$TSLA made enough people rich I suppose. I saw some gains myself although not on a large scale. Still don’t like the guy but there’s the old adage “for my friends everything, for my enemies the law”.
If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn
> Still don’t like the guy but there’s the old adage
Interestingly, Juan Domingo Peron's version of that adage was "For our friends, everything. For our enemies, not even justice." I'm not sure which one is worse, but they are certainly both evocative.
> If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn
It depends. What happened here is that Holmes screwed over peers, and not just consumers. I don't think anything will happen to $TSLA's CEO unless except through malice aimed at his peers that affects their wealth.
I think this is a Theranos reference that went over everyone's heads. Theranos were using Siemens machines while pretending to use their own technology. Obviously Tesla is not doing anything like this, and GP's point is that they are not similar.
Given Tesla were the first to use a "Giga Press" [1] to mould the chassis, I very much doubt your claim. They innovated significantly. Most car manufacturers use Bosch components all over the place, if that's what you're getting at.
There are at least four replies at this moment missing the point entirely, it's incredible how knee-jerk these are to defend Tesla against a defense of Tesla.
Honestly, a lot of the anti-Tesla and anti-Musk arguments I've seen people post on-line, including here on HN, are like that comment, except in earnest. I'm not surprised so many people "missed the point" when your average Tesla/Musk thread on the Internet still has people posting blatant lies and trivially fact-checkable bullshit stories, like e.g. that apartheid emerald mine thing, and that's regardless of how cultured or enlightened the venue claims to be.
If the point is so opaque that four separate comments miss it, then maybe it was not well described in the first place.
It’s less a knee-jerk defense of Tesla and more of a knee-jerk “what are you talking about that’s absurd” because at face value it’s an exceptionally absurd claim.
I mean, that doesn’t change how it’s a confusing and seemingly absurd claim at face value.
It doesn’t read like a joke, it doesn’t in any way imply the link, it just sounds like an absurd statement put out to incite responses. And people clearly all read it this way. If one person read it wrong then sure, you might have a point. If every single person replying read it this way, then it just shows the point was not clearly articulated to begin with.
Even if you had just watched the documentaries about Theranos, I doubt you could have immediately pieced that connection on first read.
I'm well acquainted with the Theranos story and still had no idea what the VW comment meant until I read the replies. It's a pretty tenuous joke, and given the other responses I'm clearly not the only one who thought so.
Being aghast at people for misunderstanding is silly.
Yeah, I hate saying stuff like "it only matters when it hits the pockets of the rich" because it's reductive and cynical, but seriously - how are the patients not better protected here? How is that not the bigger story?
It's because she didn't directly lie to any patients, she was insulated from all of that. They got her on lying to investors because those are the kind of people she was actually talking to.
I don't know this area, but I suspect the regulatory framework around this needs revision so that government could discover that kind of malice, i.e. if there were some requirement of regular reporting that would have created the paper trail.
I imagine there is something in the paperwork you sign when you pay for it that basically says roughly "this may never actually materialize" and that's the key difference.
>Marques Brownlee has a video from last year where it drove him to his studio.
I don't know where to start with this if you think that one, year-old video is somehow proof that Tesla FSD is ready for use--and, say, the recall earlier this year isn't indication that maybe it's not.
wrong. watch the latest FSD videos. FSD has proved all the detractors wrong. it drives unbelievably well. and the rate of improvement is astounding. this comment might have been valid a few years ago but not anymore.
I'm an FSD Beta user. If you stop reading at "Full Self Driving Capability", then yes, it's an issue for a potential purchaser. But if you read just a little bit more, it becomes more clear what you're buying. I don't feel "fooled" and neither do 1000s of other Beta testers with whom I regularly communicate on Discord.
Don't think this is the point. Calling something Oranges, and then saying "they're not really oranges, but an approximation, but we call them oranges bc it sounds cool" is still fraudulent in my view.
Because the more detailed description of the feature clearly explains what it does and doesn’t do. Say you sign a contract, one section is titled “Seller Assumes Liability for Injury” but then the text of that section lists some circumstances where they don’t. Totally fine and legal.
