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

661–670 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#661

Post by hengestone »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #508
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Why do Tesla go for ML to poorly solve problems long solved by well understood PID controllers? The cynical in me feels this is to do with employees at Tesla want to work with new and shiny ML instead of old boring PID tech for the sake of "resume driven engineering".

I suspect these decisions are driven from the top down. We know who loves a shiny tech choice at Tesla. The company has been quite proud of their end to end ML system in presentations. But it sounds like they’re struggling with execution.

My brother in law works as an engineer for Tesla Palo Alto: according to him these features are all driven from the very top. Always at the expense of fixing bugs, or getting even basic things working reliably in ways that would make driving safer and more enjoyable. Make your own conclusions about buying one. I would steer clear, literally, knowing some of the bugs in there.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#664

Post by andbberger »

simondotau wrote: post #650
andbberger wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one of them will drive at least as well as a human learner driver and the other will probably refuse to move. refusing to move is a feature not a bug. and human learners don't slam into a jersey barrier because there's some glare. why tesla bros continue to insist that they have a good vision stack while they can't even do contrast adaptation is beyond me. the dril tweet comes to mind

Instances of "slamming into a jersey barrier" are on highways and by definition involve the legacy Autopilot stack and not the FSD beta vision stack. I agree that the tesla bros are extremely cringe, but I'm equally unimpressed with criticisms that rely upon ignorance of basic facts about the thing being criticised. Tesla is deserving of a lot of criticism for a lot of things, but they are clear about the distinction…

humans don't crash into shaded jersey barriers, as a tesla famously did. contrast adaptation of CCDs pale in comparison to that of the retina. there a ton of literature on contrast adaptation in the retina and in neuroscience in general, i would suggest you look there

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#665

Post by kwhitefoot »

Fatnino wrote: post #641
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.

That's embarrassing for you, no?

Not at all. I'm sure that with practice i could outperform the car. But why bother? My view of the automation in my car is that together we both drive better than either of us do on our won.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#666

Post by wkat4242 »

randerson wrote: post #628
jimkleiber wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

Agreed. I live in a city with amazing and cheap public transport and I love it. Apart from the things you mentioned a car also means you always have to go back to the place you left it. I walk lot and not having to worry about that really helps.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#667

Post by TaylorAlexander »

hengestone wrote: post #661
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect these decisions are driven from the top down. We know who loves a shiny tech choice at Tesla. The company has been quite proud of their end to end ML system in presentations. But it sounds like they’re struggling with execution.

My brother in law works as an engineer for Tesla Palo Alto: according to him these features are all driven from the very top. Always at the expense of fixing bugs, or getting even basic things working reliably in ways that would make driving safer and more enjoyable. Make your own conclusions about buying one. I would steer clear, literally, knowing some of the bugs in there.

This tracks with everything we’re seeing at Twitter now. A passion for high level feature ideas and an apparent disinterest in confounding issues or technical complications.

As a robotics engineer for a long time I thought they were ahead of the curve. But I am beginning to see that their big bet isn’t paying off, and I’ve taken more of an interest in going back and listening to those people who said it wasn’t going to work.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#668

Post by dreamcompiler »

tverbeure wrote: post #585
logifail wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the software has stagnated [..] I've only owned ICE vehicles (lifetime total: 3, 2 of which are parked outside right now), and have only ever rented ICE vehicles (lifetime total: several hundred, the latest of which is in the long-stay at London Heathrow right now...) I'm unable to get my head around talk of a vehicle's software "stagnating"? AFAIK none of the vehicles I've ever driven had OTA updates, and from…

A few months ago, Tesla rolled out a new feature where it will give a gentle ping if you’re standing in front of a stop light and the light turns green. I love it.

That used to be part of the expensive FSD package, and it was the only part I liked. Glad it's standard now.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#669

Post by dreamcompiler »

thefounder wrote: post #599
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…

Tesla's evaluation is closely related to its FSD promise. Not to mention it already sold future "fsd" options. If FSD is out then you have just a dumb car. How do you justify your evaluation(i.e worth the entire auto industry EV or ICE)?

Maybe you don't? Maybe you learn to live with an accurate valuation based on the company's record of innovation in batteries, motors, and castings? Not to mention heat pumps, aerodynamics, nearly flawless worldwide charging infrastructure, etc?

Is it really better to have a hyperinflated valuation based on vaporware that risks falling off a cliff when people get tired of the lies?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#670

Post by kranke155 »

Zigurd wrote: post #624
kranke155 wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair but I’d imagine 90%+ of taxi/uber rides are inside cities.

Really hoping that they bring the cost down. I’m a way it seems like Musk was half right - the cost for these just doesn’t work (according to the comment).

Post reply on HN