5 ms·

Most of these look like user stupidity rather than anything wrong with the car. Especially the video of the guy who trys to summon his car across a road. I ima

by fyfy18 7y ago

Most of these look like user stupidity rather than anything wrong with the car. Especially the video of the guy who trys to summon his car across a road. I imagine summon is pretty dumb, but all Tesla's talk of autopilot and self-driving cars has made people believe it is a lot smarter than it actually is.

rsynnott 7y ago
Let’s say you make an amazing new consumer gas central heating boiler, and shout about it on Twitter to your adoring followers. And if someone switches it on without opening the water valves, it explodes and kills them. You say “oh, the manual says not to do that”. How do you think that would fly? Consumer products have to be designed to be safe against consumers, to a large extent. You can’t just add a feature, add a disclaimer that says, in effect, “don’t use this”, and blame the user if they use the feature.
- donatj 7y ago
  I don’t understand if this argument is sarcasm or not? I don’t have a boiler but I have a water heater and know if I don’t manually start the pilot light after having shut off the gas I could die. Technology has always required basic understanding to avoid harm.
arkitaip 7y ago
How is it 'user stupidity' when customers are using a feature as it is advertised, especially since the distances traveled are absolutely trivial?
- gambiting 7y ago
  The car only moves forward as long as you hold a button on your phone - as soon as you let go it stops. You are supposed to observe the car moving at all times. So logically, if you see that the car is about to collide with something, you let go of the button and the car stops. What else is it if not user error then?
  - barrkel 7y ago
    Most parking involves one or the other end of the vehicle being close to something else. How do you stop in time if it starts out going the wrong way? That sounds like the issue with the chap who tried it in his driveway. (My feeling is that if the feature isn't more reliable than a 95th percentile human for the subset of functionality, it probably shouldn't be released.)
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > if you see that the car is about to collide with something What about when the car is about to collide with something you cannot see from a remote point of view, or when the positions and/or velocities are distorted from the longer perspective? There are many common situations where hazards that would usually be visible from the driver's seat are obscured when looking at the car from a distance. Also, people generally have to be trained and pass a test demonstrating basic competency at driving and pass a vision test. These tests don't include the slightly different skills/vision required to safely judge driving a car from a distance, so why would you assume a licensed driver is even capable of operating dangerous machinery to do something outside the scope of that license?
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      If you can't see enough to know if your car is going to crash maybe you should not drive it [ie don't tell it that it's safe to continue]?!
  - dhdjdkd 7y ago
    How can you gauge approach angles properly from outside the cabin. It’s bs
    - gambiting 7y ago
      If you can't then you shouldn't be using this feature, simple.
      - dhdjdkd 7y ago
missosoup 7y ago
If it's a user facing feature. And it fails catastrophically if some preconditions aren't met. And it doesn't have the ability to verify those preconditions. Then allowing users to invoke it is probably not user stupidity. It's just poor design. The same topic is being explored in the 737 MAX clusterfuck where Boeing failed to provide sufficient safeguards OR sufficient training for non-expert users to manage catastrophic failure. People are stupid, yes. But you can't blame people being stupid as an excuse for insufficient safety engineering, just like you can't blame drag force being proportional to the square of the velocity. These are just the constraints we have to engineer around.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hef19898 7y ago
  True! I have the impression that Tesla is trying to "innovate" itself out of the corner they are finding themselves in. Already said multiple times, but there are valid reasons why the automotive sector is working the way it is. Sure, as everywhere a lot of stuff is just there because it was always there. Go ahead and brake that. But understand first which ones can be ignored and which ones not. Kind of worked for SpaceX by ignoring all the political bullshit in aerospace. I'm slowly wondering whether that was luck or intention, so. Just how the latest Tesla features ever became road legal is beyond my understanding so.
  - wnorris 7y ago
    Interesting comment and one that conflicts with what most automakers are saying in regards to where the industry is going. This thinking is what may cause many automakers to fail. https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/is-the-auto-industry-prepared-for-the-future-of-mobility/ https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/is-the-auto-industr...
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    A lot of stuff is just there because it was always there. Go ahead and brake that. But understand first which ones can be ignored and which ones not. Chesterton’s Fence: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. —G.K. Chesterton, “The Thing,” 1929

