US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it. I got a one month free trial of FSD and turned it off after two weeks. Quite simply: it's dangerous.

- It failed with a cryptic system error while driving

- It started making a left turn far too early that would have scraped the left side of the car on a sign. I had to manually intervene.

- In my opinion, the default setting accelerates way too aggressively. I'd call myself a fairly aggressive driver and it is too aggressive for my taste.

- It tried to make way too many right turns on red when it wasn't safe to. It would creep into the road, almost into the path of oncoming vehicles.

- It didn't merge left to make room for vehicles merging onto the highway. The vehicles then tried to cut in. The system should have avoided an unsafe situation like this in the first place.

- It would switch lanes to go faster on the highway, but then missed an exit on at least one occasion because it couldn't make it back into the right lane in time. Stupid.

After the system error, I lost all trust in FSD from Tesla. Until I ride in one and feel safe, I can't have any faith that this is a reasonable system. Hell, even autopilot does dumb shit on a regular basis. I'm grateful to be getting a car from another manufacturer this year.

> Lots of people are asking how good the self driving has to be before we tolerate it.

There’s a simple answer to this. As soon as it’s good enough for Tesla to accept liability for accidents. Until then if Tesla doesn’t trust it, why should I?

This is how I feel about nuclear energy. Every single plant should need to form a full insurance fund dedicated to paying out if there’s trouble. And the plant should have strict liability: anything that happens from materials it releases are its responsibility.

But people get upset about this. We need corporations to take responsibility.

While we're at it how about why apply the same standard to coal and natural gas plants? For some reason when we start taking about nuclear plants we all of a sudden become adverse to the idea of unfunded externalities but when we're talking about 'old' tech that has been steadily irradiating your community and changing the gas composition of the entire planet it becomes less concerning.

I think it is a matter of perceived risk.

Realistically speaking, nuclear power is pretty safe. In the history of nuclear power, there were two major incidents. Considering the number of nuclear power plants around the planet, that is pretty good. However, as those two accidents demonstrated, the potential fallout of those incidents is pretty severe and widespread. I think this massively contributes to the perceived risks. The warnings towards the public were pretty clear. I remember my mom telling stories from the time the Chernobyl incident became known to the public and people became worried about the produce they usually had from their gardens. Meanwhile, everything that has been done to address the hazards of fossil based power generation is pretty much happening behind the scenes.

With coal and natural gas, it seems like people perceive the risks as more abstract. The radioactive emissions of coal power plants have been known for a while and the (potential) dangers of fine particulate matters resulting from combustion are somewhat well known nowadays as well. However, the effects of those danger seem much more abstract and delayed, leading people to not be as worried about it. It also shows on a smaller, more individual scale: people still buy ICE cars at large and install gas stoves into their houses despite induction being readily available and at times even cheaper.