Maybe, if all that is within the four corners of the contract. I don’t think that’s what we are talking about here; our current discussion seems to involve the marketing name of a car feature (full self driving) and the technical functionality that name represents.
With that in mind it seems that you are not thinking about the Rst. 2d Torts 540 duty to investigate rule. I can be justified in relying on something (e.g., your intentionally misleading name for the feature) even if an investigation would have shown the misrepresentation was false. Instead of “totally fine and legal” I would say that this is “a fact-dependent situation.”
Do you believe that selling something called Full Self Driving that actually could not drive itself fully is within the duty of good faith and fair dealing? This sidesteps the issue of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation and goes right to the heart of the customer confusion a product like a Tesla sows.
Yes, good faith and fair dealing has nothing to do with this and shows that while you may know enough to pull out the restatement, you don’t really get the law. Good faith has to do with conduct in the execution of an agreement that undermines the deal without seeming to technically violate it. It doesn’t have anything to do with putting caveats in fine print.
False, of course; a bait and switch contract is a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The conduct of delivering something that is not what you advertised fulfills the elements.
If you want to sit here and tell me that the contract actually says the car can't drive itself, that's fine but my hypothetical had nothing to do with a caveat in fine print. I suggest before you make a personal attack, you do your best to read the regular-sized print that I delivered to you. The website which you are using this twenty-hour old account to troll has some rules, too, and you would do better to study those rather than to try to contradict me.
It’s very clear when you buy a Tesla that the car does not completely drive itself without human supervision. It’s part of the agreement, and the use of FSD as the marketing name of the feature doesn’t change that.
>The conduct of delivering something that is not what you advertised fulfills the elements.
The issue is what was promised. The promise is not just the title of the feature, but all of the information presented to you when you buy a Tesla.
And I’ll contradict you all day if I want because you’re not just wrong, but clearly suffering from Elon Derangement Syndrome.
You’re clearly not a lawyer even if you role play one online.
I’m not totally defending Tesla’s mildly misleading advertising here. I’m saying it’s not fraud and not really comparable to the massive fraud committed by Holmes.
> I'm an FSD Beta user... 1000s of other Beta testers
Ah, so the hundreds of thousands or millions who bought FSD years ago should be happy that a few thousand of you get to test out a system with your own lives. Great.
Edit: Don't bother responding if you're a Tesla or Elon fanboy/fangirl. I'm not interested in being insulted any longer by you folks.
There are 400,000+ Beta users currently (US and Canada). You are being fooled by the headlines. The people in the EU have a legitimate beef (not being able to use the functionality). "test a system with our own lives" is silly hyperbole and you know it.
> "test a system with our own lives" is silly hyperbole and you know it.
No, I actually believe that, because I have some morals and ethics around introducing dangerous and untested black-box AI into a several-ton machine with no physical consrtaints as to it's location (aka: a moving car), as in I wouldn't do it myself nor use a product like Tesla that was developed in such a shoddy manner.
It's pretty fucking rude to assume you know what's in my head, and I wish I could insult you as hard as you insulted me with that statement, but that would just be tit for tat and HN isn't about that kind of insulting remark.
It's ADAS Level 2. Tesla is one of many. And are you equally concerned aboout parents who allow their 15 and 16 year olds to drive on the same streets with no-to-little training... and where the parent cannot easily grab the steering wheel or press the brake?
15 and 16 year olds, in many states, are required to drive with a fully-licensed individual until they are 18 or even older! I'm not as worried about a teenage driver, though, because they are humans and we have a lot of experience as humans on how to teach other humans to drive. Not so much with a black-box neural net AI!
Thanks. In the future, try to be charitable and assume people are telling their true feelings on HN, and not being trolls or dickheads. Most people here are pretty good about that, I find.
so when they introduced drive by wire, and just put it out there on the roads without telling anyone, that was reckless? or any of the countless other designs that have led us to the modern cars we have now? how about all the severe recalls, not over the air recalls that tesla gets press for but real safety issues? GM and the others have tons and tons of real physical safety recalls, way more than tesla, and thats not shoddy to you? thats not reckless to you? thats foolish. fsd as it is now probably drives more safely than a teenager. so do you want to take all teenagers off the road? and where is your crusade against drunk driving which kills way, way more people than fsd ever will every single year. doesnt bother you. no, your issue isnt with safety or with ethics or principles or anything like that. your issue is with elon musk. because you read brain-rot mainstream media all day who use lies and misdirection to paint elon musk and tesla as evil.
