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

California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

teslarati.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#151

Post by richardw »

endisneigh wrote: post #16

Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…

I don’t want a car. I’d happily share one. Uber where I live (Johannesburg) has kinda forced conversation and I always feel the need to tip. But honestly the drivers here are dangerous, speed around, ride their clutch, go through orange lights, don’t want to take short trips. I’d love a Uber that just does the job, doesn’t want to talk and drives sensibly so I can zone out. One my kid could ride in.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#153

Post by orlp »

samwillis wrote: post #121

FSD is a Boondoggle. (Collision/accident avoidance and driver assist systems are not) I don't think we will see a legitimate L5 automation in our lifetimes. Take my 1.5 mile journey to do the morning school run, in a small UK town: - Getting off the driveway, there is a wall that creates a blind spot behind it, often other parents are walking small kids who are shorter than that wall. I can't see behind it. I check d…

> (Yes, a 1.5 mile journey to school, we should be walking)

You should be cycling.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#154

Post by starkd »

endisneigh wrote: post #16

Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock - pointless in the end. The induced demand would outweigh the benefits. States are better off acknowledging that sprawling car dependent cities are not sustainable. High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Current self driving technology plus some key infrastructure changes with dedicated bus lanes and prio…

> Just think about it - what happens when everyone has a self driving car? All of those cars that are otherwise parked are now on the road

Where do you get that? FSD is not by itself going to compel people to drive more than they need to.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#155

Post by stuart78 »

I don’t understand why this requires a California law to address? Why hasn’t the FTC intervened? A quick search reveals that it is ‘on their radar’ as of this past June, but as other commenters have pointed out, the claim has been used for more than 5 years. Perhaps they need a more sensitive radar.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#156

Post by lotsofpulp »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #150
lotsofpulp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is one and the same. There will be no political will to invest in quality public transit unless there is lots of pain in using comfortable and convenient individual vehicle transit. Paying $100+ for a trip will make people support bus and train and bicycle infrastructure investments. Keep driving costs down at $0.60 to $1.00 per minute or per mile, and it makes sense to use your own car, which then means it makes…

The problem is this is just some leftist fantasy and the idea that to solve all of the consequences is to just do wealth distribution is not surprising. You would need to reform the government into a dictatorship to keep these legislations in place. And this is to solve “gridlock”? People already experience gridlock and are not clamoring for a Maoist state.

It is not to solve “gridlock”. It is to change infrastructure to better use society’s resources so that people spend less time in cars and more time living life.

The solutions that worked when there were x number of people living in an area, with y number of miles traveled in z number of individual cars simply might not work if you double or triple x, y, and z given the hard boundary conditions of the world such as space, pollutions, and supply of materials and energy.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#157

Post by jupp0r »

endisneigh wrote: post #66
lotsofpulp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just means prices are not high enough. Make it $100 to travel at rush hour on a particular stretch of road, and congestion will go away very quickly.

Reducing the congestion isn't the goal though. Increasing throughput is. Cars simply have worse throughput than a train, or a bus for that matter. Simple as that. Charging more money would be counterproductive unless that money served to build out transit since you would increase the congestion on the non-toll roads.

I'd rather work in a slow car than be crammed into a full bus. You miss how self driving is changing the economics. A major component of the appeal of public transportation has been that you can do other things while using it. This made up for its (sometimes extreme) inefficiencies with regards to the time it takes you to get to your destination. In fact self driving cars will have an advantage there because you won't have to switch vehicles.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#158

Post by berkle4455 »

ghaff wrote: post #56
dpiers wrote: post #34

FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…

In fairness I know people with "FSD" who went into it well aware that it's not really FSD and they still like it. That said, the marketing is clearly fraudulent.

A lot of people knowingly buy into ponzi schemes too.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#159

Post by throwaway894345 »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #127
drno123 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk bought Twitter and fired 50% od the staff without Twitter crashing, which exposed how overstaffed and overpayed thise guys were

> which exposed how overstaffed and overpayed thise guys were Systems don't fail overnight, and Twitter has definitely been exhibiting odd behaviors lately. It's just a bit early for a victory lap.

Twitter hasn’t been exhibiting “odd behavior” for years. Systems don’t fail overnights, but I would expect some signal to emerge from the noise by now.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#160

Post by lolinder »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #145
marvin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla has been hated on HN for years . Current sentiment is just a continuation of that long trend. I've kept a record of HN comment threads that keelhaul Tesla and Musk since around 2015 or so. I really believed in the company's mission and execution throughout those years (and still do), and wanted to keep a record of the very widespread opposing view. This in order to document it in case I was wrong, or in case I…

I definitely perceive a shift in some people who were very pro-EV, pro-Tesla due to environmental concerns but became very anti-EV, anti-Tesla as it became apparent that Musk was not part of their political affiliation.

In RL or on HN? If on HN, you can be pro-EV and anti-Tesla (which is where I fall), so don't mistake a commenter taking that position with someone changing their mind.
Post reply on HN