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

421–430 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#421

Post by rad_gruchalski »

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.

Do you know how big Texas is? Texas is almost twice as big as Germany. Switzerland is 11% the size of Germany.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#422

Post by mgiannopoulos »

samwillis wrote: post #121

FSD is a Boondoggle. (Collision/accident avoidance and driver assist systems are not) I don't think we will see a legitimate L5 automation in our lifetimes. Take my 1.5 mile journey to do the morning school run, in a small UK town: - Getting off the driveway, there is a wall that creates a blind spot behind it, often other parents are walking small kids who are shorter than that wall. I can't see behind it. I check d…

You don’t really need it to work 100% of the time for it to be helpful. Users of FSD Beta report not driving manually 90-95% of the time, which sounds amazing to me.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#423

Post by misiti3780 »

ghaff wrote: post #56
dpiers wrote: post #34

FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…

In fairness I know people with "FSD" who went into it well aware that it's not really FSD and they still like it. That said, the marketing is clearly fraudulent.

Im one of those people, I have it and love testing it out, but I know it's not FSD, I really do get the big deal about the name. Anyone who buys it thinking it's really FSD is an idiot.

The difference between me and apparently everyone else in this forum is I do think TSLA will build a video model that is L4/L5 in the next few years. I live in a rural america and majority of my drives do not require interventions.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#424

Post by logifail »

rzimmerman wrote: post #323
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…

I also love my Model Y. It’s by far the best car I’ve ever owned or driven. But the software has stagnated in favor of “FSD” beta releases. Autopilot on freeways is great. I use it all the time and it works. I wish Tesla would focus on getting that to a level 3-type system - something where I can take my hands off the wheel and just be ready to take over after 10-15 seconds. It feels close enough that it could be don…

> But the software has stagnated [..]

I've only owned ICE vehicles (lifetime total: 3, 2 of which are parked outside right now), and have only ever rented ICE vehicles (lifetime total: several hundred, the latest of which is in the long-stay at London Heathrow right now...)

I'm unable to get my head around talk of a vehicle's software "stagnating"? AFAIK none of the vehicles I've ever driven had OTA updates, and from the driver's PoV they weren't the worse for it.

If you're hoping to convince current ICE drivers to upgrade to EV, then talking about shipping rapid software updates probably isn't going to work...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#425

Post by wpietri »

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…

> I just wish Tesla would focus on this stuff without hyping an AI feature that can never happen.

There's a good argument that Tesla wouldn't exist today without the hype. The enormous positive public image mad Tesla's cost of capital extremely low, and ditto its cost of marketing. Tesla needed a lot of both to get to break-even. Musk himself has talked repeatedly about coming close to bankruptcy. It's reasonable to believe that less hype would have meant less capital and fewer sales, nudging them at some point over into bankruptcy.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#426

Post by endisneigh »

SilasX wrote: post #356
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.

Seems silly to write such a comment. Place your vote, collapse the thread and move on.

Btw the comment was a result of the article in the OP, not pre written.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#427

Post by rootusrootus »

bastawhiz wrote: post #203
725686 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was talking about humans.

Humans have stereoscopic vision Edit: I'd love to know why I'm being downvoted. Tesla cars guess depth with a neural net. Humans have the hardware for getting this data directly. Unless you either have lidar, radar, or dedicated stereoscopic cameras, you don't have real/accurate depth data. And depth data like that stops your car from plowing into white trucks.

This is true. But most of the things perceived while driving are outside of the stereoscopic depth perception ability of humans. IIRC that stops around 20 meters or so.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#428

Post by misiti3780 »

93po wrote: post #371
paulmendoza wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if you are joking or not

He isn't. It's Elon derangement syndrome.

Haha! I love that term, totally going to use it going forward! It really is a thing.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#429

Post by sangnoir »

yucky wrote: post #358
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.

What, that they are #1 in understanding the self-driving technological landscape? They remain more responsive than the other 49 states.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#430

Post by nradov »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #405
rntp wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hold up hold up hold up. So there was a recent article (in Slate, I believe?) by someone who had driven for Lyft ten years ago and who did it a little bit this year just to see how it changed. They said that the chief thing was that Lyft's take was significantly larger than it used to be, about 40% of the total fares collected. Which, like, you're looking at that and it seems reasonable, right? Let's step into our ti…

The biggest difference between Lyft/Uber and dispatch taxis isn’t the automation it’s the customer service! Previously customer service was non-existent. If a taxi didn’t show up, we just got screwed. There wasn’t even anyone to call for the issue. On the apps I instantly get a credit to help ease the burden and the driver has their rating reduced. For many reasons customer service is very expensive and it’s not yet…

What customer service? I tried to take a Lyft ride a couple weeks ago because I knew parking would be a mess at my destination. Even though I scheduled a ride in advance, Lyft switched me between 5 different drivers and none of them were actually coming to pick me up. In the end I ran out of time and had to drive myself.

And that's not the first time I've had such poor service recently. Lyft used to be pretty good a few years ago but not it's just garbage.

Post reply on HN