alt Hacker News> I do in fact work with self-driving cars. What you say is true, but it is not a big deal. Why do you feel this maters? Or what is your point?
Sorry not trying to dunk on you here, but this reads like something a junior engineer would complain to me about. These are not trivial problems, and I'm sure your co-workers who resolved them already so you didn't need to worry about them would agree with me.
> In reality none of this is a problem. There are automotive grade cameras which can collect enough light fast enough that the images are not blurry in practice. Yes, these cameras have a non-zero exposure time. Yes, this adds latency. No, this is not a problem.
You are contradicting yourself here, yes there are automotive grade cameras, but if this wasn't a problem, why would automotive grade cameras need to exist? My post wasn't saying these were impossible problems but hard ones.
> You mean 88 feet. If my off the shelf library introduces a random 1 second delay i will chuck it in the bin post haste. Use stuff whose performance characteristics are well understood by you and is not terrible.
Look I might have typed the wrong unit but it's a bit ironic you gave me this word salad right after complaining about this... Yeah you obviously don't use the library that adds a 1 second delay, but often you don't have the luxury of knowing that until after you learn about it through integration testing.
Libraries don't usually come with latency stats calibrated to your desired hardware right on the tin, would be pretty sweet if they did though.
> I do not recognise the world you describe.
I don't find this surprising :)
> These are not trivial problems
My complaint is that it is not clear why you think what you describe is a problem. You describe that by the time the next image arrives the car traveled a certain distance. And that is correct. But you imply that it is a problem without spelling out why it is a problem in your opinion.
You seem to assume it is so trivial to understand that you don’t even need to spell out the problem. But it is not. Because i don’t know what is in your head I can’t argue with the details of it. I know that whatever you feel is a problem is not a problem in practice.
Definietly not a problem you would solve by having higher frame rate cameras. So what I’m seeing is that you are unclear on the problem and jumping at a non-solution. One which adds other complexities without actually solving anything for you. And that is a certified junior engineer behaviour.
> if this wasn't a problem, why would automotive grade cameras need to exist?
Automotive grade cameras are special in their supported temperature range (they won’t die if you leave them baking in the sun) and their physical and electrical intefaces being resilient to vibration and electrical interference. You can point your smartphone out the window of your car and see that it can record clear images.