TSMC Pressured by U.S. Government for More Chips to Automakers

[Caring1]

The Chinese "ghost fleet" is bigger than that, and probably just as heavily armed.

 

[Why_Me]

The Chinese "ghost fleet" is bigger than that, and probably just as heavily armed.

Probably due to all those naval victories the Chinese are known for.

Classic American ego showing right here. You people are a parody of yourselves. And then you wonder why the rest of the world looks down on you?

Only reason why Vienna would have that is because of CIA intervention since God forbid there is a country on this Earth not following your exploitative and destructive economic system. I'm originally not from Austria, but from an ex-socialist country, so watch what you tell me because your words hold no weight to me, nor does your propaganda.

I'll be the one talking back once capitalism causes the inevitable downfall of your country, and looking at how things are like in the US at the moment, it's not too far off. Cuba survived despite your multitude of sanctions, let's sanction you instead and see how your system fares...

On another note I'm pretty much done here before a moderator blitzkriegs me for being political and for not licking yankee boots. Goodbye, unwatching thread, and have fun discussing the topic at hand.

Classic. Bash the US on here and then post that rubbish after you get a taste of your own medicine.

 

[Deleted member 205776]

Classic. Bash the US on here

This forum bashes countries like Russia and China all the time. What's wrong with the US getting a kick in the pants from time to time? I'd say it's well deserved, considering the irony and hypocrisy associated with it.

and then post that rubbish after you get a taste of your own medicine.

Looks like I struck a nerve which is good. Too much ego is bad for your health.

 

[Deleted member 205776]

and as a u.s navy veteran i thank you austrians for your full support in every police action (korea, vietnam and taiwan presence) since WWII; as both of us hold the same anti-communist philosophies.

Don't thank me, I'm not Austrian. And my people sure don't support your hegemony disguised as "freedom". I'm glad North Vietnam won.

 

[looniam]

Don't thank me, I'm not Austrian.

yeah sorry, sleepy eyes reading.

i deleted it since the joke was a double fail; (Australian! damn spell check on top of it.)

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Oh they will, heading straight to miners.

i know the Navy will save some for those in real need of an upgrade, Like me

 

[Caring1]

yeah sorry, sleepy eyes reading.

i deleted it since the joke was a double fail; (Australian! damn spell check on top of it.)

Australia thanks you for the assistance.

 

[Aquinus]

Simple reasoning, they don't work very well. And they distract the driver from actually being alert to the conditions of the road. Drivers become dependent on such systems and become lazy.

That was not my experience when getting loaners when my car is getting worked on. If anything, it makes you more aware because it tells you when you're being a bad driver. I don't know what brands you've used, but Subaru has been pretty good.

The kinds of chips that provide these types of functionality do NOT require modern hardware to do an exceptional job and are not the type that are in short supply.

I think you're oversimplifying how much compute is required to do things like crash avoidance.

 

[lexluthermiester]

If anything, it makes you more aware because it tells you when you're being a bad driver.

You assume I haven't driven cars like that before. It took all of two hours for me to go back to the dealership to have them disable that crap.

I don't know what brands you've used, but Subaru has been pretty good.

Yes, I want a car that disables cruise control when you disable the system that is responsible for applying the brakes when you don't expect it. That's Subaru's current lineup. Have fun with that...

I think you're oversimplifying how much compute is required to do things like crash avoidance.

No, I'm not. Crash avoidance requires a considerable amount of compute power. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that "crash avoidance" requires an alert driver, not a computer that is not legally responsible for the actions it takes on behalf of the driver. We do not need computers like that in our vehicles.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I think you're oversimplifying how much compute is required to do things like crash avoidance.

I think most people are oversimplifying how much compute even matters.

What really matters is the sensor. Trains for example, know where all other trains are thanks to the modern Positive Train Control network: GPS, electrical connections on rails ("3rd rail" detection), speed sensors, the whole gamut. Positive Train Control was legally enforced starting in 2008 (though it wasn't fully deployed until last year), long before the GPU-boom gave rise to modern AI engines.

You can't "compute" around shitty 1.2MP cameras as your sensor. Step one is having a good enough sensor to do self-driving / crash avoidance / etc. etc. If you don't have a sensor that can accomplish the goal, you're already stranded. On the other hand: knowing the speed, direction, and location of all trains in your area (Positive Train Control network: the safety mechanism behind Amtrak / Freight Trains in USA), gives you all the information such that a simple "dumb" computer can prevent collisions.

