151–160 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://inaneexplained.blogspot.com/2011/03/fight-club-car-re... TL;DR; If there's a defect that kills or maims people, car manufacturers compute if it's cheaper to recall or just deal with the lawsuits. And this happens regularly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety, how else would you imagine this to work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://inaneexplained.blogspot.com/2011/03/fight-club-car-re... TL;DR; If there's a defect that kills or maims people, car manufacturers compute if it's cheaper to recall or just deal with the lawsuits. And this happens regularly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety, how else would you imagine this to work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But haven't we all seen Fight Club? It isn't a question a confidence, it is a question of financial math. This decision tells us nothing about the safety of the Mercedes system compared to its competitors. All it tells us is that adding these limitations to ensure the system is only used in the safest possible scenarios makes taking over liability more reasonable. That isn't surprising. Their competitors' systems are…
It’s both, right? The competitors may very well be just as safe in those conditions, but we wouldn’t know based on their liability stance; the Fight Club equation simply doesn’t apply. With Mercedes, the Fight Club equation gives something like a mathematical guarantee of their estimated confidence of the safety of the system. There are no mathematical guarantees from the competitors.
I was referencing Fight Club as an example of an auto manufacturer making a life and death decision based off their financial incentives and not the best interest of the customer. The decision to take on liability is about money, not confidence in safety.
>With Mercedes, the Fight Club equation gives something like a mathematical guarantee of their estimated confidence of the safety of the system. There are no mathematical guarantees from the competitors.
You also have to factor in the marketing aspects. I'll reference another movie here in Tommy Boy[1]. Mercedes knows a move like this is attractive to consumers. People will look at it and think it means the system is safer. This decision will sell cars. But a guarantee doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the product. As Chris Farley's character says, you can "take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed".
Maybe the system is truly dangerous and taking on this liability would be a losing proposition alone, yet adding in these additional sales from the marketing of this liability coverage yields a net positive for the decision. Or maybe the system truly is incredibly safe. There is no way for us to know. I am simply pointing out that this decision about liability is largely meaningless when judging safety because safety is only one of numerous criteria used to make the decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://inaneexplained.blogspot.com/2011/03/fight-club-car-re... TL;DR; If there's a defect that kills or maims people, car manufacturers compute if it's cheaper to recall or just deal with the lawsuits. And this happens regularly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety, how else would you imagine this to work?
The cost of settling is supposed to approximate the value of a human life, but it sounds pretty bad to say "yeah, we knew this defect would cost $50MM to fix, but we estimated only 5 people would die, and each person's life is worth less than $10MM because the settlement is only like $400k per life".
The proposed alternative is that the car company has to say "We calculated this defect will probably kill 5 people, so we will spend any amount of money to fix it, up to and including us having no profit"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Breadth of operating conditions is a trade off with reliability of operation. It’s possible to do a lot of things okay, or a couple things perfectly, but not yet possible to do a lot of things perfectly. When you remove the driver from the equation, the requirement for reliability goes up. There’s going to come a day when Tesla is forced to make difficult decisions about their “FSD” system. They’re either going to be…
The big risk that Waymo/Mercedes is taking with this approach is that they do not know what blocking issues they will run into when adding new functionality to these systems. What if driving in rain or snow is incompatible with their architecture and they have to do a major rewrite to expand into that functionality? With the Tesla Approach they already know where the system fails and where the system isn't making any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://inaneexplained.blogspot.com/2011/03/fight-club-car-re... TL;DR; If there's a defect that kills or maims people, car manufacturers compute if it's cheaper to recall or just deal with the lawsuits. And this happens regularly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed
There's always a tradeoff between cost and safety, how else would you imagine this to work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making a pretty big leap there from "our experimental self-driving mode only works inside the geofence" to "the government won't let you drive where you want".
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point they're making is that this is coming and the groundwork is already being laid, both legally and technologically.
Wondering how would they prevent the faraday cage solution? I guess the OEM could disable the car if it cant phone home but surely that would lead to accidents e.g. blocking the modem while driving.
I could see this being a "feature" of leased vehicles for example since you don't own it.
Tesla's should be fully functional currently, it's the self-driving that's a subscription.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can a driver wake up, be calm, get spatial understanding, do bayesian physics predictions and decide the corrective maneuver in 10 seconds?
That's plenty of time. Find a clock and watch the second hand move for ten seconds. It's a long time.
Ad video.[1]
Still very limited. Won't work at night. Has a LIDAR, but it's in the front grille, which only gives it enough of a view for anti-collision.
We should be seeing review videos soon.