121–130 of 165 posts
This is the sort of thing that occurs when the interests of the public become subordinate to the interests of a lawless aristocracy. Financial, social and public safety considerations are costs that can be transferred to the public to preserve the wealth of a few individuals.
FTA: "For comparison, the average human driver in the US crashes about once every 500,000 miles." Does anyone know what the cite for this might be? I'm coming up empty. To my knowledge, no one (except maybe insurance companies) tallies numbers for fender bender style accidents. This seems like a weirdly high number to me, it's very rare to find any vehicle that reaches 100k miles without at least one bump or two requ…
This NHTSA report agrees with those numbers[1]. It reports 6,138,359 crashes and 3,246,817,000,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled in the US for 2023, which comes to about 530k miles per crash. The data comes from FARS which only reports fatalities, and CRSS which only includes crashes reported to the police[2]. It also only includes crashes on roadways (or from cars driving off roadways), not parking lots and other private p…
[1] Source: I've hit a garbage can and told no one. Until this moment.
This is the sort of thing that occurs when the interests of the public become subordinate to the interests of a lawless aristocracy. Financial, social and public safety considerations are costs that can be transferred to the public to preserve the wealth of a few individuals.
In the aristocracy's defense, we voted for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the aristocracy's defense, we voted for this.
Without taking money out of politics, the assertion that "we" are to blame has to assume advertising and influence peddling doesn't work.
Slap a STUDENT DRIVER bumper sticker on them so we can all give them space!
It should say INDUSTRIAL ROBOT. You wouldn't willingly enter the hazard zone of a KUKA. Why should we casually accept them roaming free?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how Gemini's fabrication has any validity. What is it based on?
It is at least as reliable as the data in the electrek article. My point is that the data naturally has error margins that are clearly large enough to make drawing concrete conclusions impossible.
I don't see why you say that.
> My point is that the data naturally has error margins that are clearly large enough to make drawing concrete conclusions impossible.
I don't understand this one either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: Waymo > solid engineering defense for moving towards just computer vision COUNTERPOINT: WAYMO
We don't know enough about the internals of either one of them to make a judgement. The only one that is, is Comma.ai.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems solvable, no? Not saying it isn’t really damn important, but those have stop signs and flashing lights. It seems like they can fix that.
Solvable yes, but it's a perfect example of it not being solved yet despite this person's anecdotes. Engineering problems aren't limited to a single solution anyhow. Anyone ruling out a camera based solution has very little imagination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla is free to provide information that debunks these claims. They're the ones who redacted the details of the incidents in the first place.
This is the state of accepted journalism now? Fabricate ridiculous claims and then make the target of your hit piece responsible for refuting it?
Despite that, the article and the public (the target of the hit piece that encourages people to endanger themselves with a system that has not been demonstrated to be safe with the direct intent of enriching the owners of Tesla) directly refute Tesla's ridiculous claims demonstrating they are off by multiple orders of magnitude using basic mandatory data reporting for their Robotaxi program which is using systems more advanced, fine-tuned, geofenced, with professional safety drivers (thus we can only reasonably assume that their normal system is worse), but which actually has scrutinized reporting requirements.
And yet now you argue that the entity fabricating ridiculous claims for their own enrichment, Tesla, is not only not responsible, but target of the hit piece, the ones that clearly and debunked Tesla's claims as deceptive, are not only responsible for refuting it but are responsible for demonstrating a level of rigor that is unimpeachable when the original fabricated claim lacks even the elements of rigor we expect out of your average middle school science fair, let alone a literal trillion dollar company.
Talk about double standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without taking money out of politics, the assertion that "we" are to blame has to assume advertising and influence peddling doesn't work.
We can be subject to influence and still remain responsible for our own actions.
Nevertheless, getting big money donations out of politics would be a big improvement.