Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules

Re:Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules by SilasX on Friday May 12, 2017 @02:24PM (#14326472)

Which proves -- in the case of flight -- that an "unnatural" refactor can be better along certain dimensions than what nature came up with: airplanes are better in terms of average speed and payload transported by air per unit energy consumed.

The parent's point was that, for driving, the "natural" human way is still better along one relevant dimension [1]: how much sensory data is required (SDCs need a lot more).

SDC engineers would regard it as an improvement if they could get SDCs to work using only the sensory data that a human would get. The parent was saying that Uber could show superiority by similarly doing more with less.

[1] Humans also drive with coarser control over the car i.e. no direct computer interface, just gripping the wheel and pushing the pedals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules by jessriedel on Friday May 12, 2017 @08:46PM (#14329026)

The parent is clearly saying that this is a plausible route for Uber engineers using the biological proof-of-concept, which I have rebutted. They are not just saying it would be an improvement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules by parhurs on Saturday May 13, 2017 @10:56AM (#14331274)

You cannot rebuke that claim via an aerospace analogy because they are not equivalent fields. It remains to be seen whether lidar is better for cars than "vision".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waymo’s lawsuit against Uber is going to trial, judge rules by jessriedel on Saturday May 13, 2017 @02:08PM (#14332183)

"Undermine" would have been a better choice of words than "rebut". Indeed, my first comment claimed explicitly to show his wasn't a strong argument, and I think that is obviously the case even if the fields aren't identical. (When are they ever?)

[ Parent | on HN ]