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

281–290 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#281

Post by scaramanga »

hericium wrote: post #104
Kiro wrote: post #61

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.

Did anything change? I was downvoted for calling out Musk as dangerous (...) unstable and unethical sociopath with so called "self driving" car a year ago[1] just as I was downvoted for pointinug out FSD is a myth just one day ago[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29750109 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34105214

Bootlickers gonna lick.

There's a reason tech is seen as the job that's "too plum to unionize." We are the most aligned with the beliefs and values of management and capital. We wouldn't have our nice jobs if we weren't.

All that's happened here is that one paranoid delusional billionaire has a reactionary conspiracy theory that the most elite bootlicking workers in the economy are secretly all trotskyites in league with the woke marxist antifa at Ford and GM and other major advertisers etc..

The collateral damage of this has caused mass cognitive dissonance for people in tech who are either going to realise that maybe robber barons don't have our best interests at heart (shock!) or just double down on the bootlicking to see if that makes papa stop hitting us and love us again.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#282

Post by potatoman22 »

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.

Good thing you can buy a car for $5k

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#283

Post by dinkumthinkum »

danny_codes wrote: post #236
alistairSH wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning a car is massively expensive at a personal level… Purchase cost, depreciation, fuel, maintenance, space to store it. Minimum a few hundred $/month for an “asset” that sits idle most of the day. Owning cars is massively expensive at a societal level… Storage space - so much asphalt for parking (both at destinations and at home). Pollution - production/raw materials, emissions during use, eventually disposal. In…

I don't know about the rural-need-car argument. In Switzerland even little villages have rail connections. Imo it's about planning and values. America just doesn't value spending on general welfare. We'd prefer to have wealth hoarded behind closed gates it seems.

What’s the regather size difference between Switzerland and the US?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#284

Post by robryk »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #266
lolinder wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any Kickstarter is obliged to be very explicit about the risks. They're required to have a section in the pitch dedicated to what might go wrong, and Kickstarter itself has text everywhere reminding you that rewards are not guaranteed. Tesla, on the other hand, never acknowledges the very real possibility that your extremely expensive vehicle never sees full self driving.

The sale page is pretty explicit about what you’re buying and has this note: > The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictio…

This note makes it very obvious that customer's evaluation of the expected timeline might impact their purchase decision. In my non-expert opinion Tesla puts itself on notice that any false statements that might impact that evaluation would be fraudulent. If my opinion matches the legal consensus, then the doctored video would be such a false statement.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#285

Post by rsynnott »

remorses wrote: post #44

The ministry of truth in action

I mean, I assume you’re trying to be sarcastic, but, yes, truth in advertising is usually considered to be desirable.

It’s mildly absurd that they need a specific law for this, but if the relevant regulators won’t act…

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#286

Post by theCrowing »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #267
theCrowing wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jump from 134,000 (82) to 9.5 million (02) transistors was a significant one, but it's nothing compared to the leaps and bounds made when transitioning to 20 billion transistors (2022). It's a staggering difference that truly demonstrates the magnitude of the advances made in the last 20 years. The 80s and early 90s were computational winters.

I think you should go back Patterson’s book. The benefits of Moore’s law ended and then what happened? I think what you are trying to suggest flies in the face of all conventional wisdom of computer hardware.

Moore's law ended? Because Nvidias CEO said so to have an excuse for their dud of a generation? ASM, TSMC, Intel, Apple and AMD are saying it's still going strong.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#287

Post by robryk »

sonofhans wrote: post #260
redox99 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pretty trivial to disprove that: A human could no doubt "remotely" drive using the current Tesla cameras. So the sensor suite might be more challenging than alternatives, but obviously not impossible. You could however argue that the current computer isn't powerful enough to run the software required for vision based L3/L4.

It’s a trivial claim, advanced without evidence. There’s no reason to believe that a human could drive a car based only on those limited visual inputs. Humans use all our sense to drive. And even if it were true, so what? Last I checked Tesla didn’t have software which can perfectly emulated a human agent.

> And even if it were true, so what? Last I checked Tesla didn’t have software which can perfectly emulated a human agent.

GP was arguing against:

> The feature is impossible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.

_For that statement_ it's immaterial whether Tesla does something right now, but rather whether it's in principle possible. Modulo your previous objection humans provide a counterexample to that (very general) statement.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#288

Post by ModernMech »

_Microft wrote: post #168
lolinder wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. Waymo uses both lidar and radar, which Tesla opted to remove. Also, look at Waymo's cars. Those things have sensors strapped all over in ways that give them lots of range and visibility. Tesla will never do that because it compromises the aesthetic. https://waymo.com/waymo-driver/

They certainly referred to humans.

Brains aren’t neural nets and eyes aren’t cameras.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#289

Post by coffeeblack »

stuart78 wrote: post #155

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-...

[flagged]

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#290

Post by turdprincess »

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.

I'm not so sure. AAA estimates that it costs $10,728 to own and operate a new vehicle per year which is driven 15,0000 miles per year. This includes all the costs like depreciation, maintenance, gas, insurance, etc, and works out to be $0.71 per mile.

At least in my town, Ubers are more expensive than that. I can't seem to find a trip anywhere for under $15, even if its a few miles away, or like $3 per mile. Longer trips are more economical, but for example, my airport (40 miles away) is quoting me $80 at the moment, or $2 per mile. Also, these prices don't include tip.

I think if you lived in a big city with public transportation and occasionally took Uber, it would be more economical than a car. But as a 100% replacement, Ubers appear to be 3 to 5 times more expensive than having your own car.

And by the way, that AAA data is from a brand new car. You can easily go cheaper by getting a reliable used car.

source: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/08/annual-cost-of-new-car-owne...

Post reply on HN