241–250 of 670 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people own cars when they can just Uber?
Because it’s not convenient enough, and too expensive. Fix those two and personal car ownership will plummet in many places. Many people don’t want to own a car, pay for insurance, gas, tires, oil changes, parking, washing etc. Car ownership sucks horribly for most people, it’s just currently the best option. That will change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people own cars when they can just Uber?
Because it’s not convenient enough, and too expensive. Fix those two and personal car ownership will plummet in many places. Many people don’t want to own a car, pay for insurance, gas, tires, oil changes, parking, washing etc. Car ownership sucks horribly for most people, it’s just currently the best option. That will change.
How do Waymo prices compare to Uber where Waymo exists?
This is really poor execution. You're taking a complex, low margin vehicle and introducing even more cost and supply chain complexity. On top of that, you're essentially making a proxy bet that more expensive hardware (LIDAR) will beat Tesla's software bet. It's absolutely fair to criticize Elon for his ridiculous FSD timeline claims, but here we are now evaluating the market: if you have experienced the latest FSD,…
> if you have experienced the latest FSD, Waymo's and now Rivian's bet is just so obviously the exact wrong bet I have. It’s wild for anyone to say this. Waymo works. FSD mostly works, and I seriously considered getting a Tesla after borrowing one last week. But it needs to be supervised—this is apparent both in its attention requirement and the one time last week it tried to bolt into a red-lit intersection. The sta…
Tesla's already have similar capabilities, in a much wider range of roads, in vehicles that cost 80% less to manufacture.
They're both achieving impressive results. But if you read beyond headlines, Tesla is setup for such more more success than Waymo in the next 1-2 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It already happened. 1/3rd of the global car market is EV. Range is not an issue.
Worthless comment. Of course it's not an issue for city driving. It's an issue for long trips and rural driving. No one said EVs don't serve many use cases. I have one myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A train can't take me to the beach. It can't take me camping away from civilization. It can't haul lumber from a hardware store so I can build a treehouse. I love trains, but let's not pretend there is a perfect Venn diagram of overlap between what their use cases are.
> A train can't take me to the beach Yes it can!! Why can't a train take you to the beach? https://www.amtrak.com/top-beach-destinations-by-train > It can't take me camping away from civilization. How many vehicle miles do you travel every year? How many of those are to go camping? > It can't haul lumber from a hardware store so I can build a treehouse. Have you tried? Like really tried? https://philsturgeon.com/carr…
Of your many points in various posts, this is maybe the only point I'm really on board with. Amtrak already supports this, even. My car can drive me to the train and then the train can do the long haul, and at the other end my car will drive me off the train and to the destination.
Still need waaaay more rail routes than we have now, though, so this is a dream for a century from now, not something in my lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A train can't take me to the beach. It can't take me camping away from civilization. It can't haul lumber from a hardware store so I can build a treehouse. I love trains, but let's not pretend there is a perfect Venn diagram of overlap between what their use cases are.
Trains can take you to the beach and away from civilization. Build a station where you want to go. At one point trains were the most practical way to get to national parks. How often are you building treehouses that you need to pay hundreds of dollars extra a month to justify the cost, versus a one-time delivery fee?
Trains are ok for mass transit. Rest of world is for cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, it seems inevitable that autonomy and insurance are going to be bundled. 1. Courts are finding Tesla partially liable for collisions, so they've already got some of the downsides of insurance (aka the payout) without the upside (the premium). 2. Waymo data shows a significant injury reduction rate. If it's true and not manipulated data, it's natural for the car companies to want to capture some of this upside…
History suggests it won't be that clean. 1. High-severity accidents might drop, but the industry bleeds money on high-frequency, low-speed incidents (parking lots, neighborhood scrapes). Autonomy has diminishing returns here; it doesn't magically prevent the chaos of mixed-use environments. 2. Insurance is a capital management game. We’ll likely see a tech company try this, fail to cover a catastrophic liability due…
This seems like it can be solved with a deductible.
Why do people what self driving cars at all? I certainly hate the thought of having to pay for any of this. Even if the end product is subscription based, all these feature cost money up front making new cars super expensive.
The replies to this comment are very telling. Everyone is highlighting various desires and issues with cars: - Cars are dangerous to people not in cars - Cars require your undivided attention (and even that isn't fool-proof) - Cars are inaccessible: age, eyesight, control operation, etc. - There's a lot of traffic (iow there's a lot of cars) What people are expressing a desire for is more robust public transit and tr…
I'm going to take a guess here that you're in a bubble. Most people don't give more than a passing thought to protecting anybody else on the road but themselves and their own loved ones. You could say enlightened self interest means this should extend to random strangers, but I bet that as a practical matter it does not. I'd even go farther and suggest that the largest plurality of people who support public transit want it so that it will take other people off the road, not them.
Why do people what self driving cars at all? I certainly hate the thought of having to pay for any of this. Even if the end product is subscription based, all these feature cost money up front making new cars super expensive.
One day, all personal transport will be AI, and lunatics like me who enjoy performance driving will have special vehicles we drive at a track. Self driving cars are great. That you can’t afford one is just a matter of time.
If we really gave a shit about driving-related fatalities, there is a lot of fruit hanging way lower than replacing the average sober driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CarPlay and affordability. I was totally smitten last year with the R1S during a test drive. I'm not a car person but felt that spark people must feel when they obsess over their vehicles. But it wasn't pushing-six-figures smitten, which is where you're at when you get a new one with customizations.
>afforadbility This 1000%. Electric cars are supposed to be simple. Give me something in a shape of a Civic, with the engine replaced with a motor and a battery good for 150 miles, and sell it for $10-12k new. Don't even need an entertainment cluster, give me a place to put a tablet or a phone and just have a bluetooth speaker. Instead, we are getting these boutique, expensive vehicles packed full of tech, but in the…
Illegal - backup camera is required. Speakers probably too for alerts. Also you are super naive if you think that's where actual cost is.