ndefries
Regular
this is for all employees that have it as part of their reward package. i.e CEO
BRN Discussion Ongoing
- Thread starter TechGirl
- Start date
BaconLover
Founding Member
I was waiting for the next 10m tranche of shares for LDA, so that's another Announcement we can expect
Fullmoonfever
Top 20
Hmmm....AI cruise control maybe doesn't like humans 
Wonder whose AI?
From a few days ago.
www.edge-ai-vision.com
Shown to be a no one-off glitch, the incident demonstrates that auto sensors can misread speed limit signs. An advanced automated feature – BMW’s Speed Limit Assist – enabled the car to act autonomously, accelerating the BMW X5 to 110mph in a 30mph road on a village road in the U.K. county of Essex.
I’m focusing on the BMW incident because the story is on many levels full of teachable moments. If we learn anything from this fiasco, the lessons should apply beyond BMW to all car OEMs and top-tier suppliers developing ADAS features.
The easy way out for carmakers is to attribute a failure to an individual component and its software. That’s BMW’s alibi. As The Times reported, a BMW representative told the driver – who experienced the trauma of his vehicle “taking over” without permission – “there was ‘no fault with the car’.” The problem, according to BMW, involved sensor “picking up writing or numbers on the side of the road.”
Unwittingly acknowledging in its statement, BMW screwed up its system-level engineering. The incident underscores shortfalls within OEMs’ system-level designs, testing, verification, and validation of autonomous vehicles and ADAS cars loaded with AI-driven features.
Missy Cummings, an engineering professor at George Mason University, told The Ojo-Yoshida Report: “My concerns about this and related incidents is why there is no cross-checking of the speed limit with both the known speed limit on that road….” A digital map would have provided the local speed limit and sensors would detect local conditions such as time of day and weather.
Phil Koopman, a safety expert and associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, agreed. “A vision-based speed limit sign system will have a substantive error rate, and the OEM knew this.”
In other words, BMW was aware this could happen.
Cummings continued: “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Standing General Order is replete with ADAS cars getting into accidents where the speed is too high either for the road type or too high for the weather conditions.” The U.S. regulator issued its General Standing Order last June requiring crash reporting where automated driving or Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems are involved.
With ample data publicly available, carmakers have had time to add cross-checks to their vehicles to catch sensor errors. What have automakers done since last June? Their position remains “that the driver is responsible for mitigating dangerous failures of the feature,” noted Koopman.
The offense here is the callousness of automakers using human drivers as a safety “component.” The objective is shielding the company from liability rather than protecting drivers
Wonder whose AI?
From a few days ago.
BMW Fiasco: Failed Testing, Verification, Validation of AI-driven ADAS
Consumers should question the callousness of automakers using a human driver as a “component” of their safeguards. What’s at stake: If you think a faulty
www.edge-ai-vision.com
BMW Fiasco: Failed Testing, Verification, Validation of AI-driven ADAS
Consumers should question the callousness of automakers using a human driver as a “component” of their safeguards.
What’s at stake: If you think a faulty sensor triggered a BMW to automatically accelerate to 110mph on a U.K. country road, think again. The problem is systemic. The incident exposes the inability of many carmakers to understand the relationship among individual modules to ensure system-level safety.
Shown to be a no one-off glitch, the incident demonstrates that auto sensors can misread speed limit signs. An advanced automated feature – BMW’s Speed Limit Assist – enabled the car to act autonomously, accelerating the BMW X5 to 110mph in a 30mph road on a village road in the U.K. county of Essex.
I’m focusing on the BMW incident because the story is on many levels full of teachable moments. If we learn anything from this fiasco, the lessons should apply beyond BMW to all car OEMs and top-tier suppliers developing ADAS features.
The easy way out for carmakers is to attribute a failure to an individual component and its software. That’s BMW’s alibi. As The Times reported, a BMW representative told the driver – who experienced the trauma of his vehicle “taking over” without permission – “there was ‘no fault with the car’.” The problem, according to BMW, involved sensor “picking up writing or numbers on the side of the road.”
Unwittingly acknowledging in its statement, BMW screwed up its system-level engineering. The incident underscores shortfalls within OEMs’ system-level designs, testing, verification, and validation of autonomous vehicles and ADAS cars loaded with AI-driven features.
