Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with

Posted Mar 5, 2021 21:18 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with by johannbg
Parent article: Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with

> someone simply placing a signal jammer at a busy intersections which causes a vehicle to lose it's "connection" to the "cloud" and <bam> for the entire software industry to become heavily regulated.

That should NOT be possible. And that's one of the big problems with this - too many people think this is the correct solution when it is provably disastrous. An autonomous vehicle should be exactly that - autonomous! If it relies on external back-up, then that backup will *inevitably* fail when it is needed. Muphrys law and all that ...

Cheers,
Wol

Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with

Posted Mar 5, 2021 21:54 UTC (Fri) by johannbg (guest, #65743) [Link]

Well the industry does not like to talk about how you can easily fool or disrupt vehicle these days with signal jammer, 3d printed objects etc. since that does not quite sell the idea to investor and governments + We already have a fully autonomous vehicle with all the capable means you describe and they are called taxis...

Woodruff: Weird architectures weren't supported to begin with

Posted Mar 5, 2021 22:12 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

> Muphrys law and all that ...

Is this a British thing? I think you're referring to Murphy's Law. Muphry's Law seems to be:

> If you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written.

and a deliberate misspelling of the other one.