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

611–620 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#611

Post by vouaobrasil »

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…

Or maybe, the person enjoys their car a lot more than they value a night at a hotel. Perhaps the extra value at a hotel versus sleeping in a Tesla is not worth the extra $200 per night. Someone wanting to save a few thousand dollars on a hotel is NOT the same thing as "financial concern". It's just a preference that is lot different than yours.

Many people with money spend huge amounts on some things but can be penny-pinchers in other areas.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#612

Post by yourapostasy »

93po wrote: post #344
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. Why can that never happen?

I suspect Moravec's Paradox strikes again.

I'd like to see what happens if someone did the following to test the assertion that "cameras are all we need". Cover all the windows of a Model S with LED screens, and route all the cameras to display onto them. Then see how well human drivers do with that visual input which roughly simulates the fraction of a second delay to perform the FSD processing, and removes our stereoscopic perception when we turn / move our heads around.

Many software and hardware engineers do not appreciate the amount of work done by evolution upon our kinesthetic / proprioceptive packages. Sure there is wide variability in its implementation (that friend you won't under any circumstances let behind the wheel with you in the vehicle). But by and large, it performs under a set of energy and materials constraints that continues to school our current engineering state of the art.

So I sometimes also wonder if the ultrasonic/sound sensors in Teslas are sufficient to reproduce the control system our bodies' proprioception engages when we drive.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#614

Post by Barrin92 »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #613

Yeah, if it isn't actually "full self driving" then it shouldn't be called that. This is different than "Autopilot" which is a perfectly valid name.

even that's misleading honestly and Tesla is battling in courts over that label here in Germany. In my opinion the correct label in both the technical sense and informing the average consumer correctly is 'driving assistance'. A system that requires you to have the hands on the wheel at all times and be fully alert and ready to intercept on average every few miles is not an autopilot either.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#615

Post by myko »

novok wrote: post #579
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…

It's because he knows that those things are relative commodities, and in 5 or 10 years the rest of the industry will eventually catch up in every single way. Hyundai and ford are pretty much %80 of the way there already.

> n 5 or 10 years the rest of the industry will eventually catch up in every single way.

Seems to have already happened? Mercedes EQS/EQB, BMW i4/i7/iX, Polestar, Ioniq

All seem better than the comparable Tesla vehicles.

Though Tesla does have better features for sitting at chargers, and obviously the super charger network which is a huge thing for anyone taking longer trips.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#616

Post by xattt »

jdminhbg wrote: post #545
xattt wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name FSD intimates an SAE Level 5 experience. It’s not partial self-driving or any other sort, but full . If there was any name to suggest it, this would be it. Imagine going to an emergency department with chest pains/trouble breathing/thunderclap headache, and the triage nurse saying “oooooh yeaaaaah, I know emergency is in our name but we don’t really deal with that , you’re on your own”. Things that are criti…

You know there are lots of ERs that can’t handle lots of emergencies, right? There’s even a whole “Level” system to describe which emergencies they are and are not equipped to handle.

Even when a rural ER receives a CTAS 1-2 patient, there is a chain of survival that’s followed to ensure continuity of care and transfer to an appropriate facility and accountability.

There is no safe failure mode in FSD that doesn’t rely on human intervention that’s intimated in the name.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#617

Post by freejazz »

tnel77 wrote: post #322
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.

I think it goes both ways and we won’t know for sure until it comes to fruition. Personally, I hate owning vehicles and desperately want a self-driving taxi service that I can order via an app to get me and my family around.

You wont take taxis now because they are driven by people?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#618

Post by freejazz »

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #403
shawnz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're just a passenger then why does it matter to you whether the taxi service is self-driving or not? Surely the benefits of self-driving would be significantly more relevant for those who do want to own the vehicle?

Average earnings (after expenses) of a ride share driver is very roughly $10/hour. If you assume a self-driving car can get 2000 hours of use a year (which seems reasonably conservative), then the self-driving car saves $20k in labor costs per year. Although self-driving tech will be expensive in the beginning, the price will likely at some point decline to be far below $20k/year. Labor is about half of the cost of a…

Still has no bearing on why they would or wouldn't take taxis now.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#619

Post by freejazz »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #549
ziml77 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that every vehicle participating in that network would have to be owned and operated by a trusted entity. Otherwise it would be too easy for someone to modify the software or tamper with the hardware in ways that cause information to be misreported and cause a mess.

And then the person who owns that car gets charged with murder when it crashes on the highway

Hasn't happened to Tesla

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#620

Post by freejazz »

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…

You've called Uber when a cab didn't show? How'd you do that? Which number did you use?
Post reply on HN