Live data from Hacker News

Robots eat cars

telemetry.endeff.com

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: Robots eat cars

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limit to EVs makes it fine (if excl. PHEVs). If BYD/Toyota have more models that is fine for the comparison. That is the point.

No, it does not make the comparison unbiased, because other companies, like BYD, may sell in a month as much EV cars as Tesla sells in a quarter, but they are distributed over diverse models, so one Tesla model may indeed sell more than any other model, without this reflecting the EV market share. E.g. for BYD the 2026 target is over 1.5 million exported EV cars, with more than that produced for the internal Chinese…

[deleted]

Re: Robots eat cars

#82
post #2

> Steer-by-wire Thinking back to case-studies around the Therac-25 [0], I would like to pre-emptively highlight the differences between: 1. Technique X is unsafe. 2. Technique X is unsafe because too much can go wrong even with the best intentions. 3. Technique X is unsafe without strong QA and interlocking safety measures, and there's too much economic pressure for the manufacturer to cut corners. [0] https://en.wik…

The obvious problem with steer-by-wire is that in the traditional design, it's not uncommon to lose power assist but not the mechanical connection to the wheels, so you can still steer the car. To completely lose steering control you'd need significant mechanical damage. If the whole thing goes through the computer then there are lots of new ways to fail. Steering wheel position sensor goes bad on the highway? Comput…

Of course, a counterpoint is what's been happening in aviation. Autopilot became a thing. Autoland became a thing. And, to keep improving planes (first military planes, then commercial aircraft), it was much easier to drop the mechanical connection to the wings.

Autopilot started as a help to pilots, and evolved to something that is a necessity and pilot control inputs are "suggestions" or "goals", not inputs like turning the wheel on a bike. To be followed in what you might refer to as "the long term" from the perspective of controlling the aircraft, but in the short term, the computer is to fly the plane in a way IT thinks is reasonable. An extreme example would be to enforce the flight envelope. But today there exist autoland-only airports (as well as huge airports that go autoland-only if things are too hard for humans, like LHR)

Most of today's passenger aircraft cannot be flown if fly-by-wire is not operational. Most of today's aircraft actually used for passenger transport cannot land without fly-by-wire.

A number of military aircraft, and rocket planes and rockets, even the ones carrying humans, and more and more passenger planes cannot be flown by humans, not just because the mechanical force humans can generate cannot move the control surfaces (which "can be fixed" with hydraulics, if you don't mind serious caveats), but because the human brain is incapable of generating sufficient control inputs at a fast enough rate, or just can't keep stable flight going.

Hilariously, this also goes for hobby quadcopters. They are flown by algorithms. Humans can't do it. Not fast enough. Humans provide direction. Algorithms, even AI algorithms that aren't even guaranteed to succeed at all (in professional/military drones), actually fly the thing.

But, yes, you're entirely correct by saying "then there are lots of new ways to fail". It also works better, cheaper, faster, safer, more comfortable, ... if it doesn't fail.

And ... robotaxis are already far safer than even a good human driver. So whatever the problems ... they don't actually make things worse.

Also you should check out geohot's business. A lot of cars already are "fly-by-wire". Their solution? They now have 2 CAN buses instead of one. One for the critical stuff. Cylinder timings. Checking the oil levels. Turning the wheels. Actuating the brakes. That sort of stuff. A second CAN bus for your bluetooth music, and displays and what have you. I hear a certain new Mercedes now has like 7 buses. We are making things safer.

We can make this work. We will make this work.

Re: Robots eat cars

#83

> The Fremont factory lines that built those cars are converting to manufacture Optimus humanoid robots: one million units per year at $20,000 each, with public sales beginning in 2027. Sure, why not? Seems just as likely as Tesla having 1 million robotaxis on the road by the end of 2026. =)

[flagged]

Optimus was still overheating last year.

And while Musk is very good in announcing stuff, delivering he is not. boring company? Robotaxis on masses?

Did you watch his keynote last week? Man he is ignorant. It would be a million times cheaper and easier to build a powerplant, fiber and energy lines in the dessert of USA and build their big data centers before building anything in space.

But no he talks about dyson sphere, space etc. like we need any of it today (perhaps in a 100 years) and it would be more cost effective than on earth.

He is a lunatec

Re: Robots eat cars

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, are all of those model 3 and Y vehicles robotaxis? Or are you saying that because they produced 1.5 million non-robotaxi cars in 2025 that the estimate of producing 1 million robotaxis in the following year is pretty reasonable, because making them autonomous taxis is a minor feature bump...?

No, I'm saying that the original content is low-effort shitposting, and that Tesla has the ability to scale industrial production to over 1mm 'things' per year, as evidenced by production last year. I did the OP the mild courtesy of asking him to open up a useful conversation. For instance, "Is there going to be demand for 1mm robots, and if so, when?" Or "How much actual retooling is necessary in Fremont for this?"…

Bosten dynamics has the better robot which doesn't overheat and can more and they plan to rollout commercially 2028.

