Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 568 posts

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#111

Post by MSFT_Edging »

monetus wrote: post #56
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your thoughts are likely not very far fetched, but in this case, to the best of my knowledge, IC and LEOs seem to be more worried about stopping individual 'bad guys'( quotations, because I hate this term ) from causing damage with ICE machines hence solutions like mandated remote off switch and so on. On the political assassination front, wasn't there a story out about one such attempt or did I dream it?

You may be thinking of Michael Hastings? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist...

That's the one. Thanks.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#112

Post by jaywalk »

luckylion wrote: post #104
mauvehaus wrote: post #90

I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated. This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability. Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pret…

Isn't a large problem with FSD to do it at speed? If you never go above 5mph, a lot of things suddenly get much simpler because the amount of time you need to stop the car is very close to zero, and you probably don't care how long it takes for your possessed car to make it back to your show room.

I feel like a car driving at 5mph on public roads will absolutely be a problem.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#113

Post by saghm »

luckylion wrote: post #104
mauvehaus wrote: post #90

I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated. This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability. Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pret…

Isn't a large problem with FSD to do it at speed? If you never go above 5mph, a lot of things suddenly get much simpler because the amount of time you need to stop the car is very close to zero, and you probably don't care how long it takes for your possessed car to make it back to your show room.

"Why is there so much traffic today?" "A few cars got repossessed and everyone got stuck behind them"

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#114

Post by ramraj07 »

mauvehaus wrote: post #90

I feel like in order to patent a thing, you should need have to have a credible implementation of the thing being patented. An implementation of this clearly requires at least level 4 autonomy[0], which AFAIK, nobody has demonstrated. This is only slightly closer to a real-world implementation than a patent for asteroid mining, never mind commercial viability. Mind you, I don't consider that a bad thing; this is pret…

For the sake of parenting I think the level of autonomy displayed today is sufficient; as a matter of fact it is likely quite possible even today, in a controlled model city for example.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#115

Post by PaulHoule »

kube-system wrote: post #107
PaulHoule wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1970s my dad found that American car dealerships had no interest in selling small and economical cars at all. Japanese car dealerships have been this way recently, before the pandemic hit we tried to buy a new Honda Fit and had to buy a used one because they had none in inventory because, allegedly, the factory had washed away in a flood but they had a row of 50 CR-Vs made in the same factory. The dealer tried…

Your dealer doesn't know what they're talking about, which is par for the course. You couldn't find a Fit because Honda stopped importing them. They were discontinued in the US due to poor sales.

Not in my neighborhood. The Blue Honda Fit is the ideal getaway car in Tompkins County because you could do donuts in somebody's yard and they tell the cops and then they'd have to flag down every 20th car.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#116

Post by m0llusk »

This seems like nothing but a bunch of existing technologies. Checking account status is not new, updating product software or behavior settings based on account status is not new, automatic driving is not new. Is there really anything new here?

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#117

Post by saxonww »

rkangel wrote: post #71
hd95489 wrote: post #60

I hope they defend it with a vengeance so nobody can copy it

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see this as particularly evil. It's just a more efficient of what already happens in terms of care repossession. What needs to happen is better consumer protection to prevent americans buying cars on finance that they are never going to be able to afford.

I had a different thought - this makes it very appealing to stop selling cars altogether, and only lease or rent them.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#118

Post by jaywalk »

teeray wrote: post #108

Would be interesting case if the repairs to the garage would be more than the value of the car (which may also be totaled).

The car I have today has the sensors to manage not driving through a closed garage door. That's the easiest part of this.

Re: Future Fords could repossess themselves and drive away if you miss payments

#120

Post by LinuxBender »

PaulHoule wrote: post #39
bediger4000 wrote: post #12

This illustrates a problem with current penalties - they're too harsh if you have 100% exact enforcement. Violating auto speed limits is a good example. Society can't enforce speed limits 100% of the time if it relies on the occasional state trooper with a radar gun. Therefore society sets the penalty very high so that the small risk of a citation isn't worth the benefit of speeding. 100% enforcement should have much…

My uncle got a job as a repo man and quit on the second day because somebody pointed a gun at him.

Its awful that your uncle had to experience that.

It's a dangerous job and I don't think they give the repo folks enough information. I recently had to run one of them off as the former property owners had renters that stopped making payments on their vehicle. The repo guy was highly aggressive and was yelling at my family members. I assumed he was just some nutjob and had no idea he was a repo guy aside from the fact he was driving a tow truck without any company logo. I assumed he was trying to steal my tractor since it's is an antique.

Post reply on HN