Cross-checking
Among carmakers’ minimum responsibilities is cross-checking ADAS components to determine whether they function together as intended.Missy Cummings, an engineering professor at George Mason University, told The Ojo-Yoshida Report: “My concerns about this and related incidents is why there is no cross-checking of the speed limit with both the known speed limit on that road….” A digital map would have provided the local speed limit and sensors would detect local conditions such as time of day and weather.
Phil Koopman, a safety expert and associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, agreed. “A vision-based speed limit sign system will have a substantive error rate, and the OEM knew this.”
In other words, BMW was aware this could happen.
Cummings continued: “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Standing General Order is replete with ADAS cars getting into accidents where the speed is too high either for the road type or too high for the weather conditions.” The U.S. regulator issued its General Standing Order last June requiring crash reporting where automated driving or Level 2 advanced driver assistance systems are involved.
With ample data publicly available, carmakers have had time to add cross-checks to their vehicles to catch sensor errors. What have automakers done since last June? Their position remains “that the driver is responsible for mitigating dangerous failures of the feature,” noted Koopman.
The offense here is the callousness of automakers using human drivers as a safety “component.” The objective is shielding the company from liability rather than protecting drivers
FJ-215
Regular
If they need the extra 10M of shares it will be because the 30M wasn't enough to meet our $15 M obligation.I was waiting for the next 10m tranche of shares for LDA, so that's another Announcement we can expect
That would be sad.
wilzy123
Founding Member
Yes, upon reading the ANN... I have determined that you have also read it and are correct
BaconLover
Founding Member
Agreed, but if company needs money then no other choice.
Single share transactions, @Fact Finder must still be in the background buying.
Desperate efforts to get and keep the price down?
Desperate efforts to get and keep the price down?
Wait.....what?
wilzy123
Founding Member
Maybe some maths is in order.
At 60 cents a share it only requires 25 million shares to reach $15 million.
Brainchip would raise $18 million if the 30 million are sold at 60 cents.
So two things to note.
The share price is above 60 cents.
Any shares unsold once $15 million is reached are returned to Brainchip unless they direct otherwise.
LDA Capital have a minimum sale price set by Brainchip so they can never need more shares
- courtesy Fact Finder
FJ-215
Regular
Think about it wilzy
Maybe some maths is in order.
At 60 cents a share it only requires 25 million shares to reach $15 million.
Brainchip would raise $18 million if the 30 million are sold at 60 cents.
So two things to note.
The share price is above 60 cents.
Any shares unsold once $15 million is reached are returned to Brainchip unless they direct otherwise.
LDA Capital have a minimum sale price set by Brainchip so they can never need more shares
- courtesy Fact Finder
stuart888
Regular
Cocoa Beach is a nice reward. Send employees here where they can work with Nasa and a zillion other high-tech companies. Lidar is here, sensors are here, defense spending is here. I was born here too.
Good morning, Australia. The east coast of Florida has a morning sun. Just spreading the love to all.
wilzy123
Founding Member
What am I missing?
gex
Regular
Off Topic...
tremendous.blog
Short Sellers Down $81 Billion in 2023
Well, that was fast! With 2023 less than a month old, short sellers have already lost $81 billion. Get the blog before anyone else…subscribe! Many are running for the exits. From a new report from …
tremendous.blog
FJ-215
Regular
The minimum share price as set by BRN.
Would have been worse if it wasn't for BRN....Off Topic...
View attachment 28510
Short Sellers Down $81 Billion in 2023
Well, that was fast! With 2023 less than a month old, short sellers have already lost $81 billion. Get the blog before anyone else…subscribe! Many are running for the exits. From a new report from …
wilzy123
Founding Member
I think this will give you an idea of the price... (see ANN 10 January 2023)
"The Capital Call Notice pricing period will begin upon exercise of the put option on or around 11 January, with an anticipated ending date in late March or early April, subject to adjustments based on the share price performance throughout the pricing period.
The issue price for the capital call shares will be 91.5% of the higher of the average daily VWAP of shares over the pricing period (subject to any applicable adjustments) and the minimum price notified to LDA Capital by the Company."
A call for an additional 10M is completely unrelated to this current call and is subject to company approval.
gex
Regular
Similar threads
