4 ms·
Sure. My point exactly was… no one seems to care about the countless meaningless terms automotive industry uses. But suddenly we are dissecting the possible Mea
by onethought 5y ago
Sure. My point exactly was… no one seems to care about the countless meaningless terms automotive industry uses. But suddenly we are dissecting the possible
Meanings of a feature that actually is pretty close to what it says.
Autopilot keeps your heading and velocity and is aware of objects in its path… so that’s extremely similar to autopilot in a plane.
Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving. I don’t see the issue. It does what it says.
- sidibe 5y ago> It does what it says. > Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving. Full directly contradicts most
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- onethought 5y agoAgain, it’s closer to what it does than Blue Motion. Or Toyotas latest “Safety Sense” (even though it sense hazards aka forward collision detection…) I can reel out examples all day, that no one bats an eye at. But Tesla so something… it’s a whole different ball game.
- sidibe 5y agoUh neither of those even suggest what it does while Tesla's says it does something it doesn't do
- onethought 5y agoSo esoteric meaningless names are good. Descriptive names are bad, because: I don’t think full self driving is full if there are any interventions. (Despite there being a sliding scale of autonomous driving from levels 1 to 5 with FSD easily falling into 3 if not 4). Teslas official literature classes it at level 2. But yep, super misleading compared to “Safe Sense” (aka forward hazard detection). Do you know what Tesla call that feature: “forward hazard detection” those bastards with their descriptive names!