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

Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 286 posts

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#241

Post by tzs »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #195
bko wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want Tesla's behavior to change - and other automakers take notice and not repeat the behavior - then the fine must be meaningful to them. What behavior do you want them to change? Remove FSD from their cars? It's been nearly 10 years since released and over 3bn miles driven. There's one case where someone died while fetching his cell phone. You would think if it was really dangerous, people would be dying i…

I went into a Tesla dealership nearly 10 years ago to take a look at the cars, and the salespeople were telling me - in no uncertain terms - that the cars were fully self-driving. I knew that was complete nonsense, because I knew people who worked on Tesla's self-driving software, but that's how Tesla salespeople were selling the cars.

10 years ago Tesla didn't even have Autopilot. All they had as far as I can tell was lane departure warnings, speed alerts, manual cruise control, some sort of of automatic parking, and low speed summoning on private property.

Could the dealer have been referring to the automatic parking or the summoning?

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#242

Post by Dylan16807 »

mantas wrote: post #232
Dylan16807 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If traffic in a city was mostly busses and trucks you'd only need two lanes for them and the walking experience could get a lot nicer.

You’d still have massive metal boxes passing you. On top of that, that’d likely mean highways torn up and replaced by narrow streets. Which would mean more traffic closer to people on sidewalks. The reverse of this happened here in backwaters of Eastern Europe. Before there was no city bypasses and in-city highways. Traffic was tenfold smaller because there were much much fewer private vehicles. But most of it was bu…

> You’d still have massive metal boxes passing you.

With more distance.

> On top of that, that’d likely mean highways torn up and replaced by narrow streets. Which would mean more traffic closer to people on sidewalks.

I'm not suggesting that. You can leave the limited access roads alone for now.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#243

Post by bumby »

usefulcat wrote: post #134
HWR_14 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing that dissolving your LLC as a punishment would include the forfeiture of all the associated assets, not distributing them to shareholders.

The “LL” in LLC stands for Limited Liability. The whole point is to financially insulate the owner(s).

“Piercing the corporate veil” is a viable way to hold individuals accountable so they doing hide behind the limited liability in certain cases, like fraud.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#244

Post by yihtserns »

tzs wrote: post #239
yihtserns wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://web.archive.org/web/20211002045634/https://www.tesla... : > Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and *full self-driving capabilities* — through software updates designed to improve functionality over time. > Tesla's Autopilot AI team drives the future of autonomy of current and new generations of vehicles. Learn about the team and apply to help accelera…

The crash in this case occurred on April 25, 2019. The advertising then was that the cars had the hardware for self driving in the future.

Context:

> > > What behavior do you want them to change?

> > Don't advertise their driver assist system as "full self driving".

> The system involved in this crash was never advertised as "full self driving".

I assume "system involved in this crash" is referring to "Tesla Autopilot"; my reply was to contradict the statement '...*was never* advertised as "full self driving"'.

But you mentioning a date made me curious about when the advert text was changed:

- "...in the future" was added ~1.5 months before the accident: https://web.archive.org/web/20190306042234/https://www.tesla...

- "...in the future" was removed ~1.5 months after that lawsuit was filed: https://web.archive.org/web/20210603132215/https://www.tesla...

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#245

Post by mantas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #242
mantas wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d still have massive metal boxes passing you. On top of that, that’d likely mean highways torn up and replaced by narrow streets. Which would mean more traffic closer to people on sidewalks. The reverse of this happened here in backwaters of Eastern Europe. Before there was no city bypasses and in-city highways. Traffic was tenfold smaller because there were much much fewer private vehicles. But most of it was bu…

> You’d still have massive metal boxes passing you. With more distance. > On top of that, that’d likely mean highways torn up and replaced by narrow streets. Which would mean more traffic closer to people on sidewalks. I'm not suggesting that. You can leave the limited access roads alone for now.

Why more distance? Streets wouldn’t get wider. Rather if you try to dense-up the city, streets will go narrower.

