Tesla publishes their safety numbers in terms of accidents per x millions of miles driven. If you believe their numbers then Autopilot in its current configuration is clearly safer than a purely human operated vehicle. Having driven on Autopilot for about 85% of the total time I’ve spent in a Tesla, its been a life changer. But obviously YMMV.
It really sucks that this specific interchange has cost so many lives - and it’s apparent that there’s some frailty of the code that makes autopilot vehicles more susceptible.
In general when it comes to crashes on Autopilot, it’s important to keep perspective. If you take your hands off the wheel and look at your phone for 6 seconds in any other car you’re going to have a bad time. On Autopilot, it took a confluence of bad road design, poor road maintenance, and an unlikely software fault to initiate a crash.
> If you believe their numbers then Autopilot in its current configuration is clearly safer than a purely human operated vehicle.
And you shouldn't, because their numbers don't adjust for demographics, type of road use, or driving conditions.
Do Ford Focus drivers have more accidents than Tesla Model S owners? Yes. Is it that down to the fact that Tesla owners are primarily middle-aged nad Ford Focus's are owned by spotty teenagers? Who knows.
There are fewer crashes when you're on autopilot. Is that because Autopilot is better than humans or is it because Autopilot only gets enabled when its safe? Who knows.
> If you take your hands off the wheel and look at your phone for 6 seconds in any other car you’re going to have a bad time.
Which is why you don't do it in any other car. I don't know much about autopilot, but because we as humans don't know when it can go wrong, it's easier to get it into situations it wasn't designed for. This is not true for the 6 seconds any other car scenario as we will be predicting what the steering wheel and traffic in front of us might do.
Very true. Tesla has done a lot to try and make it clear to drivers that they must remain vigilant - in this particular case it sounds like the driver ignored several auditory tactile warnings to resume control of the vehicle, in addition to the standard warnings when Autopilot is activated. Short of changing the name I think they’ve done everything they can to manage expectations for Autopilot once you’re in the car, but humans don’t always work like that.
I do think changing the name would be the responsible thing to do.
If you call something a knife you can't 100% blame the customers if they try to use it to cut stuff, even if you say "Knife™ should not be used for cutting"
I moved to SoCal from Arizona about 1.5 years ago for a job, and I plan to leave within the next 6 months. The most striking aspect of living here is the incongruity between taxes/state spending and the general despair of the average Californian. Lots of natural beauty here but I can get better quality of life and keep more of my money somewhere else.
Demand for software folks is so incredible (anecdotal), it’s hard to see salaries falling anytime soon. As a mechanical guy, I envy the job selection. Software jobs outnumber mechanical 10:1
I’ve never owned a truck before, mainly for economic/environmental reasons, but I am extremely interested in an electric truck. I’ve decided to order the Cybertruck over the Rivian, primarily for 2 reasons:
1) Tesla has a massive charging network that is expanding rapidly
2) The Rivian starts $30k+ higher than the Cybertruck
What’s the incentive for attractive people? Why would you voluntarily give up a competitive advantage in a highly competitive market? If you’re ugly like me this is great.
Doesn't seem great at all. You're just procrastinating the "reveal" to a later date where, after N amount of time invested, it might all be for nothing.
Also, that sounds like some seriously uncomfortable potential scenarios to me. Like someone who was using 10 year old pics of themselves finally meeting you at the bar. What exactly is the upside again? Getting to pretend like looks don't matter when they actually do?
As an ugly person I have a higher chance of scoring a date with someone attractive using this photoless site than I would have otherwise. Seems like a win.
You're assuming attractive people would use this site in the first place. At the very least, I'd expect the attractive to ugly ratio to look quite different on this site compared to other dating sites.
You're assuming attractive people just all want to be drooled at. Maybe they care about personality and are looking for a deeper relationship. In that case, putting up a profile pic is just going to gain them unwanted attention that doesn't further their goals.
Being attractive brings its own host of problems when it comes to finding a mate, especially if you are looking for someone you really relate to at a high level rather than someone who just scratches some primal itches.
Rubbish. Being attractive only makes things easier. Why on earth would a less attractive person have a higher chance of finding a soulmate than a more attractive person?
That you can select people that don't care about looks, which is generally a signal for someone who is more experienced, socially sophisticated and emotionally intelligent than average, and more likely to give you a pleasant experience.
Also, in case the system is selective, then you know that the other person likes you for something other than looks, which is also a good indicator for a better experience, both in a short-term and a long-term relationship.
> That you can select people that don't care about looks, which is generally a signal for someone who is more experienced, socially sophisticated and emotionally intelligent than average, and more likely to give you a pleasant experience.
That's a very optimistic outlook. The person you replied to said, "If you’re ugly like me this is great", and I think they're closer to the reality. I predict the site will be filled with mostly unattractive people that care about looks as much as everyone else.
You’re assuming that all attractive people are out to find the most attractive partner. In reality, I’ve dated people both much prettier and much uglier than me because personality is a more important factor than looks.
No reason to be concerned as long as local laws are being followed, which it sounds like is the case. Below 400ft above ground is fair game for everyone, as normal air traffic does not fly that low, making it perfectly safe.
Perhaps I'm wrong to frame it as a privacy issue, but I have a large problem with allowing people to be harassed for lawful actions. If the law says I can do something, and I do it, I shouldn't be required to explain why I did it.
I have no problem with people not wanting drones flying over their properties, and I have no problem with a collective decision that people's privacy should supersede the right to fly drones in public airspace (indeed, I'd probably agree with it). But that should be enforced by a change in law, not by an demand that someone justify their supposedly legal actions.
Right? At that point you’re trading off between useful payload and batteries. I’m wondering if maybe they’re witnessing a loiter pattern, and misrepresenting is as a hover. These likely aren’t aerospace Engineers giving quotes here.
A 6ft fixed wing drone could fairly easily achieve what’s described in the article if it was really a loiter, not a hover. A multirotor would be an engineering feat.
30 ft wingspan powered glider drone made from composite materials would be even more energy-efficient. Multirotor drones have low energy densities and waste it rapidly.
Other aspects to consider are that the “drones” are replaced by others as batteries deplete or that the drones aren’t really there as long as people believe.
It’s possible that someone is doing this as a hobby for artistic, conspiracy theory “reconnaissance“ or benign data gathering-purposes or conducting some sort of investigation or intelligence gathering.
It really sucks that this specific interchange has cost so many lives - and it’s apparent that there’s some frailty of the code that makes autopilot vehicles more susceptible.
In general when it comes to crashes on Autopilot, it’s important to keep perspective. If you take your hands off the wheel and look at your phone for 6 seconds in any other car you’re going to have a bad time. On Autopilot, it took a confluence of bad road design, poor road maintenance, and an unlikely software fault to initiate a crash.