site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   3188 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 25, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

TIL: According to IIHS (the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety), the stock headlights on many cars are inadequate. For example, the popular Honda Fit hatchback has headlights that are only "marginal" (2 stars out of 4) or "poor" (1 star), depending on trim. (Several different measurements go into the overall rating. Speaking very roughly, though, IIHS wants to see illumination of 5 lux out to a distance of 100 meters, while the Fit's headlights achieved that illumination only out to 72.4 meters.)

Headlight bulbs that are much brighter than stock while still remaining in compliance with laws regarding off-center glare (unlike some LEDs) are available for a few dollars from various sources—e. g., RockAuto. Note that illumination distance increases with the square root of brightness: 1 lux of illumination is 1 lumen of brightness per meter squared. For example, multiplying brightness by 2.3 will multiply illumination distance by only 1.5—but that's enough to bring the Fit up to IIHS's standards (from 72.4 meters to 110 meters).

5 lux out to a distance of 100 meters, while the Fit's headlights achieved that illumination only out to 72.4 meters

How much does it really matter? I personally rarely drive in places where I have 70+ meters of unlighted space in front of me, and I'm not sure how much going from 72 to 100 (or the reverse) going to change things.

5 lux isn't much, and it's mostly relevant in the sense of highlighting retroreflectors (either tape, or animal eyes). If you're really darkness-adapted and under 40 or so, you'll be able to see fuzzy outlines, but not much more: it's not unreasonable as a metric for 'minimum to see an object', but a little optimistic.

At 65 MPH, 100 meters is just over three seconds to react; 70 meters is just over two seconds. How much that matters depends heavily on what you're doing with that time. Two seconds to swerve is pretty generous. Three seconds to brake is not, especially in larger cars: modeling these things is tough and depends on a lot of specifics to the situation, but at best it's the difference between stopping just before impact versus barrelling through at 20+ MPH, and more likely the difference between 10 MPH and 35 MPH at time of impact.

If you're really darkness-adapted and under 40 or so, you'll be able to see fuzzy outlines, but not much more

This is what annoys me about the push for full self-driving: instead of spending most of the time on AI, I want that [same underlying] sensor technology to start highlighting things (4-legged animals, 2-legged animals) that I can't see yet using the inside of the windshield as a screen. I want to be able to see cars through other cars- it doesn't matter if Truckzilla pulls out too far beside me when I'm trying to make a turn because I can just see if there's something coming directly.

I want technology to help me make better decisions on how I should drive; not to replace me. But I'm one of those weird people who actually likes driving- most people don't, so why would anyone ever develop a system like this?

That would be awesome. We’ve already seen the first wave of augmented senses with proximity radars and, arguably, the backup camera. Stuff like the blind spot indicators. Use those for a bit and it’s unpleasant to go back.

I suspect that display technology is part of this holdup. We’ve certainly tried, and then sort of gave up in the early 2000s. Maybe we’re due for a comeback.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats