Asking people to babysit a computer is very different than operating a motor vehicle. Plus, Tesla literally calls it Full Self Driving. It's not labeled Supervised Driving. Hiding what's really required in legal fine print is bullshit.
(Supervised) was added in April of 2024.It is labeled in the car Full Self-Driving (Supervised). You even have a screen that comes up when you enable it that you have to acknowledge that it is Full Self Driving (Supervised).
View attachment 120220
View attachment 120221
Yeah, actual definition of what it does and when. Clear parameters that users can understand and be able to expect how the system is going to react. This is radically different from how Tesla markets FSD.
You having learned when the version of Tesla FSD that is currently installed on your car may freak out on your regular journey is entertaining but ultimately not helpful because of the frequent updates. Yes one situation may be corrected but a new issue can be introduced that you're not expecting
Adding a parenthetical that completely changes the plain language meaning doesn't change my point.It is labeled in the car Full Self-Driving (Supervised). You even have a screen that comes up when you enable it that you have to acknowledge that it is Full Self Driving (Supervised).
View attachment 120220
View attachment 120221
Adding a parenthetical that completely changes the plain language meaning doesn't change my point.
You can't call it full self driving if you say it's opposite day in parentheses. It's either Full Self Driving or it's not.And the goalposts have moved.
You can't call it full self driving if you say it's opposite day in parentheses. It's either Full Self Driving or it's not.
And as someone pointed out, adding "supervised" was a relatively recent change. It's a BS way to try and limit Tesla's liability for people using the system.You said it wasn't labeled Supervised driving. It is clearly labeled Supervised driving regardless of the fact that a parentheses offends you.
I will tell you what I tell MAGA supporters that get upset when I point out facts that they don't like. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.
Of course it's an extreme example, but highlights what cameras are not good at. As I said, that was easily picked up by radar/lidar and pretty much any human could have picked it up easily.What real world scenario are you anticipating a painted road would be on a wall across a road? Just seems weird to me that people think that this is a data point beyond just driving Youtube views.
It's not about encountering painted roads like a looney toons cartoon. It's about the systems overall ability to assess a fake scenario that a human would easily detect, and that competing systems also easily detect.What real world scenario are you anticipating a painted road would be on a wall across a road? Just seems weird to me that people think that this is a data point beyond just driving Youtube views.
I’m going to poke on the launching rockets with a chance to blow up.I don't know about the hatred for Lidar, but he does have a massive superiority complex, i.e. my way or the highway. He will never move away from a camera-only system because he says that you only need cameras, period, end of story. Same as his belief that the best way to test rockets is to launch them knowing that there's a very good chance of catastrophic failure. During the Apollo days, we weren't constantly launching rockets, having them explode, and calling it a success. There's no way in hell he'll admit to major failure nor to his ideas being incorrect.
This however is an example of hubris. This end result was entirely foreseeable and not one that required a test to prove.
Not a rocket engineer, but I would think that iterative design probably requires more than a single month between failed launches.Hardware rich programs let you iterate design a lot faster than hardware poor programs at potentially lower cost. That leads to accepting rocket losses during the testing cycles. It’s not a bad programatic decision.
All depends on what the design changes are, and how quickly your supply and manufacturing chains can react.Not a rocket engineer, but I would think that iterative design probably requires more than a single month between failed launches.
Yes, but you're telling me SpaceX fully analyzed what went wrong and swapped out the necessary components in under a month? Seems a little unbelievable.All depends on what the design changes are, and how quickly your supply and manufacturing chains can react.
Of course it's an extreme example, but highlights what cameras are not good at. As I said, that was easily picked up by radar/lidar and pretty much any human could have picked it up easily.
How is performance at night? Or in pitch black country roads where headlights only reach so far?
Potentially, but not always. You can already have multiple flights in work with different designs, updates or fixes.Not a rocket engineer, but I would think that iterative design probably requires more than a single month between failed launches.
Yes, but you're telling me SpaceX fully analyzed what went wrong and swapped out the necessary components in under a month? Seems a little unbelievable.
Trump admin false flag.BNO News (@bnonews.com)
WATCH: Cars set on fire at Tesla in Las Vegas, "resist" painted on the building. FBI investigatingbsky.app
poor elleon, another dealership up in smoke, this time las vegas
BNO News (@bnonews.com)
WATCH: Cars set on fire at Tesla in Las Vegas, "resist" painted on the building. FBI investigatingbsky.app
poor elleon, another dealership up in smoke, this time las vegas
I see nothing wrong with bringing the war to Musk. He declared war on America, so people are merely returning the sentiment.Why are they not vandalizing certain congressional people's district offices instead?