Musks Robot overheated last year, we have not seen a single non staged real demonstration in public and he already wants to mass produce them.

This is just lying at this point and has very little to do how fast someone can scale something if its not ready to be scaled up.

Re: Robots eat cars

#85
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying that the original content is low-effort shitposting, and that Tesla has the ability to scale industrial production to over 1mm 'things' per year, as evidenced by production last year. I did the OP the mild courtesy of asking him to open up a useful conversation. For instance, "Is there going to be demand for 1mm robots, and if so, when?" Or "How much actual retooling is necessary in Fremont for this?"…

I think teslas issue is that they need the AI5 chip for robotaxi ops, the current chip just doesn’t cut it. So if they have batches end of 2026 and start optimizing the models, by mid 2027 volume production you might have robotaxis coming online at about 100k per month. Waymo currently has less than 10k cars on the road. Lots of ifs here. If they can enable hardware 4 for robotaxi ops then they can have 3m+ cars read…

He is saying all of this for his IPO.

Its still a hard problem and while he likes to move that fast, nothing around him wants to move that fast. No burocrazy at least.

Re: Robots eat cars

#86
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And a yoke requires progressive steering which is impractical without steer-by-wire. But also look at Citroën's DIRAVI system, used on the CX, SM, and some XMs. There's no direct mechanical link between the steering wheel and the rack when the system is pressurised. When you turn the wheel a kind of dogbone link thing pushes a spool valve one way or the other allowing hydraulic fluid to push the rack along, which p…

TIL! I love old Citroëns, but i never knew about that steering design. Have you experienced that failure mode yourself? How alarming was it? Do you think it's a reasonable trade-off for the benefits?

I had the hydraulic pump belt break when I was about 30 or 40 miles from home, and of course I had a water pump belt and an alternator belt, but not the hydraulic pump belt.

The brake and regulator accumulators were both nice and new though so the "low brake pressure stop immediately" warning only came on about two or three miles from home (once there's no pressure at all, there's no brakes at all, but this is pretty difficult to achieve in practice) and I just had to cope with the twitchy steering through the difficult part - driving through town at 15-20mph in rush hour traffic anyway.

Re: Robots eat cars

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you complain about the Rs in strawberry...

That's exactly why we complain about the Rs in strawberry. We can get funny-stupid human interpretations all day long. What we can't get is cold facts, and isn't that what was promised by AI (at least, before ChatGPT was released in 2022)? Unfortunately we fed this current iteration of AI with human behaviour (not only that: human behaviour on the Internet...)

> What we can't get is cold facts, and isn't that what was promised by AI (at least, before ChatGPT was released in 2022)?

Not that I know of. An entity dealing only in cold facts is not intelligent, it's a theorem prover- extremely narrow, rigid and incapable of interpretation and insight- basically of bridging the smallest gap of knowledge. That's exactly what intelligence isn't.

Re: Robots eat cars

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best selling car in the world in 2025 was the Tesla Model Y, with a little over 1 million sold. ~350k total vehicles have been sold in 2026 as of April. https://www.focus2move.com/world-car-market/ , https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-first-quarter-2026-...

Unbelievable. Really shows how much of a bubble the internet is - Elon was the internets most hated man in 2025 yet Tesla sold like hotcakes

[dead]

Re: Robots eat cars

#89
post #49
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who in the buyer demographic for a Model S wouldn’t take a Porsche Taycan, AUD A6 Sportback, or Lucid Air over that vehicle? I guess me, though I’d probably opt for the Y instead. I have a friend who drives a Taycan, one of the sportier variants with 4 wheel steering and blistering acceleration, and it’s nice, but it’s clear that they’re still crap at computers and interfaces, and I just really don’t want to go bac…

> though I’d probably opt for the Y instead This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are not actually in the market for the class of vehicle the Model S or X competed with in the first place. I'm not actually saying they are bad cars. What I am saying is that they now lack a buyer persona, which is why they're being discontinued. When the S and X first came out, $90,000 was the price of entry for any electric car…

Yeah fair points, I don’t really know the people you’re describing. My demographic wants a really good car, as comfortable and headache-free as possible, and would be happier if no one knew it was pricey. I was considering an X because of the supposedly better suspension, better ergonomics for kids/more passengers, and slightly better third row, but I think they’ve generally not focused on them enough in recent years, and the doors seem like a bit of a maintenance nightmare. So yeah, I guess it DQ’d itself a bit.

> As a sidenote, when you describe mobile service to fix a flat tire and roadside assistance, you are literally describing AAA.

Haha do they come to your garage for routine maintenance? If so, I need to have another look at them. My point was that it’s a packaged experience that adds up to be pretty delightful, with a minimum of work on my part.

> These are not dealerships that are generally unpleasant, they aren't exactly your local Hyundai franchise.

Last dealerships I have experience with are Mercedes and BMW, same shit, different veneer, arguably douchier salespeople.

Post reply on HN