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

411–420 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#411

Post by eldaisfish »

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.

This confuses many things in an attempt to reach an incorrect conclusion. The USA is massive - on the same scale as continental Europe. Every village in Switzerland has a rail connection. How about every village in Poland? Russia? Belarus?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#412

Post by sangnoir »

lokedhs wrote: post #354
jimkleiber wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I still hope self-driving will enable the original dream of "car-sharing" by enabling car pooling, coordinated by Uber / Waymo / Toyota.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#413

Post by rootusrootus »

dragonwriter wrote: post #246
lotsofpulp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the political challenge of getting massive wealth redistribution passed in conjunction with public opposition to giving up the luxury of personal cars means the probability of the US ever getting its transit situation in order is very low until energy prices rise high enough to force a change.

It also means energy prices will not rise high enough until the government becomes incapable of subsidizing them, if you (s your argument does) neglect the possibility of political shifts.

I want some of those subsidies. Aside from a few particular oil-rich nations (and some very poor ones), where are these fuel subsidies I keep hearing about? A gallon of gasoline largely costs the same in the US as it does in Europe, if you strip away the taxes.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#414

Post by rad_gruchalski »

quonn wrote: post #408
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 just want to be able to have a beer and still drive home. And that‘s the use case and it‘s a good one.

Okay. But you are still driving under influence. You are at all times responsible for what the car is doing.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#415

Post by endisneigh »

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.

Ride sharing is already “self driving” from the end user perspective and has increased congestion. The actual technological full self driving function is an implementation detail.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#416

Post by okwubodu »

rootusrootus wrote: post #387
93po wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn’t most traffic caused by cascading human error? I assumed true FSD would be a mesh net where every car broadcasts its next move to its neighbors.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#417

Post by rootusrootus »

93po wrote: post #338
anonymoushn wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is plenty possible to implement with the sensor suite that comes with the car.

The cameras on a Model 3 were quite mediocre in 2018. Subaru puts a lot higher quality cameras on their cars than Tesla does.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#418

Post by wpietri »

throw0101c wrote: post #173
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.

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.

In talking about friends with this, one interesting divide was between people with kids and those without.

People with kids, especially suburban ones, seem to use the vehicle as a sort of mobile operating base. So the car isn't just a taxi. It's where the kids' sports stuff goes. Plus the folding chairs for the games. Plus snacks and water on hand. Plus it gets used as a storage locker when they're out somewhere. And it has assorted useful stuff, like charging cables and wet wipes and sunglasses and spare napkins and and and...

So I expect fractional ownership will not be particularly popular for a lot of people because a) they're already used to owning a vehicle, and b) they don't want to have to take everything out of the car all the time.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#419

Post by nradov »

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).

What's the point? Regular cars are cheap. They're not expensive capital assets that last for decades like private jets.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#420

Post by rootusrootus »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #315
ModernMech wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why? The whole idea of neural nets is based on mimicking the brain. It's even in the name: neural (for neuron).

I've never met anyone who knew anything at all about neural nets who thought they were mimicking the brain.
Post reply on HN