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

Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 394 posts

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#181

Post by electrondood »

snek_case wrote: post #147
lawn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you're surprised that it managed drive door to door is telling. And not in the positive way you want to make it seem.

It's very different from the approach taken by Waymo and Cruise. Tesla's FSD uses vision only, and it's available everywhere in the US and Canada. The fact that it can complete most drives successfully (~90% of the time) without intervention in any city in the US or Canada is pretty impressive IMO. The parent poster is right, I've been watching the progress and it's gotten probably 20 to 50 times more reliable in the…

This is what people aren't paying attention to. The rate of progress over only 1 year is astounding.

Driving with FSD supervised by a driver already makes driving far safer and far less stressful. The car has a situational awareness that humans can't match. It's only a matter of time until most drives have 0 disengagements due to human discomfort/awkwardness.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#182

Post by demarq »

alexcosan wrote: post #152
demarq wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> responsibly developed and marketed It is not being developed It has been irresponsibly marketed as this is the entire premise of the class action. It sounds like he is laser focused on impressive promises to lure investments into his money making empire.

I'm very confident the whole comment by OP is of sarcastic nature

Poe's Law striketh

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#183

Post by electrondood »

epgui wrote: post #83

The failure to understand the context of the quote is palpable in both the article and comments. This is a standard legal argument used as a defence against allegations of fraud, and it’s not a judgment of how successful (or not) the product is. The only thing it means is “notwithstanding whether we’ve achieved our goals, we have been honest and well-intentioned”.

Thank you. People here are just reacting to the headline and general dislike of Musk.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#184

Post by Shubham28 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #87
cameldrv wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Waymo and Cruise have already deployed level 4 vehicles.

Can you link to the source claiming that?

https://spectrum.ieee.org/full-autonomy-waymo-driver#:~:text...

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#185

Post by jdminhbg »

Mistletoe wrote: post #105
coolbreezetft22 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'd imagine Tesla is better off with Musk being distracted by his shiny new toy. Though I'd be concerned about the effect he is having on their brand image. Even two years ago I was on the verge of buying a Tesla but ended up cancelling my order in large part because I just couldn't stand the obnoxiousness of Elon and he has gotten orders of magnitude worse since then. His new "demographic"/cult also se…

I had the same exact response and cancelled mine around the time of the tweets about the Pelosi attack he made. It’s a shame, we loved our last Tesla but I can’t stand the thought of being associated with him. We were supposed to pick it up the week he made those tweets. I was his former prime target demographic. I feel very strongly about protecting the environment, I hate gasoline engines after working on them most…

> I had the same exact response and cancelled mine around the time of the tweets about the Pelosi attack he made.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I find this level of online political attachment to be completely deranged. Either it's a good car or not.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#186

Post by projektfu »

gitfan86 wrote: post #96
coolbreezetft22 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I'd imagine Tesla is better off with Musk being distracted by his shiny new toy. Though I'd be concerned about the effect he is having on their brand image. Even two years ago I was on the verge of buying a Tesla but ended up cancelling my order in large part because I just couldn't stand the obnoxiousness of Elon and he has gotten orders of magnitude worse since then. His new "demographic"/cult also se…

It is totally fine if you don't like Elon, but in the real world there isn't an EV that is cheap and available and has a good charging network. The ID4 is decent but that company was started by actual Hitler and Nazis, so if you are interested in not buying from companies that have a history of evil leadership that one isn't a good option. And gas cars are not good for CO2 emissions, so sometimes you have to accept t…

It's a good thing you instead use a car that doesn't have any Bosch parts.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#187

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

slg wrote: post #71
jakelazaroff wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretend you don’t know anything about the different levels. You’re just a random person looking to buy a car. What does “full self driving” sound like to you?

Musk is a charlatan, but why do people act like it is common to buy $40k+ cars like picking up some gum in the checkout aisle? What the features name sounds like is not the only factor here. People don’t buys cars with that lack of thought. What the salespeople say, what the marketing material says, what the manual says, what the CEO says in public, what the feature feels like during a test drive should all matter mo…

> If that was all it took, we all would have sued cellphone companies for their “unlimited plans”.

Personally, i think it’s bullshit that that’s not cracked down on too.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#188

Post by mrtksn »

tenpies wrote: post #170
mrtksn wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the track record of Musk, you can see that he promises something futuristic and delivers something conventional but with improvements that's still desirable. Haven't Holmes imitated Jobs but Musk, today she could have been a success story. She should have still promised all your tests from a single drop of blood and keep claiming that it's coming next year and deliver classical machines but with greatl…

I think where we can all agree that Musk is a genius is in seeing where billions of public funds are going to flow, and then positioning himself to be in a position to profit. That was a key difference between Theranos and Tesla/SolarCity. Imagine if Elizabeth Holmes had gotten just a bit luckier with timing and had been around when the COVID pandemic occurred. Not only would she have launched a highly-futuristic COI…

Good point. I like to think that people ultimately have good intentions and maybe even the guy from WeWork could have had make it work somehow if they had a bit more integrity and actually tried to kick the can down the road until they can deliver something with value. When you can stay alive for long enough you greatly improve your chances for a great timing. Had Holmes survived till 2020, she might have become a success story with the testing during the pandemic.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#189

Post by newaccount74 »

jcranmer wrote: post #149
mch82 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, “full self driving” has always meant the car has a built-in cab driver so I can work while the car drives to my parents for dinner 6 hours away, then sleep while the car drives me home. I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. Edit: When I pre-ordered a Model 3 Musk’s promise at that time was literally “press a button and your car will work as a taxi to earn money wh…

> I’m not sure how the phrase “full self-driving” could mean anything other than that. There is some room to argue about the conditions under which the car can drive itself. If the car couldn't handle a high-grade, winding mountain road with an inch of snow on the ground and yet more coming down, I don't think too many people would be fussed is a "full self-driving" car said "uh, no" (especially as a good fraction of…

Humans often drive in conditions were it's unsafe -- icy roads, dense fog, heavy rain, strong winds. We take the risk, and most times it's okay, except for the occasional pile-up on the highway.

But I don't think a "full self-driving" car refusing to drive in those conditions would be a deal breaker. I'd prefer it if autonomous vehicles were more conservative and just refused to drive in unsafe conditions.

Re: Tesla calls self-driving technology 'failure,' not fraud

#190

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

snek_case wrote: post #147
lawn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you're surprised that it managed drive door to door is telling. And not in the positive way you want to make it seem.

It's very different from the approach taken by Waymo and Cruise. Tesla's FSD uses vision only, and it's available everywhere in the US and Canada. The fact that it can complete most drives successfully (~90% of the time) without intervention in any city in the US or Canada is pretty impressive IMO. The parent poster is right, I've been watching the progress and it's gotten probably 20 to 50 times more reliable in the…

> ~90% of the time

This is the thing that always baffles me about self driving - while it may be very cool and impressive from a technology perspective, and while of course no technology can start out as completely bug free, when it comes to driving, anything less than 99.9999% success is a worse driving experience.

That is, until I can take a nap in my car, or read a book, or whatever, what's really the point? If I have to keep my hands on the wheel (or yoke) at all times, and have to pay attention 100% of the time, I'd rather be in a mode where I actually really do need to pay attention 100% of the time, instead of one where I really only need to pay attention 5% of the time (oh yeah, and if I miss that 5% I'm in an accident or dead).

Post reply on HN