Paul Bloore

Interested in Science, Engineering and Technology that can reduce human impact on the environment both direct and indirect.

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@WSB_memes Haven’t they just done a 10:1 share split?

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@wholemars I can’t remember Superman either a) driving a motor vehicle or b) using lasers to navigate while flying!

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

How GM Sold America to Become China Motors (Karma Alert: They DIE in 2027) https://t.co/6VyFcZmYq4 via @YouTube

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@DirtyTesLa According to Grok Tesla does normally record cabin video if FSD is enabled which can be requested by the owner/driver but not third parties unless subpoenaed, so presumably this should be available.

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@TesCalendar1 @teslatidbits If I needed to run a windows application I ran it under a virtual machine which meant I could restart Windows much faster when it fell over!

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

I asked Grok whether the Cook reports conclusion was also misleading because the “97%” had three categories included of which only the first two explicitly mentioned ACC (anthromorphic climate change). This is what Grok said;

- The study grouped categories 1–3 (explicit and implicit endorsements) together without breaking them down in the headline result:
- Categories 1 and 2 (explicit endorsement): 986 papers (24.6% of the 4,014 papers taking a position, or 8.3% of all papers).
- Category 3 (implicit endorsement): 2,910 papers (72.5% of the 4,014, or 24.4% of all papers).
- This means the 97% figure heavily relies on implicit endorsements (74.7% of the endorsing group), which are less definitive than explicit statements. The lack of transparency about this breakdown in the headline result exaggerates the level of explicit agreement.

In other words only 8.3% of the papers surveyed explicitly endorsed ACC, 24.4% had content which the surveyers considered implied ACC. As Grok put it “The selective framing of the 97% figure aligns with the authors’ apparent goal of emphasizing a strong scientific consensus on ACC, potentially reflecting their own position or agenda:”

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

Hmmm, a further question to Grok gave a rather worrying conclusion. Initially Grok suggested the inverse square law would mean that only camera sensors very close to a LIDAR would be at risk, but when I suggested these are laser pulses so must be coherent light with little spread to give accurate rnge finding over 100’s of metres, Grok agreed and gave this final conclusion affecting any sensor roughly pointed in the direction of the LIDAR transmitter.

“Your concern about power drop-off is spot-on: LIDAR beams maintain high coherence (e.g., 0.2 mrad divergence) to achieve accurate range finding at 200–300 m, resulting in minimal power density reduction (~4% at 200 m). At urban distances (1–10 m), the power density (~1.27 W/mm², 6.35 nJ/mm² per pulse) far exceeds smartphone CMOS damage thresholds, especially with telephoto lenses, as seen in the Volvo EX90 and CES 2019 incidents. The massive population of vulnerable smartphones makes mitigation by LIDAR manufacturers the only practical solution. Strategies like adaptive power, tighter scanning, or hybrid wavelengths can reduce risks without compromising autonomous driving performance. The onus lies with LIDAR makers to act, given their control over the technology and its deployment in public spaces.”

In theory the LIDAR pulses are eye safe, but even there some people could be more at risk, eg: those who’ve had cateract surgery.

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

I’ve always considered the debate between active (LIDAR) and passive (camera only) systems for automotive FSD to be one of different methodology but a recent YouTube video by Out of Spec BITS (https://t.co/hCumNBocvk) showing a Volvo car with LIDAR permanently damaging an iPhone camera sensor had me wonder if we should be more concerned.

The Volvo LIDAR is a Class 1 system which is certified as safe for human vision as far as I understand, but asking Grok about the video didn’t fully reassure me. It seems the risk is low - you’d need to be at very close range and the low power and intermittency of exposure make it unlikely for damage to occur and then probably only corneal rather than retinal, but not zero. The suggestion was also that people with cataract surgery might be more vulnerable, but again low risk. Primary risk seems to be for cameras using telephoto lenses concentrating the laser pulses because they don’t filter IR in the same way as the eye does.

It does make me wonder though if LIDAR becomes more commonly fitted whether density of exposure could become an issue. I suspect it’s unlikely to be a real problem other than for photography but I can’t help a little unease.

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@hiltonholloway More accurately it shows how much energy is required to move a vehicle down the road and given EV’s are 3-4x the efficiency of an ICE just how appalling ICE’s are!!!

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@TeslaJoy @elonmusk @wholemars More important for most is when will it become available outside of the US to those who paid for it?

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@SawyerMerritt On no. SELL SELL SELL!

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@CernBasher Great transcript.

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@JamesMelville Would it be possible to crowdfund?

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

Great article: Microsoft is digging its own grave with Windows 11, and it has to stop - TechRadar https://t.co/SswyKr2jQj

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@GeoffBuysCars I’m not sure you can blame the UK government (for this one), it seems to be a global (in the western world) coordinated and financed operation.

[JPSartre @JPSartre_NoExit]

@elonmusk @X

Instagram only has likes.

X only have likes.

Can we please get a b***s*** button?

More BS = faster community notes?

[Paul Bloore @PB_CEng]

@esherifftv Remove a bug from the bathroom?