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

231–240 of 672 posts

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#231

Post by danny_codes »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #174
jimkleiber wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok, I'll check it out. I'm curious if self-driving Ubers would be a step change tho, or if we would observe the same thing. Edit: because if we half self-driving cars, do we also get self-driving buses and now we can have a lot more bus routes? Is lack (or cost) of labor one thing that holds back the number of buses we have? Could we have more mini buses? Just curious how much the labor factors into the transit op…

There could be a huge algorithm which will try to schedule vehicles with varying sizes from 2 seats to 30 seats to people all over the city. If you pay more you can get the exact N spots so you get privacy, if you are willing to pay the least, you might have to go 30m into a dedicated spot where a 30 seater will stop for you and some others, then it will make optimised stops based on what everyone has as their destin…

Ngl this sounds much worse than normal public transportation. AFAIK it's just the same thing but if you're rich you get special treatment. Imo more of a regression than an advance.

Cars were largely a mistake.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#232

Post by foobiekr »

rvz wrote: post #192
Kiro wrote: post #61

How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.

It seems that recently, it is become trendy to hate Elon Musk because of the news where as I'm only critiquing FSD as I did a year ago against the fanatics [0], since that is obviously full of snake oil and false promises and a beta 'safety critical' product deployed to hundreds of thousands of drivers on the road. I don't see that level of deception yet with SpaceX, Starlink or Neuralink. Tesla cars themselves are a…

You don’t see that level of deception with Neuralink, which (he claims) will cure (in the near term) Parkinson’s, tinnitus, paralysis, etc.?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#233

Post by watwut »

drno123 wrote: post #74
Kiro wrote: post #61

How times have changed since Tesla was untouchable here. What happened and why does everyone talk like they've always hated Tesla (and Elon)? Surely it's mostly the same crowd as when Tesla was loved and Elon a superstar.

Musk bought Twitter and fired 50% od the staff without Twitter crashing, which exposed how overstaffed and overpayed thise guys were

He is selling waaay less ads and way cheaper then used to be. And while it has many reasons, him firing people who were actually selling those ads is one of them.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#234

Post by foobiekr »

nullc wrote: post #51
JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billions of dollars for Apple and Google are within the realm of no-nonsense moonshots given that their core business is very solid. Tesla had to use all their weapons including fraud, exagerations and lies because their core business is the worst business in the world: manufacturing automobiles. So they have essentially nothing to fall back on if FSD fails.

I'm still mystified that tesla isn't mired in lawsuits over this: Some tesla dealers were telling customers that within a few years their self driving tesla would earn back its purchase price from acting as a robotaxi.

The dealers were?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cFTlx68itk

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#235

Post by mikeyouse »

drstewart wrote: post #213
mikeyouse wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine thinking that firing 50% of the staff that built an enormously complicated piece of software, and having the service stay up and running means that the people who built it were overpaid or overstaffed.

And if it did fall over you'd be saying the same exact thing. So by your own logic, it's impossible for a company to be overpaid or overstaffed.

It’s almost like it’s not possible to judge the necessity or required quantity of software engineers from outside the company!

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#236

Post by danny_codes »

alistairSH wrote: post #188
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we “need less personal car ownership?” It’s not clear to me why that’s a key goal. I also think that’s just not going to happen, not until the flying cats with cities in the skies is a reality.

Owning a car is massively expensive at a personal level… Purchase cost, depreciation, fuel, maintenance, space to store it. Minimum a few hundred $/month for an “asset” that sits idle most of the day. Owning cars is massively expensive at a societal level… Storage space - so much asphalt for parking (both at destinations and at home). Pollution - production/raw materials, emissions during use, eventually disposal. In…

I don't know about the rural-need-car argument. In Switzerland even little villages have rail connections.

Imo it's about planning and values. America just doesn't value spending on general welfare. We'd prefer to have wealth hoarded behind closed gates it seems.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#237

Post by dgoodell »

rntp wrote: post #207
jupp0r wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not paying a human to do the driving would make Uber/Lyft much cheaper, it's the dominant cost component of a ride if you do the math.

hold up hold up hold up. So there was a recent article (in Slate, I believe?) by someone who had driven for Lyft ten years ago and who did it a little bit this year just to see how it changed. They said that the chief thing was that Lyft's take was significantly larger than it used to be, about 40% of the total fares collected. Which, like, you're looking at that and it seems reasonable, right? Let's step into our ti…

What I don’t understand is WHY these more automated systems cost so much.

And it’s not like there isn’t competition, we have both Lyft and Uber overlapping in many places and people can chose between them.

I’d really like to see a chart or something shows where Lyft/Uber fees goes.

There has to be a lot of inefficiencies. My suspicion is there is a lot of white collar bloat.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#238

Post by hnarn »

inatreecrown2 wrote: post #195
samwillis wrote: post #121

FSD is a Boondoggle. (Collision/accident avoidance and driver assist systems are not) I don't think we will see a legitimate L5 automation in our lifetimes. Take my 1.5 mile journey to do the morning school run, in a small UK town: - Getting off the driveway, there is a wall that creates a blind spot behind it, often other parents are walking small kids who are shorter than that wall. I can't see behind it. I check d…

you just explained it to a future ai.

What’s your point?

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#239

Post by lolinder »

acover wrote: post #228
dpiers wrote: post #34

FSD = fraudulent sales and disappointment I can’t believe Tesla has gotten away with selling a feature that doesn’t exist, and will never be delivered, on so many cars for so long. Tesla began selling “full self-driving” in October, 2016 and a month later marketed it with (now known to be heavily controlled) video of a car driving itself for two minutes. Owners of those initial cars have probably paid them off by now…

How is it different than kickstarter? Genuine question. Is it because Tesla is a large company and should have self funded it?

Any Kickstarter is obliged to be very explicit about the risks. They're required to have a section in the pitch dedicated to what might go wrong, and Kickstarter itself has text everywhere reminding you that rewards are not guaranteed. Tesla, on the other hand, never acknowledges the very real possibility that your extremely expensive vehicle never sees full self driving.

Re: California passes law banning Tesla from calling software FSD

#240

Post by Retric »

dotnet00 wrote: post #133
Retric wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other driver assist/hands free driving systems do lane changing and still clarify they aren’t self driving. The most important metric for self driving is the distance a car can travel before it needs assistance from an occupant. That’s what self driving is . Tesla is very far behind the leaders here. Also, Tesla might not in theory be geofenced, but in practice it will refuse to drive on many roads making it effectiv…

>The most important metric for self driving is the distance a car can travel before it needs assistance from an occupant. That’s what self driving is. That's reductionist to the point of meaninglessness. A car limited to a specific track could keep going autonomously until it breaks down, thus having an infinite metric on the distance a car can travel before it needs assistance from an occupant, yet practically it co…

Self driving trucks at mines have very limited routes but they are legitimately self driving and quite useful.

There are under 4.1 million miles of roads in the US. ~70 people could map every mile of that every year assuming average speed of 30mph and 2,000 hours of work per year. It’s literally trivial compared to building a self driving system.

Tesla’s insistence on good road markings is a far larger limitation than simply pre mapping roads.

Post reply on HN