by fyfy18 7y ago

rsynnott 7y ago

Let’s say you make an amazing new consumer gas central heating boiler, and shout about it on Twitter to your adoring followers. And if someone switches it on without opening the water valves, it explodes and kills them. You say “oh, the manual says not to do that”. How do you think that would fly? Consumer products have to be designed to be safe against consumers, to a large extent. You can’t just add a feature, add a disclaimer that says, in effect, “don’t use this”, and blame the user if they use the feature.

donatj 7y ago
I don’t understand if this argument is sarcasm or not? I don’t have a boiler but I have a water heater and know if I don’t manually start the pilot light after having shut off the gas I could die. Technology has always required basic understanding to avoid harm.

arkitaip 7y ago

How is it 'user stupidity' when customers are using a feature as it is advertised, especially since the distances traveled are absolutely trivial?

gambiting 7y ago
The car only moves forward as long as you hold a button on your phone - as soon as you let go it stops. You are supposed to observe the car moving at all times. So logically, if you see that the car is about to collide with something, you let go of the button and the car stops. What else is it if not user error then?
- barrkel 7y ago
  Most parking involves one or the other end of the vehicle being close to something else. How do you stop in time if it starts out going the wrong way? That sounds like the issue with the chap who tried it in his driveway. (My feeling is that if the feature isn't more reliable than a 95th percentile human for the subset of functionality, it probably shouldn't be released.)
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > if you see that the car is about to collide with something What about when the car is about to collide with something you cannot see from a remote point of view, or when the positions and/or velocities are distorted from the longer perspective? There are many common situations where hazards that would usually be visible from the driver's seat are obscured when looking at the car from a distance. Also, people generally have to be trained and pass a test demonstrating basic competency at driving and pass a vision test. These tests don't include the slightly different skills/vision required to safely judge driving a car from a distance, so why would you assume a licensed driver is even capable of operating dangerous machinery to do something outside the scope of that license?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    If you can't see enough to know if your car is going to crash maybe you should not drive it [ie don't tell it that it's safe to continue]?!
- dhdjdkd 7y ago
  How can you gauge approach angles properly from outside the cabin. It’s bs
  - gambiting 7y ago
    If you can't then you shouldn't be using this feature, simple.
    - dhdjdkd 7y ago

missosoup 7y ago

If it's a user facing feature. And it fails catastrophically if some preconditions aren't met. And it doesn't have the ability to verify those preconditions. Then allowing users to invoke it is probably not user stupidity. It's just poor design. The same topic is being explored in the 737 MAX clusterfuck where Boeing failed to provide sufficient safeguards OR sufficient training for non-expert users to manage catastrophic failure. People are stupid, yes. But you can't blame people being stupid as an excuse for insufficient safety engineering, just like you can't blame drag force being proportional to the square of the velocity. These are just the constraints we have to engineer around.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 7y ago
True! I have the impression that Tesla is trying to "innovate" itself out of the corner they are finding themselves in. Already said multiple times, but there are valid reasons why the automotive sector is working the way it is. Sure, as everywhere a lot of stuff is just there because it was always there. Go ahead and brake that. But understand first which ones can be ignored and which ones not. Kind of worked for SpaceX by ignoring all the political bullshit in aerospace. I'm slowly wondering whether that was luck or intention, so. Just how the latest Tesla features ever became road legal is beyond my understanding so.
- wnorris 7y ago
  Interesting comment and one that conflicts with what most automakers are saying in regards to where the industry is going. This thinking is what may cause many automakers to fail. https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/is-the-auto-industry-prepared-for-the-future-of-mobility/ https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/is-the-auto-industr...
- braythwayt 7y ago
  A lot of stuff is just there because it was always there. Go ahead and brake that. But understand first which ones can be ignored and which ones not. Chesterton’s Fence: In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it. —G.K. Chesterton, “The Thing,” 1929