I would love to see this data, can you link it? Either a paper by unaffiliated researchers or the raw data is fine.
I am aware their marketing pushes the "10x better" number. But I have yet to see the actual data to back this claim.
Turun
joined 1 year ago
That is the new system. Tesla has no equivalent to it. Or to phrase it differently:
Drivers can not activate teslas’s equivalent technology, no matter what conditions are met, including not in heavy traffic jams, not during the daytime, not on spec ific California and Nevada freeways, and not when the car is traveling less than 40 mph. Drivers can never focus on other activities. The technology does not exist in Tesla vehicles
If you are talking about automatic lane change, auto park, etc (what tesla calls autopilot or full self driving) these are all features you can find in most if not all high end cars nowadays.
The new system gets press coverage, because as I understand it, if there is an accident while the system is engaged Mercedes will assume financial and legal responsibility and e.g. cover all expenses that result from said accident. Tesla doesn't do that.
Also, it's hard to argue "full self driving" means anything but the car is able to drive fully autonomously. If they were to market it as "advanced driver assist" I'd have no issue with it.
Definitely won't get an argument from me there. FSD certainly isn't in a state to really be called that yet. Although, to be fair, when signing up for it, and when activating it there are a lot of notices that it is in testing and will not operate as expected.
At what point do we start actually expecting and enforcing that people be responsible with potentially dangerous things in daily life, instead of just blaming a company for not putting enough warnings or barriers to entry?
Then the issue is simply what we perceive as the predominant marketing message. I know that in all legally binding material Tesla states what exactly the system is capable of and how alert the driver needs to be. But in my opinion that is vastly overshadowed by the advertising Tesla runs for their FSD capability. They show a 5 second message about how they are required by law to warn you about being alert at all times, before showing the car driving itself for 3 minutes, with the demo driver having the hands completely off the wheel.
It also fails to mention how the accident rate compares to human drivers.
That may be because Tesla refuses to publish proper data on this, lol.
Yeah, they claim it's ten times better than a human driver, but none of their analysis methods or data points are available to independent researchers. It's just marketing.
What Tesla is (falsely IMO) advertising as "full self driving" is available in all new Mercedes vehicles as well and works anywhere in the US.
Mercedes is in the news for expanding that functionality to a level where they are willing to take liability if the vehicle causes a crash during this new mode. Tesla does not do that.
I'd wager most people, when talking about a plane's autopilot mean the follow waypoints or Autoland capability.
Also, it's hard to argue "full self driving" means anything but the car is able to drive fully autonomously. If they were to market it as "advanced driver assist" I'd have no issue with it.
Only if the goal is reproduction. You need to survive to reproduce.
If the goal is maximum damage for the least amount of economic cost then a suicide (anthropomorphizing the drone here) can very much make sense.
No one would argue that a sword is better than guns or bombs, because you still have the sword after attacking.
The reason this gets attention is because it's the first level 3 sold to consumers.
The tech is hard, of course it's gonna start out with laughingly limited capabilities. But it's the first step towards more automation.
Yes, but it's actually level 3.
Not the Tesla "full self driving - no wait we actually lied to you, you need to be alert at all times" bullshit.
Some devices will use a hard coded DNS instead of respecting the one on the network
Right, and I am pointing out that non-cooperative devices still won't be blocked by pihole if they so desire.
Right, so flowing that link there are three ways for DNS:
Classic on port 53,
Dns over TLS on port 853
Dns over https.
The first two can be blocked, because they have specific ports exclusively assigned to them. DoH can't be blocked reliably, because it is encrypted and on a common port. Though blocking 443 on common DNS resolvers can force some clients to fall back to one of the variants that can be blocked/redirected
We have the internet man, just bug another human and wait a few days to hear back from them.
Like I know that's what you are "supposed" to do. But public money public knowledge, I refuse to accept that this is somehow an acceptable state of things.