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

351–360 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#351

Post by 93po »

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.

There are a lot of profit incentives for corporate media and established players in a lot of industries to smear to Elon. This results in a ton of bad media coverage, and people are a product of the information they consume. Over time this style of coverage embeds itself in people's minds, and we see what we're seeing now: posters that have never met elon, never spoke to him, and never worked with him stating ridiculous opinions about his motivations, his health, and mental status as fact.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#352

Post by Waterluvian »

tnel77 wrote: post #322
astral303 wrote: post #118

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.

I think it goes both ways and we won’t know for sure until it comes to fruition. Personally, I hate owning vehicles and desperately want a self-driving taxi service that I can order via an app to get me and my family around.

Same. The only reason I own is because no service guarantees a car will be in my garage when I need it. If they could offer that, I’d love to pay a service fee rather than own, maintain, buy, sell.

And I think it would be cheaper. The optimal use for a product that is depreciating in value whether you use it or not, is to use it as much as possible. We are paying for our cars for sit in place all day and night.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#353

Post by ghaff »

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA wrote: post #298
qetlrkn wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

driving a car in a video game with a steering wheel is easy because it's an experience designed from the ground up with that interface in mind. driving games happily do shit like change the fov to make the user think they're going faster, etc. being easy to drive with a steering wheel in a driving game, and being easy to drive a real car with a steering wheel (with internet level latency and packet loss at play, mind…

And they often employ tricks to improve the handling, like burying the center of mass below the vehicle.

Pretty much all simulator games have to cheat. Because most of us can't hop into a Formula 1 race car or the cockpit of an F-22 and drive/fly it with no real training. (Much less race other drivers or fight in a dogfight.)

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#354

Post by lokedhs »

jimkleiber wrote: post #79
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 assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I think that could reduce the need for parking and the amount of traffic just by increasing the utilization rate of cars.

Less parking, sure. But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. The problem isn't the number of cars in existence, but rather how many cars are actually driving around at any given point. This number will surely go up with self driving, or at best stay the same.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#355

Post by xattt »

93po wrote: post #339
WA wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s still up in all its fraudulent glory: https://www.tesla.com/videos/full-self-driving-hardware-all-...

The title of this is "Full Self Driving Hardware on All Teslas". The hardware is in fact on all Teslas. What part of that is fraud? Nothing about this video was misleading and the car did in fact drive itself through that route.

The name FSD intimates an SAE Level 5 experience. It’s not partial self-driving or any other sort, but full. If there was any name to suggest it, this would be it.

Imagine going to an emergency department with chest pains/trouble breathing/thunderclap headache, and the triage nurse saying “oooooh yeaaaaah, I know emergency is in our name but we don’t really deal with that, you’re on your own”.

Things that are critical to life-or-limb should be appropriately named without the use of weasel words or asterisks.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#356

Post by SilasX »

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…

Great, but not relevant to this story. HN is a worse place when commenters use tangentially-related discussions as thin pretenses to spam their pre-written manifestos. Please stop.

And everyone else, please stop encouraging this.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#357

Post by realstooge »

theCrowing wrote: post #286
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All things considered, there isn't much of a difference between 2012 and 2022 consumer computing. 4/8 cores, all pretty much clocked the same, maybe 8GB/16GB of RAM and 500GB of storage. At best, we optimized the process, optimized edge cases, but not it is certainly not an exponential leap.

Between 90-00, we went from 40MHz CPU to 1+ GHZ, 1GB to 100+GB storage capacity. A factor 25 for clock speed, and 100 for storage. By the 90-00 pace standard, in 2022, we would have 25GHz CPU, 1PB disk, but we topped at a few TB at best, consumer. D instruction per core went from 0.33 (1992, Intel i486DX), to 4.1 (2002, Pentium 4 Extreme Edition), to 8.46 (AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X), so in 20 years, we had less advancement (x2) than in 10 years (x12).

Beside that, Moore's law stated doubling of "metric" every 2 years, 20 years is 10 doubling period, so we should have scaled by a factor of 1000. So yeah, Moore's law is long dead.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#358

Post by yucky »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #307

Should have happened sooner. I love my Model Y. It's the most fun car I've ever owned. It's also the most comfortable on long road trips and I can sleep in it in climate-controlled comfort without generating a gas that could kill me. I leave the house every morning with a full tank and never have to stop at a gas station. And my cost per mile is 1/4 what it was with an ICE car. I just wish Tesla would focus on this s…

   > Should have happened sooner.
Which tells you everything you need to know about California's government.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#359

Post by SilasX »

warning26 wrote: post #25
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…

You’re getting downvoted but you’re not necessarily wrong. I love the idea of self driving vehicles and I’m excited about them, but I harbor no illusions about them fixing traffic. The key question I would ask to self driving proponents is this - if you waved your magic wand and suddenly changed every car on the road to self driving…how would that impact traffic? At the very least traffic wouldn’t decrease . You coul…

I downvoted (and flagged) despite agreeing with the parent, for good reason:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34119828

Post reply on HN