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

621–630 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#621

Post by freejazz »

eldaisfish wrote: post #411
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.

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?

>How about every village in Poland? Russia? Belarus?

Seems like you are making their point

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#622

Post by Retric »

ajross wrote: post #531
Retric wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving trucks at mines have very limited routes but they are legitimately self driving and quite useful. There are under 4.1 million miles of roads in the US. ~70 people could map every mile of that every year assuming average speed of 30mph and 2,000 hours of work per year. It’s literally trivial compared to building a self driving system. Tesla’s insistence on good road markings is a far larger limitation tha…

> Self driving trucks at mines have very limited routes but they are legitimately self driving and quite useful. One of the problems with this discourse is the propensity for people to talk past each other. No one is interested in mining automation here, no matter what level of SAE autonomy they qualify for. > Tesla’s insistence on good road markings is a far larger limitation than simply pre mapping roads. And anoth…

> no matter what level of SAE autonomy they qualify for.

Yet, it clearly disproved your point. A self driving Taxi or Semi needs to be fully autonomous to be useful, coverage area is a useful feature only after you can get rid of the driver.

I’ve seen a FSD Tesla have issues with bad road markings recently. That’s a complete failure from an autonomy standpoint, because if they can’t predict and thus avoid bad situations the system is completely dependent on a human driver.

And that’s the problem, Tesla has been stuck at at the cool tech demo stage for years and adding features alone isn’t progress because something that generally works as long as a human can take over is so vastly easier they can just gloss over the hard bits. Eventually they will run out of new feature that sort of work and the cars will still still be unable drive anywhere by it’s self. Perhaps they start trying to level 4+ in a few years, but their going to need to start over getting each feature to actually work without that safety net.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#623

Post by freejazz »

okwubodu wrote: post #416
rootusrootus wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's caused by the fact that too many cars are trying to go into places they don't all fit.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#624

Post by Zigurd »

kranke155 wrote: post #597
Zigurd wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of FSD is, obviously from the effect of hyping it, enormously attractive. It can't happen now. But in the 1990s, speech recognition that would enable me to dictate this comment in a relatively noisy space was science fiction. Now that we have orders of magnitude more computing power, and much better microphones and associated noise rejection technology, you can blithely dictate messages with reliability that…

Someone commented on the Waymo thread that insiders believe they already have FSD, but the cost doesn’t work.

Two things about that: if by FSD you mean level 5 autonomy, waymo is not level 5. It is a robotaxi. Fully autonomous in that role. But the definition of level five includes driving in situations where you don't have any prior data. Outside the map.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#625

Post by Philadelphia »

dgoodell wrote: post #237
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…

What I don’t understand is WHY these more automated systems cost so much. And it’s not like there isn’t competition, we have both Lyft and Uber overlapping in many places and people can chose between them. I’d really like to see a chart or something shows where Lyft/Uber fees goes. There has to be a lot of inefficiencies. My suspicion is there is a lot of white collar bloat.

They exist primarily to extract profit for investors. The car service aspect is incidental.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#626

Post by wpietri »

cedws wrote: post #595
wpietri wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Elon Musk wants to be Steve Jobs so badly but the reality distortion field isn't working.

"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

And buying Twitter really put him in front of all of the people all of the time.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#627

Post by 4674383 »

samtho wrote: post #433
tnel77 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. This future sounds great until you consider what it really means to let “someone else” become the arbiter of you being able to get around. If I have a car in my driveway, I can make sure it is charged/fueled for whenever I need it and I can just turn it on and go. Compare t…

It seems laughable to worry about how easily automated transporation can be selectively taken away when in present times rail and bus workers go on strike plenty often. I'd gladly replace my car with an on-demand service if it was reliable and cheaper than purchasing and maintaining my Prius.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#628

Post by randerson »

jimkleiber wrote: post #518
samtho wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This future sounds great until you consider what it really means to let “someone else” become the arbiter of you being able to get around. If I have a car in my driveway, I can make sure it is charged/fueled for whenever I need it and I can just turn it on and go. Compare t…

I've thought about this: if all transport is public transport, then how much is our physical freedom limited? Yes, bikes and other things may exist, but if all high-powered transport is outside of our control, how much control do we have over our movements? That being said, I think a lot of people in the US purchase cars through auto loans, and those loans while not physically limiting one's day-to-day mobility, can…

Good public transport is the ultimate freedom. Being able to go out for a few drinks without worrying about how to get home. No government-issued ID stuck to the box you move around in. No parking, insurance, dealerships, fines..

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#629

Post by randerson »

jimkleiber wrote: post #460
lokedhs wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't the number of cars driving around depend on density of riders? Just getting rid of the driver would make every car have one extra seat available for passengers, assuming cars maintain the same number of seats. 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) betwe…

Many people can't drive and are always passengers. But now they'll be able to travel alone. The people who would have been their drivers can go somewhere else at the same time. Unless the cars are always at capacity, it could mean more cars on the road.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#630

Post by bruce511 »

api wrote: post #511
jasonhansel wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In suburban areas, light rail can work quite well. Although you have to wait longer because of stops, the trains can also move much faster than cars--existing trains are fairly slow, but introducing higher-speed trains would make them competitive with cars. In rural areas, though, your point stands. For adults traveling alone, though, lightweight electronic vehicles like e-bikes may be better than electric cars. Ulti…

It can work for long commutes when you have park and rides, but you still need cars to go the last 1-5 miles. Still nice to take a train the bulk of a long commute into a city core. A lot of people who think trains and buses can do it all are young and have never had kids. Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me before kids. Everything makes sense after kids.

Yes, park and ride is great at creating a high-density hot-spot, from which an express, or few-stops train is great. (I too prefer that.)

But it implies you have to have a car, and once you have the car then naturally you will use it :)

Post reply on HN