191–200 of 672 posts
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x... Wow introduced end of feb this year and passed by end of this year. Looking from outside, I am Amazed by the speed of American democracy .
I’m not calling it undemocratic, just unrelated.
How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.
Tesla cars themselves are also fine until you're talking about FSD which that is the problem and the scam that puts the lives of other drivers on the road at risk.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The metric to judge assisted driving technologies is primarily safety. Driving is not safe and I suspect will appear insane to a future generation. Which generation and how soon is another question. However, what the US needs to massive investments in rail, which address both safety and traffic.
Allowing FSD (in the next 20 years) to drive is unsafe, in my eyes. Investment in alternative transportation is the answer that doesn’t require driving from human or an algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think self-driving cars lead to fewer people owning cars, in fact it’s quite the opposite. With FSD, those who don’t like driving can deal with owning a car to do necessary transportation tasks (e.g. commuting), instead of giving it up for alternative methods because they don’t want to drive consciously/presently.
Alternatively, a bunch of friends could buy a car together and split the costs. I could see a scenario where instead of (or in addition to) vehicles being pooled between "x" random people (taxis, Uber/Lyft, ZipCar), you could purchase a fractional share of a car ( Cf . NetJets): you get semi-exclusive use of (particular?) vehicles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only currently known self driving system uses that same sensor suite (neural nets and cameras).
If you are referring to humans, we have a couple orders of magnitude more connections, our neurons can achieve the same functions at 1 order of magnitude fewer numbers, and our brain has better inductive biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Owning a self driving car you can always regulate using taxes etc. If too many people start using self driving cars you would increase taxes on owning those. I don't see that being an actual problem.
that doesn't make any sense though - self driving is a capability, not a type of car. it would be like taxing cars that have cruise control. fundamentally self driving is a safety feature, why would you tax it?