141–150 of 1001 posts
Building a self flying plane is comically easy by comparison. Building Starship is easier by comparison.
Will the review assess overall mortality of the vehicles compared to similar cars, and overall mortality while FSD is in use?
Fatalities per passenger mile driven is the only statistic that would matter. I actually doubt this figure differs much, either way, from the overall fleet of vehicles. This is because "inattentive driving" is _rarely_ the cause of fatalities on the road. The winner there is, and probably always will be, Alcohol.
I'd imagine mobile device use will overtake alcohol soon enough
I'm astonished at how long Musk has been able to keep his autonomous driving con going. He has been lying about it to inflate Tesla shares for 10 years now.
I'm astonished at how long Musk has been able to keep his autonomous driving con going. He has been lying about it to inflate Tesla shares for 10 years now.
[flagged]
I'm astonished at how long Musk has been able to keep his autonomous driving con going. He has been lying about it to inflate Tesla shares for 10 years now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> making 4 report crashes and 1 reported fatality for 2.4 million vehicles over 8 years look miniscule by comparison, that's the wrong comparison the correct comparison is the number of report crashes and fatalities for __unsupervised FSD__ miles driven (not counting Tesla pilot tests, but actual customers)
That seems like a bit of a chicken and egg problem where the software is not allowed to go unsupervised until it racks up a few million miles of successful unsupervised driving.
Tesla currently does not participate in any of these programs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wa…
That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.
Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing flooding.
I worked in 18 a wheeler automation unicorn. Never rode in one once for a reason.
Automate the transfer yards, shipping docks, and trucking terminals. Make movement of cargo across these limited use areas entirely automated and as smooth as butter. Queue drivers up and have their loads automatically placed up front so they can drop and hook in a few minutes and get back on the road. I honestly think that's the _easier_ problem to solve by at least two orders of magnitude.
Solving the problem might not be as easy as you suggest as long as their are powerful unions involved