site banner
PaperclipPerfector  28d ago (text post)   2348 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 25, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

5 lux isn't much, and it's mostly relevant in the sense of highlighting retroreflectors (either tape, or animal eyes). If you're really darkness-adapted and under 40 or so, you'll be able to see fuzzy outlines, but not much more: it's not unreasonable as a metric for 'minimum to see an object', but a little optimistic.

At 65 MPH, 100 meters is just over three seconds to react; 70 meters is just over two seconds. How much that matters depends heavily on what you're doing with that time. Two seconds to swerve is pretty generous. Three seconds to brake is not, especially in larger cars: modeling these things is tough and depends on a lot of specifics to the situation, but at best it's the difference between stopping just before impact versus barrelling through at 20+ MPH, and more likely the difference between 10 MPH and 35 MPH at time of impact.

it's mostly relevant in the sense of highlighting retroreflectors

IIHS's rationale document (page 4) states that the intended target of illumination is low-contrast objects, not retroreflective objects.

Huh. I don't like how little citation there is for that being sufficient brightness -- all the cites are just to people using 3 lux as a baseline measurement, and that for instrument sensitivity reasons -- but I guess I don't really have the numbers to say that they're wrong, either.

If you're really darkness-adapted and under 40 or so, you'll be able to see fuzzy outlines, but not much more

This is what annoys me about the push for full self-driving: instead of spending most of the time on AI, I want that [same underlying] sensor technology to start highlighting things (4-legged animals, 2-legged animals) that I can't see yet using the inside of the windshield as a screen. I want to be able to see cars through other cars- it doesn't matter if Truckzilla pulls out too far beside me when I'm trying to make a turn because I can just see if there's something coming directly.

I want technology to help me make better decisions on how I should drive; not to replace me. But I'm one of those weird people who actually likes driving- most people don't, so why would anyone ever develop a system like this?

That would be awesome. We’ve already seen the first wave of augmented senses with proximity radars and, arguably, the backup camera. Stuff like the blind spot indicators. Use those for a bit and it’s unpleasant to go back.

I suspect that display technology is part of this holdup. We’ve certainly tried, and then sort of gave up in the early 2000s. Maybe we’re due for a comeback.

Yeah, that's fair. There's been some work done for automotive HUDs, but there's (not-unreasonable!) concern about anything more serious than simple fixed-location infographics being distracting or vision-obscuring -- bizarrely, meaning that the display tech once existed and now doesn't -- and as a result things like blind spot detection or collision avoidance systems tend to rely on other inputs that tend to fall into the meaningless alert problem or at best just push sensor data directly to the instrument cluster.

anything more serious than simple fixed-location infographics being distracting or vision-obscuring

I think "put screens everywhere" is a clear signal that we don't give a shit any more about what's distracting you behind the wheel. (They obscure your vision due to glare and, if the company is/was obsessed with the color blue at the time, kill your night vision just as surely as the new LED headlights do).

My favorite is the one where you have to click through a full page disclaimer of tiny text about how looking at the screen is dangerous in order to actually get to the necessary functions that the screen provides.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats