Remix.run Logo
latexr 4 days ago

Indeed. Mark Rober did some field tests on that exact difference. LiDAR passed all of them, while Tesla’s camera-only approach failed half.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ

randallsquared 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure the guy who did the Tesla crash test hoax and (partially?) faked his famous glitterbomb pranks is the best source. I would separately verify anything he says at this point.

latexr 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Tesla crash test hoax

First I’m hearing of that. In doing a search, I see a lot of speculation but no proof. Knowing the shenanigans perpetrated by Musk and his hardcore fans, I’ll take theories with a grain of salt.

> and (partially?) faked his famous glitterbomb pranks

That one I remember, and the story is that the fake reactions were done by a friend of a friend who borrowed the device. I can’t know for sure, but I do believe someone might do that. Ultimately, Rober took accountability, recognised that hurt his credibility, and edited out that part from the video.

https://www.engadget.com/2018-12-21-viral-glitter-bomb-video...

I have no reason to protect Rober, but also have no reason to discredit him until proof to the contrary. I don’t follow YouTube drama but even so I’ve seen enough people unjustly dragged through the mud to not immediately fall for baseless accusations.

One I bumped into recently was someone describing the “fall” of another YouTuber, and in one case showed a clip from an interview and said “and even the interviewer said X about this person”, with footage. Then I watched the full video and at one point the interviewer says (paraphrased) “and please no one take this out of context, if you think I’m saying X, you’re missing the point”.

So, sure, let’s be critical about the information we’re fed, but that cuts both ways.