Well, drive by wire wasn't just put out there, it was tested on military jets for decades and the tech eventually got to cars. There are also testing rigs and failsafes for such designs, however Tesla is just putting a black-box AI on the roads in charge of massive vehicles.
I'm not going to engage with someone like you any longer, though, as you're being really fucking rude.
no, youre not going to engage because you know youre wrong. high volume drive by wire is way different than millions of dollars jet fly by wire systems. and it doesnt matter anyway because it was one of countless systems that were tested on the road. hydraulic brakes. for a long time half the industry wouldnt trust them because it was too out-there. and yes, these systems are developed and tested in house and safety measures are put in place, all true with fsd i should add, but putting them out there on real roads in thousands or millions of vehicles is not something you can ever test for. the simple and plain fact is that when you deploy these kinds of system updates at scale, there is risk. so far, fsd has proven a lot less risky than other systems deployed by other auto manufacturers because there have been many recalls and many deaths associated with systems that did not pass the at-scale test and none of those are fsd related. there are some articles that try to attribute a crash or fatality to a malfunction of fsd but none of them have panned out. its bullshit. and even if they were all true, it would still probably not be the most dangerous system thats been deployed at scale in recent times. but its not true...
ABUSING YOUR FLAGGING PRIVS IS RUDE, DISHONEST AND SHAMEFUL. A PERSON AS OLD AS YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER
"test a system with our own lives" is actually an understatement; FSD Beta is being tested on other peoples' lives without their consent. Other drivers, pedestrians, etc.
so when you have a student driver, or a new driver, the lives of not just them but the people around them are being risked just to test a system. so we should just stop all new drivers. no more new drivers. because a new driver, especially a teenage one, is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the current fsd.
Student drivers are typically subject to significant limitations - no other kids in car, no driving past certain hours, parental supervision for a certain period of time, etc. They're not learning for a billionaire's profit, and they're fairly unlikely to get a software update that causes a whole bunch of them to make the same mistake in a short period of time.
so where is your proposal to limit the passengers of a self driving car, all of the countless brands who are advertising level 2 systems? where is your proposal for compromise? there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty.
so self driving cars could only exist for a billionaires profit? how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this technology? tens of thousands of people die every year. cmon dude.
I'd like to see safety-critical beta software in cars undergo independent audits prior to widespread release. (My dream would be for it to be open source, but that's probably unrealistic.)
I'd like to see formalized safety testing processes of such software at the regulatory level, similar to how crash testing is currently conducted.
I'm sure others have specific, useful suggestions.
> there are none because nobody who likes pouring cold water on tesla is coming from a place of intellectual honesty.
This, ironically, doesn't sound like it comes from a place of intellectual honesty.
> how about for the countless lives that will be saved by this technology?
these compromises are productive and show that you do come from a place of intellectual honesty.
if the federal government had been tasked with overseeing the early versions of fsd, it would have been swiftly shut down because of the nature of the federal government, not to mention the politics. but thanks to the private sector we now have modern fsd which is bar none the most advanced and capable self-driving solution in the world. now that self driving has gotten this far, its probably much less likely to be aborted if subjected to government intervention and oversight. in light of the huge benefits that self-driving cars stand to create, measured in human lives, compromise is the only rational proposal. shutting down fsd like mouth-breathing internet commenters talk about would be objectively wrong given the state of its competitors and the nature of the problem.
edit: your bio says 'fuck elon musk.' making a two dimensional character out of elon musk isnt a good way to understand him or his projects. when the time comes and elon musk uses his influence and money to do something really bad, it might be boy crys wolf thanks to your camp.
