"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous."
Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."
Tesla should be sued out of existence.
replies(9):
Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."
Tesla should be sued out of existence.
Fully self driving cars are real. Just not made by Tesla.
Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.
Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity.
It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.
When it was turned on according to the dashboard UI, things were even worse. It'd disengage less than every ten miles. However, there wasn't an alarm when it disengaged, just a tiny gray blinking icon on the dash. A second or so after the blinking, it'd beep once and then pull crap like attempt a sharp left on an exit ramp that curved to the right.
I can't imagine this model kills fewer people per mile than Tesla FSD.
I think there should be a recall, but it should hit pretty much all manufacturers shipping stuff in this space.
All of the above are significantly better than burning gas or coal - but nuclear is the clear winner from an CO2 and general availability perspective.
She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous"
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%....
CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three of which are a bit safer than hydro (still very safe).
Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing flooding.
If you believe their steering assist kills more people than Tesla FSD then you're welcome, encouraged even, to file a report with the NHTSA here [1].
The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.
Pure hydropower dams definitely do have significant environmental impact.
https://electrek.co/2024/10/15/tesla-needs-to-come-clean-abo...
I assume you mean that sub 80% capacity nuclear has issues being cost effective (which I agree is true).
You could pair the baseload nuclear with renewables during peak times and reduce battery dependency for scaling and maintaining higher utilization.
Even at this minute, Teslas are moving around powered by nuclear power.
Daytime you’re facing solar head to head which is already dropping wholesale rates. Off peak is mostly users seeking cheap electricity so demand at 2AM is going to fall if power ends up cheaper at noon. Which means nuclear needs to make most of its money from the duck curve price peaks. But batteries are driving down peak prices.
Actually cheap nuclear would make this far easier, but there’s no obvious silver bullet.
Remember that every time you get in your Tesla that you're just a carbon offset for a spoiled billionaire.
So if Elon lives in a jet that flys 24/7 you're only very wrong. Since that's obviously not the case you're colossally and completely wrong.
Remember that the next time you try to make an argument that Tesla is not an incredible force for decarbonization.
Oh and it was on by default, meaning I had to disable it every time I turned the car on.
But don’t get me wrong, anyone and everyone can fly their private jets if they can afford such things. They will already have generated enough taxes at that point that they’re offsetting thousands or millions of Prius drivers.
Also, that’s investors, not consumers. While the rise of retail investing has made this kind of dubious, investors are generally assumed to be far less in need of protection than consumers by the law; it is assumed that they take care about their investment that a consumer couldn’t reasonably take around every single product that they buy.
Besides, electric vehicles still seem to be very impractical compared to normal cars, because they can't drive very far without needing a lengthy recharge.
So I think the eco-friendliness of electric vehicles is maybe like the full self-driving system: nice promises but no delivery.
Maybe your just okay and willing to accept that kind of change. That's fine, just as some people are okay with the risk of nuclear, the use of land for solar/wind. But to just flat out deny that it has impact is just dishonest discourse at best
People build dams for many reasons not just electricity.
Having a reserve of rainwater is a big deal in California, Texas, etc. Letting millions of cubic meters more water flow into the ocean would make the water problems much worse in much of the world. Flood control is similarly a serious concern. Blaming 100% of the issues from dams on Hydropower is silly if outlawing hydropower isn’t going to remove those dams.
In 2024 if you tell me a car is “fully self driving” it’s pretty reasonable of me to think it’s a fully self driving car given the current state of vehicle technology. They didn’t say “magic steering” or something clearly ridiculous to take at face value. It sounds like what it should be able to do. Especially with “full” in the name. Just call it “assisted driving” or hell “self driving.” The inclusion of “fully” makes this impossible to debate in good faith.
My Hyundai is a 2021 and I have to turn on the steering assist every time which I find annoying. My guess is that you had an earlier model where the steering assist was more liability than asset.
It's understandable that earlier versions of this kind of thing wouldn't function as well, but it is very strange that they would have it on by default.
Yes, actually.
Other execs fly as needed because they recognize that in this wondrous age of the internet that teleconferencing can replace most in-person meetings. Somehow, only a supposed technology genius like Elon Musk thinks that in-person meetings required for everything.
Other execs also don't claim to be trying to save the planet while doing everything in their power to exploit its resources or destroy natural habitats.
This is called "false advertising", and even worse - recognizing revenue on a feature you are not delivering (a beta is not a delivered feature) is not GAAP.
Hydro is not evenly distributed and mostly tapped out outside of a few exceptions. Hydro literally can not solve the issue.
Even less so as AGW starts running meltwater sources dry.
Annual production from nuclear is getting passed by wind in 2025 and possibly 2024. So just this second it’s possibly #1 among wind, solar and nuclear but they are all well behind hydro.
That's just false advertising. You can't get around that.
I can't believe our current laws let Tesla get away like that.
PS: For context 2TW of solar can generate about 10% of global electricity. Production capacity will not stop at 2TW. All other forms of electricity are basically doomed, no matter what the GOP says about climate change.
Not 100% sure which year since it wasn't mine I think around 2018 +-2y. It was good at following bright painted white lines and nothing else. I didn't mind the beeping and the vibration when I stepped on a line but it wanted to actively steer the wheel which was infuriating. I wouldn't mind it if it was just a suggestion.