---------

That people are trying to solve the self-driving (or crash-avoidance) car problem with such terrible sensors today is the crux of the problem. I get it: computers are cheaper than good sensors. But this route is so much harder and less reliable.

 

[Aquinus]

You assume I haven't driven cars like that before. It took all of two hours for me to go back to the dealership to have them disable that crap.

You needed the dealer to figure that out for you? I figured it out myself just fine. Maybe the problem isn't the technology, it's the user of it.

Yes, I want a car that disables cruise control when you disable the system that is responsible for applying the brakes when you don't expect it. That's Subaru's current lineup. Have fun with that...

It's behavior common to all Subarus. If the break gets touched, the cruise control turns off. You don't need eyesight for that to be the behavior for that case. In fact every car I've driven with cruise control will turn it off if you touch the break. That's not crash avoidance, that's technology we've had in cars for decades.

No, I'm not. Crash avoidance requires a considerable amount of compute power. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that "crash avoidance" requires an alert driver, not a computer that is not legally responsible for the actions it takes on behalf of the driver. We do not need computers like that in our vehicles.

I'm glad that your such a great driver, self professed. The reality is that a lot of drivers suck and if you can't change the driver, what you're left with is changing the car.

I think most people are oversimplifying how much compute even matters.

What really matters is the sensor. Trains for example, know where all other trains are thanks to the modern Positive Train Control network: GPS, electrical connections on rails ("3rd rail" detection), speed sensors, the whole gamut. Positive Train Control was legally enforced starting in 2008 (though it wasn't fully deployed until last year), long before the GPU-boom gave rise to modern AI engines.

You can't "compute" around shitty 1.2MP cameras as your sensor. Step one is having a good enough sensor to do self-driving / crash avoidance / etc. etc. If you don't have a sensor that can accomplish the goal, you're already stranded. On the other hand: knowing the speed, direction, and location of all trains in your area (Positive Train Control network: the safety mechanism behind Amtrak / Freight Trains in USA), gives you all the information such that a simple "dumb" computer can prevent collisions.

---------

That people are trying to solve the self-driving (or crash-avoidance) car problem with such terrible sensors today is the crux of the problem. I get it: computers are cheaper than good sensors. But this route is so much harder and less reliable.

Now you definitely are underestimating the compute power required for that. Sure 1.5MP is low, but that also is getting checked a lot of times very quickly. So sure, you can slap an even bigger CMOS sensor on there and you'll be in the perfect position to complain about how car manufacturers need more and faster chips. Good sensors need good computers to process them quickly, it's a double edged sword.

Also, if it's such a problem, maybe car manufacturers should hire you as a lead engineer.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Also, if it's such a problem, maybe car manufacturers should hire you as a lead engineer.

I'm more of the position that if its such a problem, maybe manufacturers should stop experimenting on the public.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1307529357951467531

This shit provably doesn't work right now. So stop selling it to the public. Stop telling people to rely on it. When it works, great. Come back and start selling it again. But right now, manufacturers are lying to you.

Don't believe a Chinese source? That's fine. Here's a report from AAA: https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/aar/files/Research-Report-Pedestrian-Detection.pdf

-----------

The worst part? Not only does it fail to stop for Pedestrians, but these seem to be causing "Phantom Braking Events": https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/the-cancer-that-is-phantom-braking.192941/

In my case, I have a Model 3, no self-driving, my experience now on 2020.12.11.1 is that CC and AP will brake from 110 to 40kph at the same spots on the highway near my home. This seems to be at exits and is really dangerous. Due to COVID I have not tried out this version on a longer trip on a sunny day to see if the scared of shadows under bridges version of phantom braking is still there, I have no reason to suspect it has been fixed.

So we have a system here, that automatically brakes for shadows under a bridge, but plows into test pedestrians on the test track in both Chinese and USA tests.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm more of the position that if its such a problem, maybe manufacturers should stop experimenting on the public.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1307529357951467531

This shit provably doesn't work right now. So stop selling it to the public. Stop telling people to rely on it. When it works, great. Come back and start selling it again. But right now, manufacturers are lying to you.

Don't believe a Chinese source? That's fine. Here's a report from AAA: https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/aar/files/Research-Report-Pedestrian-Detection.pdf

-----------

The worst part? Not only does it fail to stop for Pedestrians, but these seem to be causing "Phantom Braking Events": https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/the-cancer-that-is-phantom-braking.192941/



So we have a system here, that automatically brakes for shadows under a bridge, but plows into test pedestrians on the test track in both Chinese and USA tests.

