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

381–390 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#381

Post by yazaddaruvala »

endisneigh wrote: post #171
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #165

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?

Tolls in cities for traffic control are common where needed. It works well and is simple.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#382

Post by Zigurd »

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…

The idea of FSD is, obviously from the effect of hyping it, enormously attractive. It can't happen now. But in the 1990s, speech recognition that would enable me to dictate this comment in a relatively noisy space was science fiction. Now that we have orders of magnitude more computing power, and much better microphones and associated noise rejection technology, you can blithely dictate messages with reliability that was previously a dream.

Thing is to go from being unable to distinguish pencil from cancel to today's almost magical speech recognition, took 25 years. That might be the same interval it takes to go from mowing down motorcyclists to delivering all the safety and productivity potential of level 5 autonomy.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#383

Post by gpm »

belorn wrote: post #361
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…

One of the killer feature I expect to see in the future when we have FSD is that cities will take direct control of traffic in a central way. If cars can be distributed evenly over all roads with each driver getting an average distance/time-to-arrival the overall speed would significant increase, with car owners loosing the control to pick the shortest route in order to be allowed to use the roads in the city. Centra…

I think if we were going to see this, we'd already be seeing it with map apps. Central planning only relies on being able to give directions, not on it being a computer following them.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#385

Post by rootusrootus »

jupp0r wrote: post #124
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?

Not paying a human to do the driving would make Uber/Lyft much cheaper, it's the dominant cost component of a ride if you do the math.

Labor is significantly less than half the cost for operating an Uber/Lyft.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#386

Post by core-utility »

epgui wrote: post #305
Tiktaalik wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sorts of Driving behaviors you mention are not a significant cause of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion is caused by there being too many cars on the road with limited space for cars. Anything that will increase the amount of cars will quickly dominate inefficient driving behaviors, and self driving cars will massively increase the amount of cars on the road, as it would drive down the cost of driving and en…

> "Traffic congestion is caused by there being too many cars on the road with limited space for cars." I mean in some sense this is always going to be true, and removing cars will always help alleviate traffic. But it's not true that driving behaviour is not a significant cause of traffic congestion: it's the cause in most cases. [1] For an extreme illustration, there's a well-known phenomenon where adding extra lane…

On top of this, a future where every car on the road is self driving also lends itself to a future where every car is in constant communication with the cars around it. A car 10 spaces ahead is slowing down? Your car already knows and is prepared to handle it with grace rather than slamming on brakes. Cars behaving in a predictable and communicable manner, as much as possible, alleviates traffic by a large factor.

This is obviously largely ruined by one single human driver acting unpredictably, so it's a very "all or nothing" resolution.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#387

Post by rootusrootus »

93po wrote: post #343
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…

There is no evidence to support this theory, and in fact the opposite is likely true. Full self driving would lend itself tremendously to increased public transit options. And tremendously lower car ownership.

Like Uber? Real FSD would just give us the same result as ride sharing, but on a far grander scale. In other words, gridlock.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#388

Post by sdenton4 »

turdprincess wrote: post #290
oefrha wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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 t…

Bikes are essentially free.

Prefer bikes, then fail to public transit (there's typically more options than you expect, once you start exploring; also you can often bring your bike...), and only then fail to Uber.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#390

Post by aidenn0 »

dtgriscom wrote: post #325
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. You could buy an overpriced car that you can’t afford with a high interest rate and it would still be much cheaper. I think you need to go back to first principles on this one.

> Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. Well, yes it is. Cars are expensive: lease ($200+/month), maintenance ($100/mo), gas ($50/mo), insurance ($120/month), garage ($200/month). WAG of $670/month. That's 15 to 40 short-ish Uber rides/month. Commute an hour each way every day, and have free parking? Buy that car. Have it available for occasional trips to the grocery store? Uber is almos…

Leasing a car is the most expensive way to own a car (short of buying a new one every 3 years). Of course if you're paying $200/mo. for parking you can probably afford it. In much of the country parking is indirectly subsidized with zoning laws.

This is all moot because, if driving places gets cheaper, traffic will get worse, which was the original point.

Post reply on HN