My Twitter bio does. Added shortly after he banned links to Mastodon, broke Tweetbot (and lied about them breaking the rules), and announced breaking changes to the Twitter APIs I use extensively at work with a few days warning.
you seem passionate and knowlegable about this so i will ask you. i want to know more about the API changes. detractors say that it was at best an irresponsible change to the API that inconvenienced companies that use it. proponents say that musk simply stopped making the API free which was always unsustainable and people should have known better. what was really going on?
Entire businesses had their products cease to function, with no warning, and no explanation from Twitter, until a couple of days later they got vaguely libeled by Twitter's developer account. (https://twitter.com/TwitterDev/status/1615405842735714304)
Absolute clown show. If they'd said "in 90 days we're shutting down third-party clients and implementing a paid tier", people would've grumbled but seen it as fairly reasonable. Kneecapping devs who've been building Twitter apps and integrations for a decade was cruel and unnecessary.
I 100% agree with you that we should have regulators auditing and verifying safety information for autonomous systems.
But I'd like to point out that the link you included is out-of-date. Tesla has continued to publish their autopilot safety numbers in their quarterly slide decks. Here is Q3 2022 for example, see page 10: https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/SVCPTV_2022_Q4_Quarterly_...
Miles between accidents on Autopilot
Q4 2021: 4.3 million miles
Q1 2022: 6.5 million miles
Q2 2022: 5.1 million miles
Q4 2022: 6.2 million miles
That’s the same old sketchy number they like to tout.
Autopilot can only be used in safer conditions, and if the car goes “whoops I’m out, take over” shortly before an accident that doesn’t count in that stat either.
It’s not an old number, it’s a new number reported every quarter.
But you’re right that comparing largely highway miles vs all miles isn’t completely fair. FSD on the other hand can be activated and used in most scenarios and has 3.2 million miles between accidents vs the US average of 500,000 miles. So still quite a bit safer but less so than autopilot.
As for autopilot deactivating right before an accident, if autopilot was active within 5 seconds of the accident it is still attributed to autopilot, not the human driver.
> It’s not an old number, it’s a new number reported every quarter.
"Old number" here means "the same old stat they trot out every time". The value gets updated; the concerns over its being a cherry-picked apples-to-oranges comparison remain.
FSD still nopes out in the most challenging circumstances, which are the circumstances where accidents are far more likely to happen. It's like a surgeon bragging about their low complication rate; if they run out of the OR screaming when something unexpected happens and their colleague has to take over, it's not a super useful stat.
It's ADAS Level 2. Tesla is one of many. And are you equally concerned aboout parents who allow their 15 and 16 year olds to drive on the same streets with no-to-little training... and where the parent cannot easily grab the steering wheel or press the brake?
Hey now, don't forget the lives of everyone else they are in traffic with. That increases the number of beta tested by an order of magnitude if you think about it.
This is a dumb comment. Leading with stretched claims that are then clarified in the fine print is different than outright lying. No one who did a modicum of due diligence bought a Tesla thinking they were getting a completely self-driving car that requires no human input.
There’s a reason why we have specific false and deceptive advertising laws. Most of it doesn’t rise to the level of fraud. Fraud requires a lie and reasonable/justifiable detrimental reliance on that lie.
> it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla
Capability, not feature. I know that isn’t how it’s marketed. But Elon isn’t claiming he has Level 5 right now. Most FSD buyers seem aware they’re paying into a research effort.
Fraud requires knowledge and intent. You’re making a good case for a class action lawsuit, i.e. civil action. Not for putting someone in jail.
> Capability implies that the car can do the thing (software included)
It’s made clear that isn’t the definition of capability they’re using [1].
I am not a fan of the Autopilot branding. But I struggle to see how someone buys FSD capability, realises their mistake on delivery and is then unable to get restitution through either a return or a resale.
> have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution
Me either! But that’s not fraud. It’s delusion. We don’t criminalise it because the difference between genius and crazy is often only apparent ex post facto.
Is the key difference that no one can prove the current hardware will be unable to reach a level 5 solution?
Taken to the (more) absurd we wouldn’t have this issue if the claim was the cars could fly, be boats, or time travel. People wouldn’t buy the “capability” either.
