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

Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 864 posts

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#571

Post by mrguyorama »

yawz wrote: post #261

"Tesla will deliver an over-the-air software update to cars to address the issues, the recall notice said" A bit of a sensational title compared to what this really is.

No it isn't. Recall means "The manufacturer sold you something they should not have, and are legally required to remedy that problem". It has NOTHING to do with the action needing to be taken. It has NOTHING to do with the product category. Lots of recalls, ie for food or child toys, basically say "throw it out".

The people who keep making this "Recall means go back to the dealer" claim is simply down to them never paying attention to all the recalls in the world that don't make it to their mailbox like car recalls do.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#572

Post by londons_explore »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #352
jeffbee wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the energy cost of the return trip, it makes abundant sense.

Propellant for the return trip can be made on Mars using the Sabatier process. This has been known for decades. (This is why the engines for Starship are designed to use methane). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

But it's probably cheaper to just make a new ship.

It's mostly made of iron and steel, that we have here on earth in abundance.

One day, the economics of return trips will work out. But to begin with at least, all trips will be one-way.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#573

Post by panick21_ »

root_axis wrote: post #398
panick21_ wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but don't you have to weigh that against the potential of avoiding accidents by reacting quicker then you as a human can? I have defiantly seen cases where FSD Beta stopped and the driver didn't understand instantly understand why. Or simpler cases where the car follows a lane while the driver wasn't paying attention (adjusting the radio or whatever). Those can easily lead to an accident but are unlikely to if you…

The calculation is easy, FSD does the wrong thing so often that there's no question a human driver is safer.

The question is not if FSD makes mistakes, its if FSD+a human driver monitoring is worse then a human driver.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#574

Post by mrguyorama »

linsomniac wrote: post #433
alberth wrote: post #271

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)

How would the FSD beta program kill me? 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 t…

How can you be sure you aren't just being overconfident about your ability to prevent an accident?

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#575

Post by idop »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #470

I found an interesting phrase in the official report. NHTSA formally says that not respecting 'local driving customs' is a defect: ...the feature could potentially infringe upon local traffic *laws or customs* while executing certain driving maneuvers... Do they want Tesla to create a DB with 'allowed' and 'locally faux pas' driving maneuvers? It sure reads like they do.

Yes, and good that they do.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#576

Post by eecc »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #190
buildbot wrote: post #176

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.

Recall implies something being returned. This should be called a mandatory software patch, or something like that. The problem is Tesla owners repeatedly see "recall" to mean "software update", so this might lead to a lot of confusion if a physical recall is actually required in the future.

Well in computing the term “Security Update” is in use, why not call this a “Safety Update”.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#577

Post by QuercusMax »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #366
QuercusMax wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the medical device space, and we will often have "recalls", which usually result in a software patch. Recall != return.

Are these delivered directly to the device and installed overnight automatically (like an iPhone iOS update) or do they have to be hooked up to a computer to install the software update?

I've primarily worked with Software as a Medical Device, so recalls generally involve a config tweak, upgrade, or downgrade.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#578

Post by jillesvangurp »

yabones wrote: post #180
jlv2 wrote: post #154

There really needs to be a distinction between an actual recall (my Model S had one to change the latch on the frunk) and this type of "recall" that is nothing more than an OTA software update.

It's nice that they can quickly fix it without people needing to drive to a service center, but you can understand that people would be concerned by the "may cause crashes" part?

It's a bit of a semantic play here. But there's a difference between it might happen and things actually happening. Tesla has had several safety related "recalls" in the last few years. All of which were fixed without much hassle via an over the air software update. And of course their record on safety kind of speaks for itself. Not a whole lot of bad stuff happening with Teslas relative to other vehicles that are facing issues related to structural integrity of the car. Like wheels might fall off with some Toyota's. Or spontaneous combustion of batteries because of dodgy suppliers (happened to BMW and a few others). Which is of course much harder to fix with a software update and would require an actual recall to get expensive repairs done.

The headline of that many cars being "recalled" is of course nice clickbait. Much better than "cars to receive minor software update that fixes an issue that isn't actually that much of an issue in the real world so far". One is outrage-ism fueled advertising and the other is a bit of a non event. It's like your laptop receiving some security related update. Happens a lot. Is that a recall of your laptop or just an annoying unscheduled coffee break?

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#579

Post by robswc »

Tostino wrote: post #248
Kiro wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you hate the idea of going to Mars so much? https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm I would love to go there, even if it meant I died the second I step foot on it. Getting back would be the last thing on my mind.

There are plenty of other places you could go travel to where you get to see some amazing wonders right before your guaranteed death. Right here on earth too. Why no go for some of those? You can likely do it for cheaper too.

Not OP but IMO, nothing on earth would compare to another planet.

I'm not into space exploration but sometimes I look up at the moon and it blows my mind that we actually went there. Almost feels impossible even. Mars is that x100.

I personally wouldn't want to die on Mars but I understand the appeal.

Re: Tesla recalls 360k vehicles, says full self-driving beta may cause crashes

#580

Post by ggreer »

Veserv wrote: post #318
ggreer wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teslas have understood speed limit signs since 2020.[1] 1. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/upcoming-tesla-software-2020-...

It uses maps for that. I have a winding road near me with a speed limit of 35 mph, but 15 mph on certain curves as indicated by a speed limit sign. It ignores those speed limit signs and will attempt to make the turns at 35 mph resulting in it wildly swerving into the other lane and around a blind turn with maybe 30 feet of visibility. It has also attempted to do it so poorly that it would have driven across the lane…

I'm talking about standard speed limit signs. You're talking about the signs that warn about sharp turns and advise maximum speeds. Yes it would be good if the software understood those signs, but that's a different issue.

Teslas definitely read speed limit signs. I've had mine correctly detect and follow speed limits in areas without connectivity or map data. It also follows speed limits on private drives (if there is a sign) and obeys temporary speed limit signs that have been put up in construction zones.

Post reply on HN