Besides complete hellholes like 80s US from the famous parking lot pictures, when trying to dense up the city, wide major streets would go first being built up. At least here there massive parking lots to just build on exist mostly on the outskirts. There’s no point in building on them. Going closer to downtown, lots of underground parking with private property on top. Some multi-floor private garages that cost a lot of money to build and unlikely to get torn down any time soon, especially if street parking was gone making it even bigger deficit. If you remove street parking, there won’t be space to fit in anything meaningful without rebuilding stuff around it. Which is not gonna happen in meaningful scale in sane timespan.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#246

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

tzs wrote: post #241
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went into a Tesla dealership nearly 10 years ago to take a look at the cars, and the salespeople were telling me - in no uncertain terms - that the cars were fully self-driving. I knew that was complete nonsense, because I knew people who worked on Tesla's self-driving software, but that's how Tesla salespeople were selling the cars.

10 years ago Tesla didn't even have Autopilot. All they had as far as I can tell was lane departure warnings, speed alerts, manual cruise control, some sort of of automatic parking, and low speed summoning on private property. Could the dealer have been referring to the automatic parking or the summoning?

Autopilot launched in 2014. "Full Self Driving" has been offered as an upgrade since 2016. Musk has been saying that fully autonomous driving is just around the corner (1-3 years away) since 2015.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#247

Post by milch »

yihtserns wrote: post #244
tzs wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crash in this case occurred on April 25, 2019. The advertising then was that the cars had the hardware for self driving in the future.

Context: > > > What behavior do you want them to change? > > Don't advertise their driver assist system as "full self driving". > The system involved in this crash was never advertised as "full self driving". I assume "system involved in this crash" is referring to "Tesla Autopilot"; my reply was to contradict the statement '...*was never* advertised as "full self driving"'. But you mentioning a date made me curious…

It's a dumb argument anyway. Most normies think autopilot means the plane flies itself. At the very least they think it flies itself except for landing or takeoff. By the technical definition of an autopilot perhaps they were correct, but not by the colloquial meaning

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#248

Post by tzs »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #246
tzs wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 years ago Tesla didn't even have Autopilot. All they had as far as I can tell was lane departure warnings, speed alerts, manual cruise control, some sort of of automatic parking, and low speed summoning on private property. Could the dealer have been referring to the automatic parking or the summoning?

Autopilot launched in 2014. "Full Self Driving" has been offered as an upgrade since 2016. Musk has been saying that fully autonomous driving is just around the corner (1-3 years away) since 2015.

He's been saying it was just around the corner for a long time, but it wasn't until 2020 that FSD they actually made it available to a limited number of customers in beta.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#249

Post by jjaksic »

numitus wrote: post #240

AI system manufacturers want to sell their products by advertising their superhuman reliability, but they don't want to take responsibility for any mistakes. I should mention that I don't have any Tesla cars in my environment, but a friend of mine claimed in 2017 that the car was capable of fully autonomous and safe driving without human intervention. It's interesting how advertising can distort the essence of techno…

My wife and I have 2 teslas, a HW3 and a HW4. Even late last year FSD 12.5 was nowhere near close to being able to drive safely. Any non-straightforward situation (like merging during rush hour) would throw it off, so critical interventions were required at least daily.

Starting with FSD 13 on HW4, which came out last December, it's improved dramatically, and since then in my case it hasn't needed a single critical intervention. I think 12.6 on HW3 is also quite good.

The caveat is that we live in the Bay Area, which has an abundance of Tesla training data. Elsewhere I've heard the experience isn't as good. And of course, even in the Bay Area the reliability needs to get a few orders of magnitude higher to be suitable for fully unsupervised self-driving.

Re: Tesla must pay portion of $329M damages after fatal Autopilot crash, jury says

#250

Post by yihtserns »

milch wrote: post #247
yihtserns wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context: > > > What behavior do you want them to change? > > Don't advertise their driver assist system as "full self driving". > The system involved in this crash was never advertised as "full self driving". I assume "system involved in this crash" is referring to "Tesla Autopilot"; my reply was to contradict the statement '...*was never* advertised as "full self driving"'. But you mentioning a date made me curious…

It's a dumb argument anyway. Most normies think autopilot means the plane flies itself. At the very least they think it flies itself except for landing or takeoff. By the technical definition of an autopilot perhaps they were correct, but not by the colloquial meaning

It won't happen, but I really wish to see Tesla lawyers telling the court "we know the advert text, video, and the term 'Autopilot' are misleading, but they're just, you know, 'corporate puffery'".
Post reply on HN