This is a fascinating murky area and seems there’s no market solution beyond caveat emptor
> a fascinating murky area and seems there’s no market solution beyond caveat emptor
I think so. It's interesting to discuss and think about, because the grey area is incredibly complex. (Not that we get too far into it on these kinds of forums.)
Generally, when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud.
> when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud.
Capability is defined as "the facility or potential for an indicated use or deployment" [1]. There are other definitions. But selling capability based on future potential is not fraudulent, unless you say the capability is present.
I think you're reading the word "potential" incorrectly for the context. Dictionaries are tricky things to read, because they tend to incorrectly communicate nuances. The capability to do something means that it can be done, not that it might be able to be done. Otherwise, my Honda has the capability to fly.
No, because there is no reasonable potential for it to generate enough thrust to be a lifting body. We understand aerodynamics enough to say that. We don’t understand self-driving cars enough to rule out the sensors on today’s Teslas being adequate, given the right software.
Saying someone is capable of climbing a mountain, conditioned on training, isn’t a lie. The caveat is important. I think Tesla has played fast and loose with its caveats in a way that produces civil liability. But it doesn’t appear to be wilfully defrauding its customers, who are more or less happy with their cars.
We do understand flight well enough that I can confidently tell you that given an appropriately sized and shaped ramp, my Honda can fly. It doesn't even need a software upgrade, the car as it is today can do it!
A Tesla today has no self-driving capability without software that doesn't exist. That means it doesn't have self-driving capability. It doesn't mean that someone "played fast and loose with caveats."
> 2019 Musk publicly stated Model 3's would support robotic taxi functionality in 2020
No evidence these forecasts were made in bad faith. Delusion isn’t criminal. It’s mis-selling in the here and now, in absolute terms, in a way that causes damage, that is problematic.
He made the statement it made no financial sense to buy any other car than a Tesla because of the certainty of robo taxi functionality arriving in 2020. He sold people on the promise that their car would be revenue generating in 2020.
Everyone who bought a Tesla with FSD since 2019 should sue Elon for lost revenues from failing to deliver robo taxi functionality over three years late (and counting!) than originally stated.
When you sell a capability you are making a commitment. The fact that you deluded yourself about it does not get you off the hook. You are still responsible for your claims. Or should be.
> when you sell a capability you are making a commitment
Sure. And if you sold the promise of future capability with no intent on delivering it, that's fraud. But if you try, it isn't. And if you fail, your customers should have a claim on you. But I don't think it should be a crime.
I don't think Musk deserves the benefit of the doubt. His history of just lying about this sort of stuff (outside of Tesla-related claims) is too long and rich for that.
I'm sure there is a negligence or recklessness standard that an overzealous prosecutor can apply here. Being willfully stupid about your own company and the products they produce in order to repeatedly get away with delusional over-promising could be construed that way, as could creating a culture that suppresses internal doubt about your company's capabilities.
After the debacle with having only touch "buttons" in the Mk8 GTI, it is refreshing to see that they are back to haptic buttons in the center console and steering wheel.
I didn't know this about the GTI, but it is my pet peeve with EVs. Tesla thought they'd do the "huge iPad in the middle" thing and every other manufacturer copycatted it.
Tesla proved that people would accept such an interface, and it massively improves Tesla's profit margins. The trick of passing off something as 'premium' while in fact cutting costs is a really good trick. One that I imagine the other manufacturers wish they could emulate.
You do get used to the touchscreen (I'm on my second Model 3), but I do look forward to a reassertion of sanity. Touchscreen makes sense for some things, not so much for others. I also look forward to the return of IR rain sensors, LOL.
Tesla at least knows how to write software, and compensate for lack of buttons with decent defaults and automation. Legacy manufacturers still have no clue. They can't even let go of the "Start engine" button in their cars.
The rest of the industry just destroyed the value. VW probably listened to Munro to save $0.05 on a couple of springs and wires, and ruined the whole lineup with creaky plasticky fake non-buttons that feel cheap and are annoying to use.
VW managed to marry all of the downsides of touchscreens with all of the clutter and inflexibility of buttons.
The Tesla UI used to be amazing and had convinced me that touch UIs could compete with buttons in a car. So much was accessible with one tap.
