This is self-hosting, it is inherently inefficient.

Consolidating servers, storage, power, cooling, networking is always more efficient.

From your example: one full bus is more efficient than any configuration of even the most efficient cars.

I do this for a bunch of reasons, including being a hobby. Hobbies aren’t meant to be efficient; first and foremost they are meant to be fun 😊

Dude, chill. This isn’t how that works.

I’m pretty chill. I’m not sure attacking someone’s efficiency based on their power consumption for an unspecified rack/workload is very chill…

A single Xeon in an R630 with 256GB RAM and redundant PSUs idles around 100W, and that is with no storage controller or other add-in cards, no SSDs or HDDs. Stick some storage, add-in cards and actual load and you could easily see 300W+

Add in a UPS with some conversion losses and some switches, maybe a couple PoE injectors… 600W isn’t so far away

Yes we are looking at 2-3 generation old servers, but what do you expect for a home lab? It would be silly to pay a premium for newer equipment solely in the name of efficiency as the costs will far outweigh the energy savings. If you just care about being “green” then your money could do more spent elsewhere.

Sure one can run off old domestic hardware like old laptops/PCs or SBCs like a NUC/RPi but some of us are either trying to replicate a production environment or want/need ECC memory (or both).

Please don’t belittle other people’s setup just because you might not understand their motivations/constraints or think you might be able to do it “better”.

Edit: Not to mention the parent comment said this includes his PC. My PC is a bastion of inefficiency when playing games; have you seen the TDP on current gen CPUs and GPUs?

Run the Keygen in a VM, job done 👍

Bingo. Half-life 2 specifically

The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So, wake up, Mister Freeman.

There’s a few versions of this and several generations with different capability. […]

This raises its own issues but is the nature of the “move fast and break things” ethos of tech today. While it has its benefits; is it suitable for vehicles, particularly their safety systems? It isn’t clear to me, as it is a double-edged sword.

As a Level 2 system, the Tesla is not capable of injuring or killing someone. The driver is responsible for that.

But I’d ask- if a Tesla saw YOUR loved one in the road, and it would have reacted but it wasn’t in FSD mode and the human driver reacted too slowly, how would you feel about that? I say this not to be contrarian, but because we really are approaching the point where the car has better situational awareness than the human.

I would be angry that such a modern car with any form of self driving doesn’t have emergency braking. Though, that would require additional sensors…

I’d also be angry that L2 systems were allowed in that environment in the first place, but as you say it is ultimately the drivers fault.

Like cruise control having minimum speeds that generally prevent it being used in town; I would hope that the manufacturer would make it difficult to use L2 outside of motorway driving. This doesn’t prevent people bypassing it but means someone doing so was trying to do something they shouldn’t.

With a connected vehicle, being able to limit L2 use outside of motorway should be straightforward.

Then it becomes akin to disabling traction control or adaptive cruise control and having an accident that could be prevented. The tools are there, the default is on, a driver deliberately disabled it. The manufacturer did as much as they reasonably could.

In the example above, if the car didn’t have the self driving package because the guy couldn’t afford it, wouldn’t you prefer that a decent but better than human self driving system was on the car?

I would prefer they had no self driving rather than be under the mistaken impression the car could drive for them in the current configuration. The limitations of self driving (in any car) are often not clear to a lot of people and can vary greatly. I feel this is where accidents are most likely - in the stage between fully manual and fully autonomous.

If Tesla offer a half-way for less money would you not expect the consumer to take the cheapest option? If they have an accident it is more likely someone else is injured, so why pay more to improve the self driving when it doesn’t affect them?

If you can use cameras and make a system that costs the manufacturer $3000/car, and it’s 50 times safer than a human, or use LiDAR and cost the manufacturer $10,000/car, and it’s 100 times safer than a human, which is safer?
The answer is the cameras, because it will be on more cars, thus deliver more overall safety.

I agree an improvement is better than none, but I’m not sure your conclusion can be made so easily? Tesla is the only company I know steadfastly refusing to use any other sensor types and the only reason I see is price.

Thinking about it, drum brakes are cheaper than disc brakes… (said with tongue-firmly-in-cheek)

Another concern is that any Tesla incidents, however rare, could do huge damage to people’s perception of self driving. People mightn’t know there is a difference between Tesla and other manufacturer’s autonomous driving ability.

For many people Tesla is self-driving cars, if a Tesla has an accident in L2 even though this is the driver’s fault the headlines will be “Tesla autopilot hits school child” not “Driver inappropriately uses limited motorway assistance mode of car in small town hitting school child”

What about the impact on the industry? If Tesla is much cheaper than LIDAR-equipped vehicles will this kill a better/safer product a-la betamax?

IMHO safety shouldn’t take a lower priority to price/CEO demands. Consumers often don’t know and frankly shouldn’t need to know the details of these systems.

Do you pick your airline based on the plane they fly and it’s safety record or the price of the ticket, being confident all aviation is held to rigorous safety standards?

As has been seen recently with a certain submarine, safety measures should not be taken lightly.

Because the occupancy network is generating a 3d model, you get data that’s equivalent to LiDAR (3d model of space) but with much less cost and complexity. And because you only have one set of sensors, you don’t have to do sensor fusion to resolve discrepancies between different sensors.

That’s my problem, it is approximating LIDAR but it isn’t the same. I would say multiple sensor types is necessary for exactly the reason you suggested it isn’t - to get multiple forms of input and get consensus, or failing consensus fail-safe.

I don’t doubt Tesla autopilot works well and it certainly seems to be an impressive feat of engineering, but can it be better?

In our town we had a Tesla shoot through red traffic lights near our local school barely missing a child crossing the road. The driver was looking at their lap (presumably their phone). I looked online and apparently autopilot doesn’t work with traffic lights, but FSD does?

It’s not specific to Tesla but people unaware of the limitations level 2, particularly when brands like Tesla give people the impression the car “drives itself” is unethical.

My opinion is if that Tesla had extra sensors, even if the car is only in level 2 mode, it should be able to pick up that something is there and slow/stop. I want the extra sensors to cover the edge cases and give more confidence in the system.

Would you still feel the same about Tesla if your car injured/killed someone or if someone you care about was injured/killed by a Tesla?

IMHO these are not systems that we should be compromising to cut costs or because the CEO is too stubborn. If we can put extra sensors in and it objectively makes it safer why don’t we? Self driving cars are a luxury.

Crazy hypothetical: I wonder how Tesla would cope with someone/something covered in Vantablack?

Rise and shine, Mr. freeman