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

US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#851

Post by hotspot_one »

sokoloff wrote: post #807
tverbeure wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just gave it another try after my last failed attempt. ( https://tomverbeure.github.io/2024/05/20/Tesla-FSD-First-and... ) I still find it shockingly bad, especially in the way it reacts, or doesn’t, to the way things change around the car (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) or the way it makes the most random lane changing decisions and changes it’s mind in…

> (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so . What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?

> That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so.

Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training.

For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#852

Post by lopkeny12ko »

drowsspa wrote: post #789
Fomite wrote: post #737

"Driver is mostly disengaged, but then must intervene in a sudden fail state" is also one of the most dangerous types of automation due to how long it takes the driver to reach full control as well.

Yeah, I don't drive but I would think it would be worse than actually paying attention all the time

You are required to pay attention all the time. That's what the "supervised" in "FSD (supervised)" means.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#853

Post by V99 »

josephcsible wrote: post #723
V99 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airplane autopilots follow a lateral & sometimes vertical path through the sky prescribed by the pilot(s). They are good at doing that. This does increase safety, because it frees up the pilot(s) from having to carefully maintain a straight 3d line through the sky for hours at a time. But they do not listen to ATC. They do not know where other planes are. They do not keep themselves away from other planes. Or the gro…

> They do not know where other planes are. Yes they do. It's called TCAS. > Or the ground. Yes they do. It's called Auto-GCAS.

Yes those are optional systems that exist, but they are unrelated to the autopilot (in at least the vast majority of avionics).

They are warning systems that humans respond to. For a TCAS RA the first thing you're doing is disengaging the autopilot.

If you tell the autopilot to fly straight into the path of a mountain, it will happily comply and kill you while the ground proximity warnings blare.

Humans make the decisions in planes. Autopilots are a useful but very basic tool, much more akin to cruise control in a 1998 Civic than a self-driving Tesla/Waymo/erc.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#854

Post by sokoloff »

hotspot_one wrote: post #851
sokoloff wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (think a car on the left in front of you who switches on indicators to merge in front of you) That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so . What does the Tesla do (or not do) in this case that's bad?

> That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training. For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

That seems odd to the point of uselessness, and does not match the required training I received in Germany from my work colleagues at Daimler prior to being able to sign out company cars.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__9.html seems to be the relevant law in Germany, which Google translates to "(1) Anyone wishing to turn must announce this clearly and in good time; direction indicators must be used."

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#855

Post by dyauspitr »

Schiendelman wrote: post #549
dyauspitr wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say less than 5% of people maintain the required 30-50ft of recommended distance needed to stop safely at those speeds.

The stopping distance required at 75mph is at least 250-300 feet, in optimal conditions.

Yeah that’s definitely not happening.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#856

Post by 15155 »

johnisgood wrote: post #847
wtallis wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of other areas where intentionally violating FCC regulations to transmit harmful signals is already technologically feasible and cheap, but hasn't become a widespread problem in practice. Why would it be any worse for cars communicating with each other? If anything, having lots of cars on the road logging what they receive from other cars (spoofed or otherwise) would make it too easy to identify which…

I agree, the problem has been solved. If a consensus mechanism similar to those used in blockchain were implemented, vehicles could cross-reference the data they receive with data from multiple other vehicles. If inconsistencies are detected (for example, a car reporting a different speed than what others are observing), that data could be flagged as potentially fraudulent. Just as blockchain technologies can provide…

This is a complicated, technical solution looking for a problem.

Simple, asymmetrically-authenticated signals and felonies for the edge cases solve this problem without any futuristic computer wizardry.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#857

Post by nielsole »

sokoloff wrote: post #854
hotspot_one wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That car is signaling an intention to merge into your lane once it is safe for them to do so. Only under the assumption that the driver was trained in the US, to follow US traffic law, and is following that training. For example, in the EU, you switch on the indicators when you start the merge; the indicator shows that you ARE moving.

That seems odd to the point of uselessness, and does not match the required training I received in Germany from my work colleagues at Daimler prior to being able to sign out company cars. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__9.html seems to be the relevant law in Germany, which Google translates to "(1) Anyone wishing to turn must announce this clearly and in good time; direction indicators must be used."

Merging into the lane is probably better addressed by §7, with the same content: https://dejure.org/gesetze/StVO/7.html

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#858

Post by enslavedrobot »

roca wrote: post #589
enslavedrobot wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmm average car uses 489 gallons a year. Large private jet uses 500 gallons an hour. There are 9125 hours in a year. So if Elon lives in a jet that flys 24/7 you're only very wrong. Since that's obviously not the case you're colossally and completely wrong. Remember that the next time you try to make an argument that Tesla is not an incredible force for decarbonization.

Not Tesla exactly, but Musk has gone all-in trying to get a man elected to be US President who consistently says climate change is a hoax, or words to that effect.

US oil production under the current administration is at 13.5M barrels per day. The highest ever. The US is shitting the bed on the energy transition. Meanwhile global solar cell production is slated to hit 2TW/year by the end of 2025 @ under 10cents/watt. China, the land of coal, is on track to hit net zero before the US. Both parties and all levels of government have a disgraceful record on climate change.

PS: For context 2TW of solar can generate about 10% of global electricity. Production capacity will not stop at 2TW. All other forms of electricity are basically doomed, no matter what the GOP says about climate change.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#859

Post by FireBeyond »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #850
FireBeyond wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the car decided to stomp on the throttle you are expected to be ready to hit the brakes. Didn't Tesla have an issue a couple of years ago where pressing the brake did not disengage any throttle? i.e. if the car has a bug and puts throttle to 100% and you stand on the brake, the car should say "cut throttle to 0", but instead, you just had 100% throttle, 100% brake?

If it did, it wouldn’t matter. Brakes are required to be stronger than engines.

That makes no sense. Yes, they are. But brakes are going to be more reactive and performant with the throttle at 0 than 100.

You can't imagine that the stopping distances will be the same.

Re: US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

#860

Post by 8note »

IX-103 wrote: post #714
renegade-otter wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many examples. The Koch brothers, famous "anti-regulatory state" warriors, have fought oversight so hard that their gas pipelines were allowed to be barely intact. Two teens get into a truck, turn the ignition key - and the air explodes: https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/nation-world/1996... Does anyone go to jail? F*K NO.

To be fair, the teens knew about the gas leak and started the truck in an attempt to get away. Gas leaks like that shouldn't happen easily, but people near pipelines like that should also be made aware of the risks of gas leaks, as some leaks are inevitable.

As an alternative though, the company also failed at handling that the gas leak started. They could have had people all over the place guiding people out and away from the leak safely, and keeping the public away while the leak is fixed.

Or, they could buy sufficient buffer land around the pipeline such that the gas leak will be found and stopped before it could explode down the road

Post reply on HN