Enjoy and appreciate the discussion. Is this in the same neighborhood of why the reworked dict implementation in python 3.6 had insertion order as a detail, but explicitly claimed it was not a feature that should be relied upon? At least until python 3.7 cemented the behavior as a feature.
That's interesting to see with knowing that just a fraction of the planned constellation is there. That's a lot of dots already. I'm guessing that the few visible string of dots are more recent launches that haven't quite reached their final positions yet. That's also interesting to see how long it takes the train to not be a train any longer, while at the same time showing how frequently new launches have been occurring.
I believe the constellation is about 90-95% complete now. The first shell at least. There's plans for more shells but that's for redundancy, not coverage.
I think the laser interlinks are proving more difficult than SpaceX anticipated. I had expected them much earlier in the deployment than now, and it seems they are currently only planning them for polar orbits.
I think they need quite a lot of satellites in polar orbits to get coverage at the poles, and they have barely launched any yet. They are close to 100% coverage of the rest of the world already though.
Well, 9/10 is still a fraction, just not as small as I thought it was. ;-) I must have fallen behind on launches, not realizing they were this far along.
At least for the short lines, they're launched in batches from one point, so they take some time to spread out to their final orbits. These are neat to view after a launch.
In asking that question, my guess is that you’ve never experienced being a Tesla owner. And that’s fair. I’m a Tesla owner myself, for full disclosure.
I’ve found that a Tesla is truly a computer on wheels; not unlike an iPhone is a computer in your hand. In many ways, Tesla is a software company that makes their own hardware. Unlike every other auto manufacturer, their software has full and complete control over every aspect of their hardware. Their hardware-software vertical integration is for real. They also have single software releases that deploy OTA to their whole fleet of in-service “devices.” From a software and release engineering perspective, incumbent auto manufacturers are decades behind.
> Nearly all car manufacturers have adaptive cruise control somewhere in their lineup
I’d argue the difference is that _every_ vehicle Tesla sells today is cable of being upgraded to the latest state of autonomy—just by an OTA software update and/or flipping some feature flags. While the claim of full Level 5 autonomy without lidar is controversial, it’s possible that most Teslas on the road today will be capable of being upgraded to L5 capability via a software update.
All that said, the QA issues in those photos are pretty jarring. No excuses there.
> While the claim of full Level 5 autonomy without lidar is controversial, it’s possible that most Teslas on the road today will be capable of being upgraded to L5 capability via a software update.
How can you claim the current hardware on Teslas is capable of L5 when they haven’t even demonstrated L4 capability? Just saying it’s capable for full autonomy doesn’t actually make it so, they need to actually prove it.
Also, you (and Elon Musk) talk about Level 5 so casually when all the self driving companies out there strictly claim to aim for only Level 4.
Because humans are perfectly capable of doing this task with vision only. Which means it's effectively a visual modelilng task, and is only a question of computation technology, modelling and available FLOPS inside the car. It seems perfectly possible that the hardware in a current Tesla car is capable of this.
Sorry, this is just wishful thinking. Computers don’t have human brains which have evolved over millions of years. So just saying “if humans do it with only vision, so can computers” is frankly weak logic. The technology isn’t there yet to match human brain performance, unless you believe Tesla will achieve several breakthroughs in computer vision and AI to do this.
Who said that the technology was there? Did you even read the previous comments or just jumped onto the hate wagon because of preconceptions?
The question was why it is possible. Not why "it should work today", nor "why it will most definitely 100% happen guaranteed in the next couple of years".
So the technology isn’t there and nobody has gotten anywhere close to achieving those significant breakthroughs in vision or AI, but it’s “perfectly possible” with current hardware “because humans do it”? This answer makes no sense.
The real answer is nobody knows whether current hardware is enough or not, including Tesla. Until they demonstrate it, it’s just a claim. But they can’t sell the cars on FSD promise if they say it.
Humans don't need lidar -> that means all the information is present in the visual channel -> it is at least theoretically possible to do with cameras -> tesla cars have cameras -> tesla cars might have possibility to do it.
> it is at least theoretically possible to do with cameras
Theoretically, yes. But that’s different than confidently claiming it’s “perfectly possible” and that it’s only a question of computation and modeling.
Tesla is categorically saying all their vehicles on the road have necessary hardware for full self driving. Did you somehow miss this? They’re taking money on this promise. So who cares if the original poster snuck in the word ‘possible’ or not?
Because you talk to and respond to people on this forum. You can't misrepresent what they write and call it "they snuck in a word". What kind of logic is that? To respond to some other claim from somewhere else on the internet, real or imaginary, regardless of what the person in question writes?
While I personally don't agree with your claim that "tesla categorically saying" those things, the poster still did say it even less.
This is what Tesla claim:
The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
You are welcome to present any links or quotes as to where you got the idea that Tesla claims that the vechicle is guaranteed to have FSD in some specific claimed time period (including a time period within each individual vechicle's lifespan).
I also personally know several Tesla owners and none of them interpret the company's claims the way you do. So who are all these people who you think are defrauded or lied to? Where are all the angry buyers who thought they were getting Level 5?
> To respond to some other claim from somewhere else on the internet, real or imaginary, regardless of what the person in question writes?
I'm responding to Tesla's official claims about FSD hardware.
> You are welcome to present any links or quotes as to where you got the idea that Tesla claims that the vechicle is guaranteed to have FSD in some specific claimed time period (including a time period within each individual vechicle's lifespan).
Way to move the goal post. This whole thread is about hardware, not OTA software updates or a timeframe to deliver FSD. They've repeatedly claimed since 2016 that all Teslas have necessary hardware for Level 5 functionality. I've explained in this comment chain why that claim is disingenuous.
> just by an OTA software update and/or flipping some feature flags
Sounds like you might not have "experienced being a Tesla owner". There are a ton of Tesla's which, according to the company, will definitely require hardware updates for full self-driving.
They're not a tech company, but they think (and loudly say) they are, and that causes these kinds of problems. Using tech jargon does not a tech company make.
They have similar levels of customer loyalty that baffle some outsiders, but at least one has a reputation for outstanding polish and customer experience and the other one has awful customer service and quality stories you can find every day.
Conda has an .exe installer on Windows and a .pkg installer on macOS. Both signed by Anaconda, Inc. for the OS. There are RPM and deb bootstrap repos for Linux. Then there’s also the .sh shar file installer.
It would be nice to have something like a fusion of conda and apt to work right out of the box on distros like Ubuntu. Like an "apt install --user". I don't understand why we need root rights to install programs that will not need root rights to run anyway. Seems like a huge and obvious oversight to me. I guess it's not a big pain point because in most cases people use their own machines and have root access. Not always the case though in companies or university labs for example.
I have been wondering this for ages. Just last week I had to manually set up KeePass, VSCode, IntelliJ, Guitar (git ui) by manually unpacking tarballs (luckily already built) into ~/bin. Guitar luckily had an AppImage which worked beautifully as a single executable.
For that reason alone I'm a huge fan of AppImage above snaps and flatpaks.
