Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

mobile.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 632 posts

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#411

Post by mcnamaratw »

mtgp1000 wrote: post #379
u10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betting against Elon is a fools errand not because he's right, but because he's built a personality cult around himself.

Counterpoint: Elon Musk is the only (publicly visible) CEO who is seriously talking about going to Mars and direct interfacing between machines and humans and making tangible steps toward these futuristic goals. His rockets are [mostly] not exploding, his cars are selling to [mostly] good reviews, and neuralink seems to be doing something too. Perhaps his cult of personality is deserved because although he (along wit…

I don't know. Many people who "hate" the guy tend to freely acknowledge his very real accomplishments.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#412

Post by Aunche »

lazyjones wrote: post #397
foepys wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noise actually isn't a factor. After about 20mph tire noise drowns out engine noise. Excluding cars that are purposely build/modified to be annoyingly loud.

> After about 20mph tire noise drowns out engine noise. This has been claimed over and over and is possibly true in some test scenarios but not in any real situation. Noise is additive, the engine noise may not be clearly audible, but tire+engine noise is always louder than just tire noise. And any time an ICE actually revs up, it's clearly audible at any high speed.

Luxury cars have a lot of sound dampening, so engine noise is hardly an issue. A Royce Royce Phantom has a v12 but is more quiet than a Tesla.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#413

Post by toomuchtodo »

dlp211 wrote: post #378
modeless wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it doesn't automatically change lanes to follow routes or pass slow traffic. It doesn't take exits or navigate interchanges. It doesn't stop for stoplights. You can't drive it around a parking lot from your phone with nobody in the driver's seat. What Autopilot offers is not "Full Self Driving", but don't pretend like the features on your Jeep are equivalent.

Because the execs at Jeep know the limitations of their platform, Tesla on the other hand just loves to roll the dice.

And which automaker has the largest market cap in the world currently? Not Jeep.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#414

Post by FabHK »

chrisseaton wrote: post #340
FabHK wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Etymologically though, the co-pilot is pilot along with you and supports you, while the auto-pilot is a pilot by itself , independently (dare I say: autonomously). "Autopilot" remains a very misleading term in the car context.

No you have it the wrong way around. A co-pilot is equal to a pilot. An autopilot automates just some functions of piloting.

That’s my point: what happens to be the case in actual aviation is in some sense the opposite of the words‘ connotations. So, they’re very misleading terms. Which becomes problematic when marketing a powerful, but limited technology to the mass market.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#415

Post by enahs-sf »

stetrain wrote: post #54
dkonofalski wrote: post #3

I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" while shifting everything above that to "Full Self-Driving". They should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers that you're still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it would have had exactly the same reception…

Actually I think the name "Autopilot" is the least troublesome part of the marketing. Other car makers call their systems CoPilot, ProPilot, SuperCruise, whatever and I think the name matters less than the communication and details of using the system. The main Autopilot marketing page shows a video of a Tesla driving itself, says the Driver is there for legal purposes only, and provides no other disclaimers about th…

It would be a huge improvement (and a weight off my shoulders as a driver) if the car could show you the confidence level it has in the current road situation. Eg. I took a tesla through the snow, and I wouldn't trust autopilot with my life in that situation, but when driving on 80 towards tahoe during the summer, it's a godsend.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#416

Post by dlp211 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #413
dlp211 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the execs at Jeep know the limitations of their platform, Tesla on the other hand just loves to roll the dice.

And which automaker has the largest market cap in the world currently? Not Jeep.

And, so what?

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#417

Post by kirillzubovsky »

dkonofalski wrote: post #3

I agree with this wholeheartedly, even as a Tesla owner. Tesla goofed from the beginning by calling tech like "Autosteer" and "Traffic Assisted Cruise Control" under the moniker "Autopilot" while shifting everything above that to "Full Self-Driving". They should have called it "CoPilot" since that infers that you're still the driver in charge of controlling the vehicle and it would have had exactly the same reception…

I was reading somewhere that a while back Germany classified "autopilot" to be at least Level 4, where's in case of emergency the car needs to be able to take and maintain control for a least X-time duration. Under those rules Tesla does not qualify, and neither do other manufacturers. However, if the rules are rules, it would be unfair that Tesla gets to advertise something that others aren't allowed to.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#418

Post by tenuousemphasis »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #25

Good. These statements are lies. The company should face punishment in the US for saying that full self-driving is blocked by “regulatory approval” when they’re still an unknown number of years away from even being able to demo something they plan to ship. They still don’t know if full self-driving is even possible at the required level of reliability with their current hardware suite. They could well be wrong and si…

Which statements? This is what they say when you select the full self driving option when ordering a car:

>The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#419

Post by kirillzubovsky »

maxharris wrote: post #345

If you actually believe that Tesla will fail to deliver full self-driving in the coming years, I have two questions. 1. have you watched this entire technical presentation made by Andrej Karpathy, Senior Director of AI at Tesla? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7BXih7zx8 2. if you understand what you've seen in that video, why do you think Tesla will fail?

As a Tesla owner, and regardless of the presentation, I have serious doubt that Tesla will be able to solve all the edge cases. Machine learning needs data, and with my family in the car, I don't want it to make a decision whether or not to break, while heading in ongoing traffic. I want the car to know.

Right now, 99% reasonable self-driving doesn't bother me because I am always in control, and I already know where the car is going to mess up and get ready to take control ahead of time. It works, and it works really well.

But the different between 100% and the 99% is all the difference that matters, and it's colossal.

I hope they can figure this out, but I don't know how. I hope they do.

Re: German court bans Tesla ad statements related to autonomous driving

#420

Post by chrisseaton »

arrosenberg wrote: post #139
chrisseaton wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're transposing airplane terminology with automobile terminology. Well yeah... transposing terminology is how an analogy is supposed to work. And I didn't pick the analogies - Tesla did and then you proposed another flying analogy! > In a car, the co-pilot is typically someone that sits in the passenger seat and functions only as an additional set of eyes. Do you mean a co-driver ? Like in a rally car? I've neve…

This comment seems to pretty much ignore the lingua franca of American drivers. Transposing terminology only works to the extent that the public actually understands how an airplane autopilot functions, which they don't. Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as a co-pilot or navigator, but I've never heard anyone call their passenger "co-driver".

> Plenty of people refer to their front seat passenger as a co-pilot or navigator

Can you use that in a sentence?

Like 'will you be my co-pilot while I drive to the store?' I don't see it to be honest.

Post reply on HN