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

631–640 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#631

Post by bruce511 »

8note wrote: post #563
bruce511 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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

Obviously YMMV, but where I live (single family suburban housing) it works fantastically. The only time traffic hinders me is if I get in the freeway in the morning heading into the city.

But obviously there are many factors in play, so each place is different.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#632

Post by aidenn0 »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #587
aidenn0 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leasing a car is the most expensive way to own a car (short of buying a new one every 3 years). Of course if you're paying $200/mo. for parking you can probably afford it. In much of the country parking is indirectly subsidized with zoning laws. This is all moot because, if driving places gets cheaper, traffic will get worse, which was the original point.

Sone companies in the United States have fancy things like parking lots. In fact, most places people work have parking lots that are free.

I assume gp was talking about parking at home, not at work

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#633

Post by drstewart »

danny_codes wrote: post #243
drstewart wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Mainstream full self driving would just create massive traffic and gridlock Can you show your work here? > 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. No, see, mass transit is pointless since it would just create massive demand that would overwhelm the system and thus fall apart. Citation: tr…

I think the FSD causes more traffic argument boils down to induced demand. More people on the road, finite road. Mass transit has been anecdotally shown to scale extremely well. If it can handle Hong Kong it's hard to imagine a density where it doesn't work.

>it's hard to imagine a density where it doesn't work.

It's really not

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2060212/tok...

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#634

Post by drstewart »

8note wrote: post #570
alistairSH wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So what?

Why don't rural Canadian indigenous villages have rail service, since Canada and other non-US countries love the general welfare so much?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#635

Post by simondotau »

cwalv wrote: post #536
simondotau wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Assuming we're discounting things like bicycles, family member's vehicles and company-owned vehicles, this is present day reality for the overwhelming majority of people on this planet. (It's also debatable whether a car truly eliminates other people from being an arbiter of "be…

> By comparison an EV charged with a domestic solar array would probably more liberating By comparison, yes. But where are you going to go, or what are you going to do, that isn't dependent on other ppl in some way? I like the idea of being self-supporting as much as anyone, but that doesn't change the fact that we're all interdependent in modern society.

Precisely my point, though I didn’t say it precisely. The notion that we’re ever not dependant on the actions of other people is utterly fictitious.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#636

Post by vsl »

dagmx wrote: post #510
kwhitefoot wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's odd. My 2015 Model S auto-parks very well, faster and neater than I can do it myself.

Is that the older Mobileye stack? It had much better autopilot than Teslas solution. In the video I linked, you can see it out perform Tesla’s implementation.

Yes it is.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#637

Post by dotancohen »

danny_codes wrote: post #231
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There could be a huge algorithm which will try to schedule vehicles with varying sizes from 2 seats to 30 seats to people all over the city. If you pay more you can get the exact N spots so you get privacy, if you are willing to pay the least, you might have to go 30m into a dedicated spot where a 30 seater will stop for you and some others, then it will make optimised stops based on what everyone has as their destin…

Ngl this sounds much worse than normal public transportation. AFAIK it's just the same thing but if you're rich you get special treatment. Imo more of a regression than an advance. Cars were largely a mistake.

If done properly, the rich people's transportation could subsidize the poor people's transportation to an extent.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#638

Post by tnel77 »

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…

There’s definitely a lot of variables that I’m sure I won’t appreciate until I am living this self-driving taxi experience, but I wouldn’t be selling my personal vehicles the moment such a service became available to me. I would finish out my current lease and just keep my one paid off vehicle. Once I have enough confidence in this new setup, I would go about selling that last car. That would probably be after 2-3 years minimum.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#639

Post by season2episode3 »

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…

> If you do not control your means of transport, someone else does and they can take it away from you at any time.

The car does provide "freedom of movement" in a libertarian fantasy way, but in reality one gives up your privacy with a drivers license. Speed traps and cameras track license plates, police can stop you, and you need to be sober. You are paying rent in the form of license fees and parking tickets; and you are paying for fuel which relies upon a long and complicated supply chain.

In urban areas, one might imagine other types of freedom. Such as the choice of walking/biking/bus/taxi/tram/subway in addition to driving, or some combination of those.

> I fear peak hours will become something of a bidding war where nobody wins.

If only there was a public option that wasn't surge-priced.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#640

Post by KaiserPro »

todd3834 wrote: post #41
KaiserPro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that it’s further away than anyone thought. No no, only musk was stupid enough to imply level 5 autonomy within x years. Everyone know how hard it is, realtime accurate position, machine perception of roads, & accurate prediction of cars/lorries/other are all very difficult problems. Then to hobble your team by saying "blah blah blah no lidars" because they are expensive and someone from the ML team convinced you t…

Somewhere unrealistic ambition has been mistaken for stupidity. If everyone was “realistic” our progress would move so much slower. Breakthroughs happen because of people like Elon. Assuming stupidity is a bit over the top.

FSD == ambition

Promising that it be ready by 2018(or whenever it is) == unrealistic ambition

Chucking it out the door, branding it as FSD, charging for it, and not actually putting in the right sensor suite to make it work == stupid, or, perhaps dishonest.

Post reply on HN