken the law or not.
The registration is _literally something issued by the DVLA_, so of course government agencies have access to it. The problem in this specific case is where the registration information is not enough to indicate the likely driver.
Behind the scenes, there's a lot of procedure in place to ensure that arbitrary government agencies don't have arbitrary access to arbitrary things that "the government" knows. The DVLA has a legitimate basis for collecting information about vehicle registration, and there are often legitimate reasons to pass this information on to law enforcement; but that doesn't generalise to arbitrary information about the occupants of a vehicle. Collecting arbitrary information just in case the police need it is one, seemingly-benign route to a police state.
Also, with the way these kinds of things have gone in the past:
- It's not certain that you'll ever be able to buy it.
- If you can buy it, it'll probably be closer to $40k than $25k with no add-ons.
- It's not certain that you'll ever actually be able to buy it with no add-ons.
- Orders that include all of the most expensive add-ons will be heavily prioritized, so even if you can order it without add-ons, the queue could be months or years long.
- The ones that you can actually get in a reasonable amount of time will be closer to $50k than $25k.
I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider supporting circumcision of children as being a call to violence against children, though. Just because it's being done for religious reasons and it has been done by a large population for a long time really doesn't change what it is: involuntary body modification of children.
Irreversible surgery without consent is extremely inappropriate if it's not solving a critical concern. Circumcision of children is about as inappropriate as female genital mutilation that is done after birth in parts of Africa.
Hang on, my understanding of the situation is that only PEs are allowed to sign off on the design of a thing. They don't have to design it, and they almost certainly don't build it. Am I wrong?
The stamp is legally binding. The company you work for isn't gonna protect you financially if the bridge you stamped falls. This is how they protect their profession
Adaptive headlights have only been approved for use in the US for ~3 years. They were sold in cars in the US before that, but the adaptive function was disabled.
> On country roads, it’s extremely valuable for keeping the shoulder lit up with high beams to see things like fear and bicycle.
It is my experience that bicyclists and pedestrians aren't partial to the endless passing vehicles that are blinding them. Seeing is part of how they keep out of drivers way. I disagree that we should ruin their vision just so drivers can seem them even more than they used to.
A version that is just plainly nerdy (and more comfortable) might not be a bad idea; maybe call it the developer version or something to avoid any association with fashion or luxury.
That's why they are sold as a pair. The glasses are simply a screen strapped to your face. How to control it was always the real problem to be solved (and no, voice was never the answer).
I was one of the earliest developers to test Vision Pro after it was announced at Apple Park. My thoughts after using it for a whole day was that the hand gestures really did feel like magic, at the tradeoff of having a huge headset on your head. Costs aside, the Vision Pro is too bulky for use outside of your home.
I had the idea of wearables to solve this, as many years ago I had the Myo gesture control armband. They were very early with this product too, and from what I had read, most of that team got acquired/absorbed into Magic Leap
At one point I was tracking a company researching beaming images straight on your eye. I think they were MS related, but not sure. After a while they stopped updating, so I guess that went nowhere? It seemed really promising.
It's still certainly early adopter tech. We have the technology for stereo vision and augmented reality. It's just a matter of getting the display and battery and compute bill of materials in order now that they have the screen and a feasible input path.
I think there's an implicit "where a decent human driver could drive safely" for L5, otherwise you get increasingly ridiculous scenarios like, "can Waymo drive safely in a whiteout blizzard?" or "can Waymo safely escape an erupting volcano??"
reply