US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

Post by peutetre » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 3:57 AM UTC

bagels wrote: post #87

massysett wrote: post #64

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving." Tesla should be sued out of existence.

It didn't always say that. It used to be more misleading, and claim that the cars have "Full Self Driving Hardware", with an exercise for the reader to deduce that it didn't come with "Full Self Driving Software" too.

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:05 AM UTC

mbernstein wrote: post #140

UltraSane wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power. She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous" https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%... . CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three o…

Post by mbernstein » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:11 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #159

mbernstein wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is a great reference, but it doesn't solve our problems now. Just because hydro has prevented more CO2 until now doesn't mean that plus solar are the combination that delivers abundant, clean energy. There are power storage challenges and storage mechanisms aren't carbon neutral. Even if we assume that nuclear, wind, and solar (without storage) all have the same carbon footprint - I believe nuclear is less th…

Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries. Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity factors. When you start talking sub 40% capacity factors the cost per kWh spirals. The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.

Post by ivewonyoung » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:13 AM UTC

mbernstein wrote: post #126

ivewonyoung wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you proposing that cars should have nuclear reactors in them? Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.

Of course not.

Post by BobaFloutist » Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 4:16 AM UTC

dyauspitr wrote: post #79

dzhiurgis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Emergency breaking will sure as hell kill you or at least the person behind you when you’re going 75 or 80 in the first lane.