[flagged]
replies(19):
It's a horrible comparison. Why do people keep making it? This isn't Lyft vs Uber. A better comparison to Tesla FSD would be blue cruise, super cruise, drive pilot, god's eye, and every other consumer level 2 ADAS.
To me this metric shows that their cars are very high performing, and for most drivers they're probably the fastest accelerating cars they've ever driven. Tesla should probably default them to 'chill' mode and provide a warning about how fast the car is when you switch out of that mode.
If you instead think Tesla's promise is consumer cars, Tesla's valuation is roughly equal to the entire rest of the global auto industry, despite being only a tiny and declining fraction of global sales. The relevant competitors then are Toyota, VW, Ford, BYD, etc. etc. Objectively, as a consumer auto company Tesla seems to be stagnant and falling behind.
I guess they're also hyping vaporware humanoid robots; if you ask me a future where a significant proportion of all families on earth purchase a humanoid robot seems completely implausible. It's very Jetsons though. Maybe they'll start building flying cars too.
We are discussing "normal people thoughts", not market sentiment.
I really don’t see anything that will cut through the narrative now.
For instance the model y had a fatality rate of 10.6 per billion vehicle miles 4x the average.
Its also seems unreasonable to suppose that they are poorly suited to survive a crash as this doesn't seem to be indicated.
A more logical conclusion is that a box with a giant flashing distracting tablet in the center which lies and says it can drive itself gets crashed more because people are functionally incapable of going from passenger to driver at random intervals with no notice.
Because Tesla keeps claiming they'll have full autonomy "next year", year after year.
In 2016 Tesla claimed every Tesla car being produced had "the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver". That was a lie: https://web.archive.org/web/20161020091022/https://tesla.com...
By the end of 2020 there were supposed to be 1 million Tesla robotaxis on the road. That was also a lie: https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil...
Tesla sets its own benchmark and consistently fails to achieve it.
If you want to compare Waymo and Tesla FSD from a technology standpoint and claim superiority of one over the other you can't use simple values like interventions per mile. It says very little. The solutions were designed for different purposes under different constraints. That's what engineers do. If Waymo was attempting to make consumer viable self driving vehicles they would have made very different decisions and likewise for Tesla if their only goal was taxi. That should be obvious to any technologist.
I wonder if segregating bad drivers into a separate population affects those fatality statistics.
"So who do we think is close to Tesla with -- a general solution for self-driving? And we still don't even know really who would even be a distant second. So yes, it really seems like we're -- I mean, right now, I don't think you could see a second place with a telescope, at least we can't." [1]
That is a literal, direct, backward-looking statement about current capabilities comparing it to all existing systems. A backward-looking statement that is clearly and objectively false given their present day inability to safely deploy driverless vehicles which Waymo already achieved in 2022, let alone quantitative disengagement metrics demonstrating a level of capability between 10-100x worse than Waymo contemporaneously in 2022 [2] and inferior even to Waymo in 2015 [3]. A false statement made willingly and knowingly in official investor communications to maintain their stock price.
[1] https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2023/01/26/te...
[2] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2023/02/17/2022-disen...
[3] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2018/02/01/disengagem...
If you're building a cheap mass market self driving vehicle that has to work everywhere you'll make completely different design decisions than a geo restricted taxi. Would you care to acknowledge that simple fact? The amount of hypotheticals you'd have to go through to compare these technologies in superiority up to this point is extensive. Go ahead, do the thought experiment. It would be a lot more interesting than a blanket interventions per mile with zero context.
Otherwise it's a false equivalence dog pile in search of Internet points. We don't need repeating of exhaustingly well known qualities of Tesla's CEO. That's not interesting, the Internet is already overrun with that.
Everything doesn't have to be about Elon. Imagine you replaced him in 2015, but still approached autonomy through mass market level 2. How would you compare them? I think you might add just a few caveats about the constraints and environments they operate in.
I find it rather sad that the work of so many talented engineers is simply dismissed because they'd rather talk about that clown. You'd think HN could at least separate the two. There's a whole lot of people here working for a billionaire shit head.
Some engineers have become so corrupted by the culture of lying of Tesla that they're willing to lie about things that there's no need to lie about, like quarter mile times of the Cybertruck:
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE
The lead engineer on the Cybertruck sadly tried to defend the lie, while admitting that they never even ran that quarter mile:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062614
Tesla engineers will be best off moving to another company.