651–660 of 864 posts
An automatic software update is not a recall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly feel people ought to have these discussions while consistently citing actual data sources relevant to the discussion. For example, did you predict, based on the speculation of Tesla being incompetent with regard to safety, that they have the lowest probability of injury scores of any car manufacturer? Because they do. Did you predict, based on speculation about Elon Musk's incompetence in predicting that s…
A system that protects 400 people but kills 1 is not a system that I want on public roads because I don't want to be in the 1 - Elon and the children of Elon are basically making the assumption that everyone is okay with this. The probability of an accident for any driver assistance system will ALWAYS be lower than a human driver - but that doesn't mean the system is safe for use with the general public! People like…
Totally we should be wary of a system that protects 400 and kills 1. Thank you for providing the numbers. It helps me show my point more clearly.
If you are driving on a road you encounter cars. Each car is a potential accident risk. You probably encounter a few hundred cars after ten or so miles. Not every car crash kills, but lets just assume they all do to make this simpler. For the stat you propose, you are talking about feeling uncomfortable with an accident per mile of something around the ballpark of ten miles.
Now lets look at the data. The data suggests the actual miles per accident is closer to 6,000,000 miles per accident. This is six orders of magnitude diverged from the number of miles per accident that you imply would make you feel uncomfortable.
Lets try shifting that around to a context people are more familiar with: a one dollar purchase would be a soft drink and a six million dollar purchase would be something like buying a house in the bay area. This is a pretty big difference I think. I feel very differently about buying a soft drink versus buying a house in the Bay Area. If someone told me they felt that buying a house was cheap, then gave a proposed price for the house that was more comparable to the cost of buying a soft drink, I might suspect they should check the dataset to get a better estimate of the housing prices, because it might give them a more reasonable estimate.
So I very strongly feel we should cite the numbers we use. For example, I feel like you should really try and back up the use of the 400 to 1 number so I understand why you feel that is a reasonable number, because I do not feel that it is a reasonable number.
> Also if this was about safety and not just a bunch of dudes who think they are cool because their Tesla can kinda drive itself, why does "FSD" cost $16,000?
Uh, we are a on venture capitalist adjacent forum. You obviously know. But... well, the price of FSD is tuned to ensure the company is profitable despite the expense of creating it as is common in capitalist economies with healthy companies seeking to make a profit in exchange for providing value. It is actually pretty common for high effort value creation, like creation of a self-driving car or the performance of surgery, for the prices to be higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We should probably go beyond the verbiage of recall but right now since it is removing a feature I think that recall is appropriate. A better verbiage might be safety reversion .
The remedy OTA software update will improve how FSD Beta negotiates certain driving maneuvers during the conditions described above, whereas a software release without the remedy does not contain the improvements.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get that gloating when your enemies fail is one of life's big pleasures, but would your opinion on the guy change if we lived an alternate universe where Tesla had gotten FSD working?
To answer your question, no, I am utterly unenthusiastic about FSD. When I want to leave the driving to someone else I'll take the train. I suppose I think that's better in the long run, better for society in addition to being better for the planet. I know it's not a popular take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The industry needs to come up with a new related term like "Software Recall" Recalling the hardware is a drastically more difficult request to impose on customers and financially/logistically for the car maker. That's a disporportate response just to highlight importance of an OTA update.
> Recalling the hardware is a drastically more difficult request to impose on customers and financially/logistically for the car maker. And the distinction matters to consumers because...? A component is faulty. It needs to be fixed. Whether or not you have to drive to a dealership, if it's OTA, if someone at a dealership needs to plug a specialized device to your car's OBD port, or the car is unfixable and needs to…
A recall should unambiguously mean that some action from the owner is required to resolve the issue (e.g. taking it to a dealer to get a software update installed.)
If no action is required (other than caution / not using the product feature), we should use some other term such as "safety advisory" to avoid ambiguity around critical safety information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly feel people ought to have these discussions while consistently citing actual data sources relevant to the discussion. For example, did you predict, based on the speculation of Tesla being incompetent with regard to safety, that they have the lowest probability of injury scores of any car manufacturer? Because they do. Did you predict, based on speculation about Elon Musk's incompetence in predicting that s…
Interesting graph, I like that it's broken out into quarters. But, 1) those are statistics for the old version, the new version might be completely different. I've had enough one-line fixes break entire features I was not aware of that my view is that any change invalidates all the tests. (Including the tests that Tesla should have but doesn't) Now probably a given update does not cause changes outside its local area…
Just for context - I've been in a self-driving vehicle. Anecdotally, someone slammed on the breaks. The car stopped for me, but I was shocked: for hours before this the traffic hadn't changed, it was a cross country trip. I think I would have probably gotten in an accident there. Also anecdotally, there are times where I felt the car was not driving properly. So I took over. I think it could have gotten into an accident. Basically, for me, the best explanation I have for the data I've seen right now is that human + self-driving is currently better than human and currently better than self-driving. The interesting thing about this explanation is how well it tracks with other times where we've technology like this before. In chess playing for example, there was a period before complete AI supremacy (which is what we have now) where human + AI was better than AI.
I like the idea of being safe, so if the evidence goes the other way, advocating for only humans or only AI doing the driving, I want to follow that evidence. Right now I think it shows the mixed strategy is best and that is kind of nice to me because it implies that the policy that best collects data to reduce future accidents through learning happens to be the policy that is currently being used. I like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, the term recall conjures images of vehicles having to be taken back to the dealership to get repaired, replaced, or refunded. The recall announced here is just an over the air software update. It's worth pointing this out.
The question you need to be asking is how many of these safety events they have swept under the rug because a fix is always "just an over the air software update" away. This recall only happened because, god forbid, the NHTSA got off its ass and actually tested something.
Where did you find this info? The article says it was Tesla that did a voluntary recall. The NHTSA was not the one who did any testing and was not involved in the decision. The report, which is linked in the article is authored by Tesla with no involvement from NHTSA.
If I am misinterpreting something I thank you in advance for pointing it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> whether it's a true physical recall I hope by participating in this thread you're aware by now but just to be clear there is no "physical" recall necessary. The recall is about documentation, customer awareness, and fixing the problem. "Physical recall" is meaningless and unimportant, it's not what "recall" means at all.
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.
> Why do you hate the idea of going to Mars so much? Because there is so much to do on earth? Literally everyone is here. What other answer does anyone else need? All this Mars fandom sounds to me like clinically depressed sci-fi.