451–460 of 672 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Puffery has specific meaning here and making objective statements doesn’t qualify. You can’t call a 3’ log 5’ and say it’s just puffery.
You can call a 1.5" by 3.5" plank a 2x4
To nitpick your metaphor further: A 2x4 plank starts off as 2" by 4", and it is shaved down to 1.5 x 3.5 side to straighten it out. A Tesla "FSD" car has never been in its life fully self driving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
To add to one of your points, The Tesla auto park is legitimately awful. https://youtu.be/nsb2XBAIWyA Every time we try it for a spot to reverse into, the linear regression it must be doing is so apparent. It violently tries to turn left and right rapidly trying to straighten itself. It works better for parallel spots but often gives up half way because it made a bad angle choice. We’ve tried it in various models in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Why would that be the case?
I would keep my self-driving car the same place I keep my normal car now. Why would it be driving around when I’m not in it? That would waste electricity. It would drive me somewhere, park, and wait — just like I do with my current car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Waymo and Cruise deploy in extremely limited public situations, including only in the middle of the night, and have been in the news a lot recently for a serious of crashes and software failures, some of which caused a pile up of around a dozen autonomous vehicles just blocking the road that had to be removed with tow trucks and employees. The scope of what Tesla is doing is vastly larger, more future proof, more rel…
> Additionally, Tesla's model right now is to have a driver in the seat. So then it's not full self-driving? I don't understand. Elon has been promising full self-driving for years: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musk-promises-full-self-driving-ne... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFTlx68itk
Google's Sergey Brin predicted driverless cars by 2017.[2]
BMW predicted we'd have driverless cars by 2020.[3]
Supposedly sober industry analysts predicted 2019.[4]
It's also worth pointing out that many of Elon's predictions were not predictions of a finished product, but rather predicting when Tesla would have a system "capable" of self driving, not necessarily a system capable of driving consistently and reliably. (In much the same way, I am capable of hitting a target with a crossbow, but not consistently and reliably.)
To be clear, I'm not defending Musk's predictions, only pointing out that such predictions were widespread and Musk was just one of many, many, many people who turned out to be wrong.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on...
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2012/09/25/google_automatic_cars...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/13/self-driv...
[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-drivi...
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…
The ends justifying the means doesn’t absolve a business of needing to conduct themselves ethically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Do you think the mods should just collapse toxic comments instead of flagging/killing them and warning the user?
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…
> Just think about it - what happens when everyone has a self driving car? All of those cars that are otherwise parked are now on the road. Why would that be the case? I would keep my self-driving car the same place I keep my normal car now. Why would it be driving around when I’m not in it? That would waste electricity. It would drive me somewhere, park, and wait — just like I do with my current car.
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.
So what I'm more curious about is if self-driving enables more options for ride sharing, just as Uber had Uber pool, at a cheaper price, perhaps it could open up more options (at different prices) between riding with 50 strangers on a bus or taking a 4-seat car by myself?
Overall, I don't know if cars on road at time X will go up or down. Heck, if there aren't cars parking on the streets, then some roads in cities may even add two extra lanes for traffic, which could reduce traffic further.
But as others have pointed out, ridesharing companies with drivers haven't really reduced traffic, so maybe self-driving cars won't either, however I seem to think it'll be more of a step change when cars drive themselves.