California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD • Hacker News Board

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#271

Post by scaramanga » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #247

notahacker wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest shift is less the emergence of skepticism which was always there, and more that the people who would previously counter that Elon had always shown impeccable judgement and laser focus on big decisions, that we should trust him the promised FSD would be delivered soon or that he truly believed in the cause of free speech and would completely transform social media for the better tend to have gone a…

Yes, I can see that! It's not that the skeptics weren't there before, it's that the Elon defenders are less willing to speak up than they were.

And the experience is like stepping out of an elevator that a football team had farted in and you'd been holding your breath for a decade. Let's enjoy this moment while it while it lasts.

We'll back on another hype train of tech "making the world a better place" before you know it :)

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#272

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

cinntaile wrote: post #43

api wrote: post #2

How much could the recent Musk meltdown be related to FSD just not arriving? It seems like we have reached a point after many years of FSD being “next year” when it’s becoming clear that it’s further away than anyone thought. I’ve thought the difficulty was being vastly underestimated for a while. A reusable Lunar and Mars shuttle system is probably a lot easier than actual FSD.

When Andrej Karpathy left earlier this year you knew FSD wasn't happening anytime soon.

[deleted]

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#273

Post by dinkumthinkum » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #147

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you find Uber and Lyft to be affordable or a financially sensible means of regular transportation?

$20/day on cabs is cheaper than owning a $50k car.

$20? Where do you use Uber? In a rural area to go 2 miles?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#274

Post by epgui » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:06 PM UTC

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…

> Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock

I believe the opposite is the more likely outcome: I think we can expect much lighter traffic the more autonomous vehicles there are.

Most traffic is caused by humans doing really irrational things, like following each other too closely, making unnecessary lane changes, and driving at inconsistent speeds. It's very rare that traffic congestion is actually caused by roads' lack of bandwidth.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#275

Post by amelius » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

ryukoposting wrote: post #197

throw0101c wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I considered this in college, but gave up on the idea eventually. Figuring out how to fairly split the cost of gas, tires, and maintenance isn't easy, and when you're a broke college kid, splitting the tab fairly is a big deal.

> when you're a broke college kid, splitting the tab fairly is a big deal.

And when you're not?

And couldn't the car assist in the calculation?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#276

Post by Retric » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:07 PM UTC

rafael09ed wrote: post #269

Retric wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puffery has specific meaning here and making objective statements doesn’t qualify. You can’t call a 3’ log 5’ and say it’s just puffery.

You can call a 1.5" by 3.5" plank a 2x4

I don’t think Tesla can round up from 0 and say you can make money with a self driving Taxi service.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#277

Post by sorenjan » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:08 PM UTC

giobox wrote: post #257

rsynnott wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our ‘cameras’ are also so much better than any camera that could be put in a car (by most though not all metrics) that there is no real comparison.

By which metrics are human eyes outperforming “any camera that can be put in a car today”? This seems unlikely in almost any domain, given the much wider dynamic range camera sensors can capture - cameras can see into spectrum we simply can’t (infrared, UV…) and operate at much lower levels of light than a human eyeball while retaining full color vision using really cheap tech. They also don’t get tired or worse with…

The human eye can perceive 21 stops dynamic range, much better than regular cameras. Event cameras might solve that issue, but they're not used other than in research at the moment.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#278

Post by jcampbell1 » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:09 PM UTC

britneybitch wrote: post #186

fallingknife wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only currently known self driving system uses that same sensor suite (neural nets and cameras).

If you're talking about humans, I think you're underestimating the importance of the less obvious senses: - sound - touch - equilibrioception (balance) - proprioception - and surely there are more Think of the visceral difference between driving a car in real life, vs driving a car on a screen in a video game.

Traction control software uses touch (knowing how much grip tires have via slip), proprioception (knowing the steering angle), equilibroperception (accelerometers).

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#279

Post by giobox » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

sorenjan wrote: post #277

giobox wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By which metrics are human eyes outperforming “any camera that can be put in a car today”? This seems unlikely in almost any domain, given the much wider dynamic range camera sensors can capture - cameras can see into spectrum we simply can’t (infrared, UV…) and operate at much lower levels of light than a human eyeball while retaining full color vision using really cheap tech. They also don’t get tired or worse with…

The human eye can perceive 21 stops dynamic range, much better than regular cameras. Event cameras might solve that issue, but they're not used other than in research at the moment.

Maybe in a single still capture? Let’s not forget cameras can easily combine multiple exposures into a single capture to substantially increase dynamic range, and can do so at high frame rates, and can go well beyond 21 stops in doing so. The human eye is stuck with the same ~21 stop range regardless.

If you use a pair of digital sensors with a 15 stop exposure offset between them (seems fair - humans have two…), thats ~30 stops in a single shot if we assume best we get is 15 from a digital sensor. Again though with high-speed exposure blending and one sensor this is not really necessary in a lot of cases.

The practical reality is digital capture can exceed 21 stops and you don’t need particularly fancy equipment to do it. Two decent cellphone grade sensors (~12-14 stops) would be enough if you don’t want to do single sensor blends and would work well for real-time video applications.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-exposure_HDR_capture

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#280

Post by qdog » Sat, Dec 24, 2022, 5:10 PM UTC

throw0101c wrote: post #245

ryukoposting wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I considered this in college, but gave up on the idea eventually. Figuring out how to fairly split the cost of gas, tires, and maintenance isn't easy, and when you're a broke college kid, splitting the tab fairly is a big deal.

I'm sure there several companies would pop-up for a "X as a Service": you connect your own car to their API, and things like scheduling, mileage, depreciation, etc , would be computing for you. The company could also offer to sell/lease you a vehicle (NetJets-style).

I think Uber/Lyft is that company, they just use human drivers, which has apparently made traffic worse now, and I wouldn't expect it to get better.