I'm going to quote myself again because you didn't seem to listen the first time:

Also, if it's such a problem, maybe car manufacturers should hire you as a lead engineer.

You're saying this like software shouldn't be released until it is perfect. I'm thinking more of the basic cases like, adaptive cruise control, indicators that you're leaving your lane (without using a directional,) or emergency braking when in reverse. Subarus won't slam the brake when you're in drive, it beeps at you incessantly telling you to brake if you're coming up on something fast. Once again, these features are supposed to assist you, not be a replacement for a braindead driver.

Stop treating a molehill like a mountain.

 

[dragontamer5788]

You're saying this like software shouldn't be released until it is perfect.

There's a wide chasm between "perfect" and "Phantom Braking incidents while failing to detect pedestrians in multiple independent tests around the world".

Lets start with: "Safety-critical software shouldn't be released if its utter shit", which I believe the above post demonstrates.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You needed the dealer to figure that out for you? I figured it out myself just fine. Maybe the problem isn't the technology, it's the user of it.

Good for you. It was a loaner, why should I be bothered with functionality I don't own?

It's behavior common to all Subarus. If the break gets touched, the cruise control turns off.

You seem to be failing to understand. With all Subaru's, if you disable the auto-breaking(crash avoidance) system, the cruise control is also disabled. It's a very STUPID design choice.

I'm glad that your such a great driver, self professed. The reality is that a lot of drivers suck and if you can't change the driver, what you're left with is changing the car.

Then those drivers need to be better taught or not allowed to drive. We don't want to make a vehicle that makes up for an unskilled, incompetent driver. That's the special-snowflake way of thinking. We want to make vehicles that REQUIRE the driver to skilled and competent. That is the correct and safe way of thinking.

So once again, we need to get the computers out of vehicles.

Side note, you have a habit of making assumptions rather than asking questions. See to that...

 

[Aquinus]

We want to make vehicles that REQUIRE the driver to skilled and competent.

I think you have high expectations for humanity. If you don't need the feature, then don't buy it. I didn't. I just get to use it when I bring my car in for service and I really don't have any complaints about it. Also Subaru doesn't do automatic braking unless you're in reverse. It just beeps at you when you're approaching an object quickly. Either way, I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape about a feature you can buy a car without. My experience with it has been very different than yours. Not sure what to tell you.

There's a wide chasm between "perfect" and "Phantom Braking incidents while failing to detect pedestrians in multiple independent tests around the world".

Lets start with: "Safety-critical software shouldn't be released if its utter shit", which I believe the above post demonstrates.

Let's start with reading what I said in the first place. The only thing here that's utter shit is your attitude.

Subarus won't slam the brake when you're in drive, it beeps at you incessantly telling you to brake if you're coming up on something fast. Once again, these features are supposed to assist you, not be a replacement for a braindead driver.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think you have high expectations for humanity.

No, the expectations here are no different than what they have been for many decades, long before computers ever existed in vehicles. Drivers are expected to be drivers, not passengers. They are also expected to be competent. Otherwise, they are expected to use the bus/train/taxi/walk to get around...

Also Subaru doesn't do automatic braking unless you're in reverse.

You clearly have not been driving Subaru's recently...

Not sure what to tell you.

How about nothing?

Once again, get the computers out of vehicles and we solve several problems at once, including the chip shortage..

 

[Aquinus]

You clearly have not been driving Subaru's recently...

I own a 2015 Impreza with a 5 speed and have driven at least one vehicle since then up to 2021. All of them have had eyesight and none of them have hit the brake, only beeped at me (I think that was a '19 Crosstrek.) Upon further analysis, it looks like you're right. It will hit the brake, only after you ignore the beeping. So as angry as this technology makes you, it sounds like it's exactly what you need and exactly why it exists.

How about nothing?

You first.

 

[R-T-B]

Once again, get the computers out of vehicles and we solve several problems at once, including the chip shortage..

You'd also have record low sales.

These features are added out of popularity, like it or not.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You'd also have record low sales.

They'd bounce back once people got it through their heads that it's for the best.

These features are added out of popularity, like it or not.

Frak popularity. Actual safety and common sense are more important.

 

[R-T-B]

They'd bounce back once people got it through their heads that it's for the best.

Free market doesn't tend to work that way...

 

[lexluthermiester]

Free market doesn't tend to work that way...

Safety regulations do and need improvement.

 

[Hemmingstamp]

Safety regulations do and need improvement.

As a former Crash Test Dummy myself, I can attest to this statement.