[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Basically the whole movie Sausage Party. Great movie that is also fun for adults

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Just to add: they should not be chained, but they should run in parallel.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The car indeed has mobile data. A Tesla has a permanent 4g connection.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

~~Although it’s far from perfect, autopilot gets into a lot less accidents per mile than drivers without autopilot.~~

~~They have some statistics here:~~ https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

EDIT: As pointed out by commenters in this thread, autopilot is mainly used on high ways, whereas the crash average is on all roads. Also Tesla only counts a crash if the airbag was deployed, but the numbers they compared against count every crash, including the ones without deployed airbags.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Awww to bad it’s fake! I knew it was too good to be true

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The fine contains a letter, a picture and payment information. If the person really wasn’t using their phone, they can file a complaint and the fine will be dismissed. Seems pretty simple to me.

However, I have not heard any complaints about it in the news and an embarrassing amount of fines has been given for this offense.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The system works with AI signaling phone usage by driving.

Then a human will verify the photo.

AI is used to respect people’s privacy.

The combination of the AI detection+human review leads to a 5% false negative rate, and most probably 0% false positive.

This means that the AI missed at most 5% positives, but probably less because of the human reviewer not being 100% sure there was an offense.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Just to clarify the result: the article states that AI and human review leads to 95%.

Could also be that the human is flagging actual positives, found by the AI, as false positives.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

The system we use in NL is called “monocam”. A few years ago it caught 95% of all offenders.

This means that AI had at most 5% false negatives.

I wonder if they have improved the system in the mean time.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2481555-nieuwe-slimme-camera-s-aangeschaft-om-appende-bestuurders-te-betrappen

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

We have a couple of these cameras in The Netherlands.

We found it quite intrusive to look into people’s cars. Therefore the computer will flag photos, of possible offenses, and a person verifies them.

Unfortunately the movable camera has a huge lens and it’s reported to a waze-like app before they are even finished setting it up.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Indeed. In Europe all chargers have CCS2.

All cars come with CCS2 as well, except for some very old cars, which carry a CCS2 adapter.

[-] tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

The main reason is to be on the users Home Screen, just one tap away from being on the app. Also, push notifications, pulling people back into the app.

Also there is a security benefit. Phones are protected quite well, so it is safer to keep a user signed on the device and maybe only a PIN or biometrics in front of the app to open it. The apps run in an isolated space, making it even safer.

Lastly there can be a performance benefit. Websites are written in HTML, CSS and JavaScript which is compiled on demand, while apps can be written in languages which are pre-compiled.

view more: next ›

tmRgwnM9b87eJUPq

joined 1 year ago