Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with your comparison is that the company that is "the spacex of FSD" is Waymo. And even them can not get FSD right.
Isn't comma.ai the SpaceX of fsd?
[deleted]
Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
581–590 of 691 posts
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#582If Google can't do it with its massive resources and sensors don't ever expect a Tesla to perform better than this. It's time for Elon to pay the piper and refund all users who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Especially people who's cars are nearing end of life.
>> who were hoodwinked into purchasing FSD. Fools and their money. Like most every expensive car, Teslas are luxury vehicles and fashion statements. People buy them because they are cool. That product was delivered. As for future features, nobody should believe Telsa's advertising any more than we do Microsoft's advertising about how the next version of Windows will solve all our computing problems. The hamburger nev…
[deleted]
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think people vastly overestimate the challenges of weather conditions for self driving. This remark makes me wonder if you've ever lived in an area that actually experiences winter. Around here, dead of winter, there are no lines visible on the streets. Heck, after a good snow storm the lanes are basically a function of group consensus.
This is a situation where automation has the advantage. With detailed position information and detailed maps, the fact that the lines on the street can't be seen is irrelevant. The car didn't need them anyway. (noting that Waymo requires full detail maps to be able to drive an area, including all signage).
So, couple things.
First, it's optimistic to assume that data is accurate and up-to-date.
Second, I can't emphasize my "group consensus" point enough.
Anyone who's driven in real world winter conditions has seen a day where three lane roads turn into two. Or lanes form in the shoulder. It'd be actively dangerous to insist on driving according to the underlying lane markings during those types of road conditions.
Maybe in a world where all cars are autonomous and using map data that could work. In reality it really doesn't.
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#584Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait do you mean? As in, the highways proposed in 1955 weren’t built? I’m not sure how highways going through SF would make it easier to drive in SF (outside of the highways): wouldn’t that generally increase traffic and conflicts?
> wouldn’t that generally increase traffic and conflicts? When coupled to our additional refusal to build housing, sadly, yeah. What two things do people usually commute between?
So just to clarify, you're thinking that traffic would increase because people would live outside SF and commute in? But don't people who live in SF need to get to work too? In that case, it seems like having giant highways carving up the city is going to make walking / biking to work harder which would cause more people to drive to work. That's what we see in "car-oriented" cities and it leads to an increase in traffic congestion that makes it miserable to drive, in addition to an environment that makes it miserable to do anything else but drive.
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that? and what are the two approaches?
Waymo is trying to solve the environment. They're HD mapping every centimeter of areas they operate in, so that they can let their vision systems focus on deviations from that single source of truth. It's a reasonable approach, but it has some significant limitations, especially in terms of infrastructure. Tesla, on the other hand, is trying to make their cars work anywhere. It's a larger problem space, but the end g…
> but the end goal is a far more robust product
What about Tesla's approach makes you think it is inherently more robust?
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the commercial value is achieved at Level 4. I'm curious what all the folks who claimed this was decades away are thinking?
I think almost no commercial value is at 4. I'm fact, it could be negative value. Because you need the expense of a "digital driver" and the expense of a human driver. It's basically level 5 or bust.
Level 4 (e.g. highways in good weather) is something that people buying cars will pay a significant amount for as an option in good weather. It does nothing for those who want robotaxis. But the former don't care about the latter.
You have multiple groups of drivers including those who appreciate self-driving assistance on long boring highway stretches and may not even drive in cities that much and those who never want to get behind a wheel or perhaps ever own a car.
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bizarre thing to say when all of those roads exist, more or less, except for the Embarcadero which was removed after it collapsed in the 1989 earthquake (and was a crazy eye sore). It is certainly true that the taste for elevated highways through cities has waned given the pollution and dust and general unsightliness that it produces. In the 1950s, when cars were all the rage, people were very excited by th…
> This is a bizarre thing to say when all of those roads exist, more or less Personally, as an SF resident I would much prefer all the cars to be tunneled or elevated instead of idling in front of my house or blowing loudly through my block. It's a safety issue. When there's only so much surface area where else are people supposed to build except up and down? That's why we have skyscrapers, and those don't seem to pr…
> Personally, as an SF resident I would much prefer all the cars to be tunneled or elevated instead of idling in front of my house or blowing loudly through my block. It's a safety issue.
This is a false choice though. It would be better to design the city in such a way that we don't need personal automobiles for most trips. Building high-speed roads (elevated or not) through a city tends to have the opposite effect. If you live in SF, just think of the parts of the city that do have high speed roads. Is it pleasant to walk along division street? People choose their mode of transit based on what feels safe and convenient to them.
In the space and money taken up by an elevated highway, we could have low-speed mixed-use streets and an entire separate highway for bikes, and it would be safer and quieter.
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#588Why not have a remote driver? Like call centers but for driving?
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#589Earlier quoted context omitted.
Waymo is trying to solve the environment. They're HD mapping every centimeter of areas they operate in, so that they can let their vision systems focus on deviations from that single source of truth. It's a reasonable approach, but it has some significant limitations, especially in terms of infrastructure. Tesla, on the other hand, is trying to make their cars work anywhere. It's a larger problem space, but the end g…
> but the end goal is a far more robust product What about Tesla's approach makes you think it is inherently more robust?
Tesla does not want HD maps. They want to be able to place the car somewhere it's never seen and have it drive itself competently. That's by definition more robust than requiring HD maps to navigate anywhere.
Re: Welcoming our first riders in San Francisco
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember this one bit from a video on self driving cars back a few years ago where someone basically said that self driving cars would not work well in cities because people will always want to mess with the cars just because they can. Consider how in the early 2000s when people would mess around with AIM's smarterchild chat bot and gave it outlandish scenarios just to see how it would react. I have to imagine you…
Is everyone forgetting that they have a ton of cameras, sensors, lidar, etc on their cars? Messing with the cars means they have a full 3D video of you doing it.
You just need to wear a mask and basic clothing. Sensors totally useless.