This seems like a pretty obvious thing to do for some small-run auto maker.
Thinking out loud. At what point are legislative controls ever put on car performance, if ever? They've kind of hit the limits on ICE engines with the Hellcat Dodges (for example) but there's no reason an EV couldn't have power to weight ratios that are actually dangerous.
So what happens when you can buy a street-legal F1 car?
>They've kind of hit the limits on ICE engines with the Hellcat Dodges (for example) but there's no reason an EV couldn't have power to weight ratios that are actually dangerous.
Yes there is - the vastly more energy-dense fuel used by ICE cars.
The Hellcat Dodge's power to weight of 318 hp per tonne puts it more in the soccer mom category.
The Caterham 7 620, with a 2-liter engine, gets 500hp per tonne, and that's half of what some of the exotic supercars have.
For reference, a Tesla has around 350 hp/tonne.
I think your perception of what qualifies as motoring performance is sadly lacking.
I suppose 318 hp per tonne being soccer mom category was hyperbole.
To save anyone else who is reading this late trying to work this out in their head, the hp/tonne of the 2007 Nissan GTR was less than 280 hp/tonne and had 0-97 km/h in 3.2 seconds-ish.
The 991 911 Turbo is 330 hp/tonne.
318 hp per tonne is plausible for a soccer mom vehicle, but it would be a beast.
>I think your perception of what qualifies as motoring performance is sadly lacking.
lol. I think you'd be surprised.
Mostly I'm referring to the mass-produced engine itself here, not the car. After all, we live in a world of 1000 BHP turbo LS engines stuffed into old Ford Fairmonts turning single digit quarter miles.
Having said that, at what point is there legislative pressure to limit new cars. JDM is an existing model.
If you're going to look only at the power-to-weight of the engine itself and ignore everything else needed to make a car, I look forward to the superior hydraulic engined-cars!
Imagine how small the file would be if it were a couple of for loops. Compression can take advantage of the colors of adjacent/near by pixels, adjacent pixels in time (for video), less bits for more common situations, removing differences that are invisible, etc.
Gotta ask. Has anyone worked on image compression using machine learning? (that sounds like an obvious thing to do). It would be funny to end up with an algorithm no one understands.
Yup. Consider that all compression boils down to some form of a model that can predict the next bits of information, and then an encoding that only includes the deviation of the actual data from the prediction. Machine learning gives us new ways of making predictions.
Given both the financial value of image compression (given the amount of video shoved down the net) and the asymmetry of codec (it's OK to use resources to compress, not so much for decompress), I'd expect some real money to be spent in this area.
> Has anyone worked on image compression using machine learning?
Dunno about the state of the art, but pretty much every ml tutorial has a section titled "Image Compression Using Autoencoders" right at the beginning. It's the Hello World of ml. The perceptual quality vs file size curve for such a simple network is pretty mediocre, but I'm sure you could do better if that was your goal.
A lot of old video games with impressive graphics were implemented sort of like that. Rather than storing bitmap data, the algorithm to render the artwork would be executed on the fly. It was actually faster than doing otherwise, since hard drives were so slow and the algorithm itself could fit in ram.
Tangentially related is the crash bandicoot game on the playstation. The developers figured out that untextured polygons were way faster to draw than textured polygons, and so they made the player character model out of tons of
tiny colored polygons rather than fewer larger textured polygons. The result was a significantly better looking graphic for the same rendering time.
I can imagine the advertising value of watching for depression and cognitive decline. In the latter case, you could probably sell a dozen extended warranties for the same item.
EZ prediction of the day.
Combine depression, cognitive decline, anger, etc. values against a database of gun owners (picked up through registration, social media posts, ATF background checks, etc.). Send police to house when some crossover point is hit. It's for the children.
Funny how that sounds more plausible than them selling mental healthcare services. Those are extremely hard to get. Have a doctor actually help you? Nah, police raid.
I'm speaking as a second class European with experience in Belgium, UK and Germany.
Same. Who needs an app to tell you that you’re depressed? Memes are writing themselves. Imagine your government mandating stay-home orders, having lost most friends, craving Youtube content, ruminating about previous experiences, and your phone popping up a message saying “That’s it. You’re suicidal. Here are friends you can call.” and the list shows up empty. Or there’s your ex, the local pizza service and your late parents.
When people are depressed, they tend to know it. (but the sibling comments say it may be good to point a maniac episode for a bipolar person).
Or maybe detect people who might be unstable through paranoid ramblings about how Apple is out to get gun owners before they can "take a stand against the tyranny".
Why do I get the impression this is an attempt at being mysterious because "can't openly state something that's wrongthink!"
When really no one would consider what you're vaguely implying "wrongthink" or inflammatory at all. They'd probably just consider it "normal wrong" and poorly supported by reality...
No mystery. You can simply make the claim that Apple would detect anything that's anti-Apple. Why not? It isn't like that the company has anything approaching morality, aside from perhaps the occasional craziness from the worker-drones there.
Please don't cross into internet psychiatric diagnosis - it never does any good and is basically a form of personal attack, even if you didn't intend it that way.
I was thinking along the lines of getting city council members to agree with insane concepts. The committee all nodding at the wisdom of the new town monorail would be funny as hell.
I've mostly been keeping an eye out on the aircooled VW conversions (or that EV 1968 Mustang on youtube).
It'll really get interesting when you see more from-scratch cars that don't have the ICE history built in. There are a lot of changes that could be made in design. If the government didn't love to get in your business so much, maybe there could be a world of street-legal EV karts.
There are - golf carts. They don't have the same sex appeal as a sports car, but in the many communities in the US where those are considered street legal, they are flourishing! They usually don't have doors and have a low top speed, but make for great third or fourth cars. Their top speed is low and limited by the law, though the laws that I've seen only specify what the top speed (often 35mph) but not how long (or how quickly) it takes to get there.
Many are still on lead-acid batteries (36V or 48V) but you didn't specify battery chemistry. :)
I'm speaking outside of my bailiwick here, but are browsers now the equivalent of Microsoft Windows? Great big, crufty, no-one-really-knows-how-they-work, security risk laden, feature-fat, clumps of software that everyone uses?
>someone driving a priceless exotic like a '69 Boss Mustang V8 could end up paying less tax and insurance than your Average Joe middle classer pays on his 10 year old 1.6L family econobox.
lol. It's funny to think of them as a 'priceless exotic' as those cars are basically mass produced items with an engine option.
Let's consider the cost. A decent Boss 429 is probably around $250k-$300k. The sales tax in California is around 10 percent, about $2k/year for the license, $4-$5/gallon for gas at around 8 mpg, collector car insurance at roughly 1% of stated value.
>It's not hard to find highly opinionated people making assumptions while confidently believing they're right. If you look closely, you'll notice this all the time on HN and Reddit and basically anywhere that allows people to comment.
C'est la vie. The internet allows millions of people to opine on barstools.
It might simply be that our standards for the written word were too high before as it required a large investment to write/print/distribute a magazine or book.
> C'est la vie. The internet allows millions of people to opine on barstools.
It may be interesting if there was a social media platform that exerted some sophisticated control over the manner in which this phenomenon plays out. If adequately successful, the way "la vie" is, would then be different.
