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

561–570 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#561

Post by wpietri »

bumby wrote: post #457
wpietri wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There’s a tipping point where the hype becomes excessive or even fraudulent. The ends justifying the means doesn’t absolve a business of needing to conduct themselves ethically.

Oh, yeah, I think Tesla's well past the point of fraud. Musk promised "1 million robotaxis by end of the year", and that year was 2020. I don't think the end justifies the means at all here.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#562

Post by tmh88j »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #558
tmh88j wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context of the discussion is someone sleeping in their Model Y, not someone penny pinching to get by.

Just because someone spent a few tens of thousand dollars on an electric car doesn't mean they should be willing to drop $200 a night on hotels for a week straight. My uncle bought a Tesla 3 (coincidentally, to replace his 20-year-old totalled Jetta) because he needs to drive several hours to the office a few times a month for 2-3 days at a time, and the silent climate control and flat trunk floor means he can cheapl…

> Just because someone spent a few tens of thousand dollars on an electric car doesn't mean they should be willing to drop $200 a night on hotels for a week straight.

I disagree. In my opinion if you can't afford to do that a few times per year without financial concern then you have no business spending $60k+ on a car. Having to sleep in your expensive car just so you can afford a vacation is ridiculous. There are much cheaper alternatives that won't force you to sacrifice other aspects of your life, such as your $2000 car.

I'm not even going to comment on your uncle's situation. Let's just say I would be working somewhere else if I had to resort to that.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#563

Post by 8note »

bruce511 wrote: post #445
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…

>>High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Mass transit systems only really work in high density areas. This is because the time taken to stop (pasengers on and off) then go is high. So the distance matters less than the number of stops. To be appealing your nearest stop should be within a half mile or so of your house. If a bus can carry 60 people, and only one or two people get i…

Cars work in low density areas where they don't interact with high density areas, but even then, they're best on dirt roads and gravel where the residents can do all the maintenance.

In mid density areas like single family suburban housing, neither works very well

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#564

Post by frosted-flakes »

tmh88j wrote: post #562
frosted-flakes wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone spent a few tens of thousand dollars on an electric car doesn't mean they should be willing to drop $200 a night on hotels for a week straight. My uncle bought a Tesla 3 (coincidentally, to replace his 20-year-old totalled Jetta) because he needs to drive several hours to the office a few times a month for 2-3 days at a time, and the silent climate control and flat trunk floor means he can cheapl…

> Just because someone spent a few tens of thousand dollars on an electric car doesn't mean they should be willing to drop $200 a night on hotels for a week straight. I disagree. In my opinion if you can't afford to do that a few times per year without financial concern then you have no business spending $60k+ on a car. Having to sleep in your expensive car just so you can afford a vacation is ridiculous. There are m…

It's not financial concern. My uncle could definitely afford to rent a hotel room, but he doesn't mind sleeping in his car and he would rather spend that money on something else. Heck, I could afford a hotel too, but I would rather sleep in my $2000 car.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#566

Post by 8note »

epgui wrote: post #274
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…

> Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock I believe the opposite is the more likely outcome: I think we can expect much lighter traffic the more autonomous vehicles there are. Most traffic is caused by humans doing really irrational things, like following each other too closely, making unnecessary lane changes, and driving at inconsistent speeds. It's very rare that traffic congest…

The feedback loop is to build more houses further away on a road with low traffic.

The road will be full to the point where the cars automatically slow down for safety, and then it will be a heavy traffic, mostly stopped road

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#567

Post by Moru »

gaius_baltar wrote: post #513
rzimmerman wrote: post #323

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…

> Elon’s claim of “humans drive with eyes so a car can drive with cameras” is naive. Specially because we don't drive with eyes only, we use at least our ears too for hearing unusual noises and the balance sense for detecting vibrations, changes on road surface, and to get feedback about orientation changes.

No idea what resolution those cameras are, can they be as good as our auto-adapting eyes together with our brains? They are pretty neat features after all, trained right. And will we loose our abilities if we don't keep working on them, building our feature set?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#568

Post by jacquesm »

adrr wrote: post #468
wpietri wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Fake it to you make it. FSD will never come on the current hardware.

Or fake it until you crash...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#569

Post by frosted-flakes »

bumby wrote: post #515
Dylan16807 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you have a touch screen? Or a screen that controls any part of the car? The frustration is that those tend to have awful interfaces, with extra frustration that they could be fixed but don't get fixed. If you had normal buttons then there wasn't anything to get annoyed with in this way in the first place, so it didn't need updates.

Given that this is a fairly common sentiment, it’s a bit wild to me that SpaceX uses touch screens to control almost everything in their Dragon capsule.

It's a different environment. Astronauts are passengers, not drivers, and they rarely need to make sudden actions while multi-tasking the way car drivers do. If they made all-glass cockpits for fighter jets I would agree with you, but they don't.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#570

Post by 8note »

alistairSH wrote: post #516
danny_codes wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uh, even my state (VA) is 3x the size of Switzerland. And we’re dwarfed by all the larger states west of the Mississippi.

So what?
Post reply on HN