But with each update, they UI gets objectively worse. They keep putting more and more things behind menus requiring multiple taps, making them incredibly annoying and dangerous to use while driving.
My biggest gripes:
- rear seat warmers require two nested menus to access. They aren't controllable from the main HVAC slide up, even though the seat diagram is still right there.
- mute/unmute turn-by-turn directions used to be a one click operation. Now it's hidden behind a hard-to-tap menu.
The funny thing is that what makes the touchscreen in the model 3 tolerable is that there are just enough tactile controls on the steering wheels to do the most common things. Then the voice interface, limited though it is, can handle some things as long as you're patient.
- high/low beam (tho automation has gotten quite good)
- wipers (automation still not as good as the 2003 Saab I had)
- cruise control speed and distance
- PDR
- media volume, play/pause, previous/next
- voice control activation (voice control is pretty bad tho, even worse than siri I guess)
- window control for all windows
- hazards
- honk
Climate control is fine via screen, tho activating windshield max-defog could be valuable as a separate button (can be programmed as an always on shortcut tho).
But please, let's have climate and volume as 2 physical dials. I promise, I'll be forever grateful, and I won't ever ask for anything more ever again. Just two dials.
Yeah, to me, that's a real reason not to buy a Tesla (I mean, if you needed another one). For my entire driving live (nearly 40 years at this point) I've been able to learn how to manipulate the climate control and radio by feel, without taking my eyes off the road.
With a giant-ass feedback-free touchscreen, that's no longer possible. Hard pass.
Interesting, in my MK8 GTI S I have all physical buttons for radio/hvac stuff, the screen is there but i dont need it while driving. Lower trim for the win :)
I'm sitting here just trying to imagine a first date conversation where one person asks the other what their total comp is. I guess, having been on only one or two dates in my life, that bringing up questions like that would normally be a red flag and would be something most dates would not ask (on a first, second, or even third date). Even if not intentional, it signals all sorts of things about a person. If you want to know more about things like this, it's easier to work stuff into a conversation, to see if (for example) they spend a lot of money, and if that's problematic.
Trick in SF is to not be a software developer. I've gotten far batter results being a jobless homeless guy living out of his car than being a software developer at $BIG_CO living in a big pad making low single `N` digit 1/N MM/yr. Variety is the spice of life or something idk.
To each their own and I respect your approach. For me personally, trying to find a (life) partner by presenting some false facts in the very first sentence they read about me feels not exactly right.
To clarify, I am a jobless homeless guy living out of my car. I quit BIGTECH a while back.
And this is with regard to in-person interactions. I've found the best way to find people who like doing what you do is to go do it and see who's there. If you use an app you're likely to just find people who like using apps.
So what you're saying is, set your profile to match with people who want to live in a Yurt somewhere in rural Oregon and grow organic cannabis for a living?
Nobody is perfect. If this is the only thing that bothers you, then answer something like "I make enough to live a comfortable life, I can't complain", or some other generic stuff like that.
I’d read that more as a commentary on the women he’s attracting. If one asked me my TTC, especially on a first date, I’d absolutely not just give a generic answer. I’d have no further interest in the kind of person who would ask that question.
I wouldn't haste to be so judgmental. Sure, you can say that someone who inquires about how much you earn is a gold digger.
But you can also look at it as a potential co-founder of your startup (we are on HN, so I think this metaphor is not inappropriate). The startup is the family, and the business idea is to raise your children. You both bring something to the table. Just like in a startup some founder bring technical chops and other business acumen, here both partners have something to offer. Capability to provide for the kids is important. If you can't provide, then the startup will end up in failure. Why risk that?
I guess it depends on what you're looking for. You're right; if the family is the priority, and the partner is important to the degree that they're competent to fulfil their role in the family, then starting the conversation with what each side can bring to the table makes sense. But that feels too...transactional for me.
I've fortunately been out of the dating scene for decades now, but I think my response to something like that would be to say something like "I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was going to be a business transaction" and terminate the date.
I seriously thought it was the conceive one and that didn’t seem odd to me given the example in the news article. But yes, asking about desired income like that sounds weird. Isn’t that sales terminology?
