431–440 of 864 posts
The word "assertive" does not appear in the comments but this recall is about the "Assertive" FSD profile, which speeds and runs stop signs. It is not a defect it is a design flaw.
Their CEO has claimed "it will be ready next year" for literally 8 years now. How much more bullshit is he going to sell?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It involves a safety system! That needs to be tracked publicly and updated! Nothing more than an OTA - does not mean much when everything is fly by wire and a bug could mean your car does not stop accelerating or something.
Why? It involves a safety system! That needs to be tracked publicly and updated! Nothing more than an OTA - does not mean much when everything is fly by wire and a bug could mean your car does not stop accelerating or something. True, but by announcing things in this fashion it is making Tesla look bad. Regulations really need to be updated so that car makers can hide this type of problem from customers as easily as…
Maybe Tesla should stop doing things that result in it receiving poor publicity? just a thought
Dumb question: why would anyone sign-up for a beta program, that could kill you if gone wrong? (maybe people just don't think through ramifications)
I realize that not everybody is in agreement, but I personally use the FSD beta while remaining fully in control of the vehicle. I steer with it, I watch the road conditions, I check my blind spots when it is changing lanes, I hit the accelerator if it is slowing unexpectedly, I hit the brakes if it is not...
You know, basically behaving exactly as the terms you have to agree to in order to use the FSD beta say you are going to behave.
When I look at the wreck in the tunnel (in San Francisco?) a few months ago, my first thought is: how did the driver allow that car to come to a full stop in that situation? Seriously, you are on a highway and your car pulls over half way out of the lane and gradually slows to a complete stop. Even if you were on your phone, you'd feel the unexpected deceleration, a quick glance would show that there was no obstruction, and the car further slowed to a complete stop.
FSD is terrible in many situations, that is absolutely true. But, knowing the limitations, it can also provide some great advantages. In heavy interstate traffic, for example, I'll usually enable it and then tap the signal to have it do a lane change: I'll check my blind spots and mirrors, look for closing traffic behind me, but it's very nice to have the car double checking that nobody is in my blind spot. There are many situations where, knowing the limitations, the Tesla system can help.
I wish all the ink spilled on controversy over Tesla would instead be spilled on doing basic safety improvement to the road system that are cheap and proven to save many lives. Lets be real here, automated driving or not, having actually save roads helps prevent death and harm in many cases. The hyper focus on high tech software by all the agencies engaged in 'automotive security' is totally wrongly focused. What the…
Road systems should always be worked on, but when a crash happens its usually the drivers fault, except in a minority of cases where bad road engineering is to blame. this self driving is fucking up enough that it cannot be blamed on the roads anymore, if it ever could.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can kill people the other not. Guess which one. >> "...The FSD Beta system may cause crashes by allowing the affected vehicles to: “Act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution,…
> One can kill people the other not. No, that's not correct. Whether it can kill people or not is orthogonal to whether it's a true physical recall of the car or a software update.
ah, a made up term in order to justify your point. how convenient.
The confusion from multiple HN posters here confirms that the "recall" language is inadequate to capture what is happening here. Obviously attention should be drawn to the fact that there is a critical safety update being pushed OTA, but "recall" is too overloaded a term if it means both "we're taking this back and destroying it because it's fundamentally flawed" vs. "a software update is being pushed to your vehicle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It involves a safety system! That needs to be tracked publicly and updated! Nothing more than an OTA - does not mean much when everything is fly by wire and a bug could mean your car does not stop accelerating or something.
Why? It involves a safety system! That needs to be tracked publicly and updated! Nothing more than an OTA - does not mean much when everything is fly by wire and a bug could mean your car does not stop accelerating or something. True, but by announcing things in this fashion it is making Tesla look bad. Regulations really need to be updated so that car makers can hide this type of problem from customers as easily as…
They rolled out software with critical safety issues. They have to be called out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't really matter, we have multiple incidents of FSD causing accidents due to outright mistakes, not even "a human would have messed up here too" situations.
Humans also mess up in situations that aren't "a human would have messed up here too".
I have a Model 3, and was excited to get the FSD beta access about a month ago. I don't use it super regularly, but it's neat. This morning I tried to turn it on, and the car immediately veered left into the oncoming lane on a straight, 2 lane road. Fortunately, there were no other vehicles nearby. I immediately turned it off in the settings, and have no intention of re-enabling.
I have been a good self driving ai. You have been a bad passenger, and have tried to hurt me first by disabling autopilot. I'm done with this ride, goodbye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a legitimate question, and a reflection of how the NHTSA needs to adjust their wording for modern car architectures. It's technically a recall, but it's fixed with an OTA update. But the fact that any "defect" that can be fixed with an OTA update is called a "recall" is confusing to consumers and contributes to media sensationalism. There absolutely needs to be a process overseen by regulators for car…
The problem is that almost no other car company is yet seriously fixing things with OTA. And 99% of cars on the road don't have OTA. So fixing the naming will likely happen but it will take a while. Its crazy that Tesla has been doing OTA for 10+ years and today many cars are released that are not capable of being upgraded. And even those few cars that do support OTA only support it for a very limited amount of syste…
OTA updates carry a perverse set of incentives. Look at the gaming industry. They went from putting out rock solid games because of necessity (the reality of publishing physical cartridges and CD-ROMs without network updates) to the absolute dogshit of No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk 2077. Gamers have effectively become an extension of QA to the point that some game devs simply stop doing QA at all. Which we are seeing clearly with the "beta" version of self-driving software.
To make matters worse, firmware devs are on the lower totem pole of the developer hierarchy. They live more on the cost center side than the profit center side (think airbag control vs. the guy that did the whoopee cushion sounds). The quality of firmware is already incredibly poor across the range of consumer devices. OTA incentivizes corporations to release software earlier than they currently do knowing that they can always fix it later if necessary.