I think it's a fairly Bay Area-heavy term, as many startups prefer to pay out in equity over cash. I read an article about the site called Blind, where it is not uncommon to demand "TC or GTFO," or something to that effect.
For better or worse Musk is becoming even more of a "cult of personality" rather than a tech icon. Difficult to say whether it will be a bad or good thing. These days it seems no matter what you do %50 of the public will not like it. Trying times for advertisers and celebrities.
Just like the gun debate in the US, the speed limit debate in Germany has at its core nothing to do with rational arguments. It is about perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to.
> limiting personal freedom, and potentially potentially taking away a right people are used to
not a rational concern? Sure you might personally be of a different opinion, but to claim these things can’t be the subject of a rational argument is absurd.
It's not absurd because even presenting facts like: driving fast is more dangerous, induce fear in many other drivers, cause more pollution including noise pollution, is wasteful (less efficient fuel/component wear wise) meets resistance.
The rational argument would be: "I know more people will die in accidents, more will get cancer, more will live with uncomfortable noise levels and more will travel stressed and in fear but I value this less than my freedom to go 200+km/h.
You about never hear that though because supporting high or no speed limits goes hand in hand with delusional thinking about dangers and harms of driving.
Regarding the article, nothing I was going to say involved "perceived restriction, limiting personal freedom, and potentially taking away a right people are used to."
I guess you know best, "just like the gun debate".
maybe rational, but purely subjective. "Restricting freedom" - the "freedom" to reach your destination in an arbitrary speed? what kind of freedom is this? esp if we talk about a difference of what, 10 minutes over 2 hours of driving time? "potentially potentially taking away a right people are used to" it wasn't really a right (=set in law), it just was not forbidden, just like a lot of other things that get restricted all the time. the argument "but this was allowed before" is not really a good objective argument.
I'm not sure you're articulating your argument very well. I get what you're after, but no, restricting freedom is not purely subjective. For example, "I can do this today, and I can't do this tomorrow", is a pretty objective evaluation. You're really making an argument about balancing interests or prioritizing some concerns over others. There's an assumption implied in your argument that you personally would consider an appeal to general safety more compelling than any appeal to fahrvergnügen, for instance. How we each weight these (prioritize them) is what's subjective. Your attack on the opposing view relies on simplifying and devaluing it. This is rhetoric to persuade but is no form of "objective truth".
For 260 km of Autobahn driving, 130 kph results in 2 hours for that distance. Even a mere 160 kph (~100 mph) saves 22.5 minutes rather than the 10 minutes you're suggesting.
It's rare that you actually are able to go that fast for prolonged periods of time. For one, lots of stretches of the Autobahn have a speed limit. Secondly, there's also other traffic, traffic jams, construction sites, ...
I think what you mean to ask is whether the concern is more or less important to [some audience] than the pro-limit concerns. For this issue, there are rational arguments on both sides, but which side one finds more compelling isn't a criticism of whether it's more rational so much as being a reflection of what one prioritizes/fears.
(This comment was posted when the linked URL was https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/12/apple-advances-user-s..., which contains the physical security key announcement as well as the E2EE stuff. If there's a better URL for the security key announcement, we can factor this topic into its own thread, since it's a minority topic in this one and mostly getting overlooked.)
That's what I am most looking forward to. I hope they also allow you to disable the phone-based recovery scheme that is just a boulevard for SIM-swapping hackers to breach through.
Given they already support standard WebAuthn (passkey or other), I think it’s a pretty safe guess to say they’ll support Yubikeys. I can’t find any written confirmation yet though.
I don’t think this is directly related to the E2EE announcement, rather it is an option to replace the current MFA method of receiving codes on your Apple devices.
The section of the announcement is emphatically about 3rd party security keys support, so the worry about lack of support of YubiKey over some push for some imaginary Apple Dedicated Key didn't make much sense to me.
Also, security key (at least to me) implies a small, keychain sized device. I wouldn't think of calling my Mac Studio a security key. There is no device marketed as such, even though yes, the SEP can and has fulfilled these purposes.
