6 ms·

Tesla and Carelessness, name a better duo. From removing radar from their cars [1] to having their $200k super car be criminally underbraked. [2] Tesla has a

by screye 5y ago

Tesla and Carelessness, name a better duo. From removing radar from their cars [1] to having their $200k super car be criminally underbraked. [2] Tesla has a low regard for human life, and exemplifies the worst of silicon valley's progress at any cost approach. Elon is undeniably intelligent, but his ethics are dangerously sidelined by his need to create products that might not be ready yet. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-drops-radar-is-autopilot-system-safe-2021-06-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn9QWjxFPKM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn9QWjxFPKM

misiti3780 5y ago
Tesla doesnt make a $200K car.......
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  They may not be in production yet, but they are asking $200k for the Roadster (and $250k for the founders), which might be the super car I presume parent is talking about. The plaid while not $200k still clocks in at $150k
  - filoleg 5y ago
    >They may not be in production yet, but they are asking $200k for the Roadster (and $250k for the founders), which might be the super car I presume parent is talking about Well, that's the problem. Claiming that the car that isn't even in production yet has "underbraking" issue is misleading at best. Regardless, I don't think that person was talking about the upcoming Roadster, because they added a link as a citation in "having their $200k super car be criminally underbraked. [2]", and [2] is a link to a video review of Model S Plaid by a big car youtube channel. I have no idea why they linked that specific video, because it was a glowing review of the car. The reviewers were giddy and threw tons of praise at it in pretty much every aspect.
    - screye 5y ago
      I meant the plaid. Sorry. You are right, Tesla makes good cars. The rub is pretty much about carelessness on part of Tesla in safety design. I specifically linked the video because they are even handed in their reviews and not one of those who put down cars just because they don't like the CEO.
      - filoleg 5y ago
        Thanks for explaining your point, I really appreciate it. Mostly because the original reply seemed like it was just trying to insert a video that doesn't fit the criticism drawn in the comment, but is baiting for people who will just read the comment without watching the video. But I get the point you were trying to make now. While I disagree, I cannot in good conscience not upvote a point made well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vasco 5y ago
I don't know much about this but wasn't Tesla getting safety award after safety award in testing and that translating into lower insurance rates?
- 420official 5y ago
  My understanding is that they are safe in the event of a crash, not that they have the best crash avoidance.
  - I-Robot 5y ago
    That's patently a hilariously non-sequitur answer to the OP saying HE got rear ended by a Tesla. HE is the one with whiplash and a totaled car. Who CARES about how safe the stupid Tesla was that did it....
    - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
      So, it is safer "in the event of a crash" for the people inside the car, but if crash rates are higher (statistics pending) it might be more dangerous for everybody both outside and inside of the car.
      - 420official 5y ago
        Exactly. Tesla is 100% trying to keep you safe on the inside while disregarding safety on the outside. Just look at the Cybertruck, pedestrian safety is clearly their last thought.
- adventured 5y ago
  The first several model years of the Model S were generally considered to be among the safest vehicles in the history of automobiles. https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-tesla-model-s-achieves-best-safety-rating-of-any-car-ever-tested-2013-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-tesla-model-s-achieves...
  - 5y ago
alphabetting 5y ago
thanks for intro to that car review channel. really good stuff
JoshCole 5y ago
Radar removal improved accuracy rather than harming it, they don't actually sell a car at the price point you listed. and inference from Tesla's award winning safety records suggests that Telsa does care about human life. The factual content in your comment is decisively lacking. Careless of you, I think.
- catlikesshrimp 5y ago
  "Radar removal improved accuracy rather than harming it..." Reference, please. When more sensors don't perform better than less sensors, either your hardware or your software is flawed. Removing a sensor from design because your system doesn't work speaks poorly of your product. Even following that simplistic logic, if autopilot isn't safe, How could they dare not remove it?
  - JoshCole 5y ago
    From the keynote of CVPR. CVPR is the premier annual computer vision event comprising the main conference and several co-located workshops and short courses. https://cvpr2021.thecvf.com/ https://cvpr2021.thecvf.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrcCVPR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrcCVPR
  - JoshCole 5y ago
    > When more sensors don't perform better than less sensors, either your hardware or your software is flawed. Consider that 99 cameras plus one radar does not make a system perform better if the task is identifying whether there is the color blue in an image. If we add ten thousand radars to this situation it doesn't produce an improvement, in fact, it gets worse, because there is more power being used by the sensors and a lot more complexity. > Removing a sensor from design because your system doesn't work speaks poorly of your product. This is a convoluted way of saying that making improvements to things is bad. That is nonsensical. > Even following that simplistic logic, if autopilot isn't safe, How could they dare not remove it? They did remove it.
  - JoshCole 5y ago
    Just to show you mathematically that they're right consider that if you have two sensors that are both measuring the same thing. One is Norm(mean=0, std=0.00001) and the other is Norm(mean=0, std=10). The true quantity is always zero in the real world. Given this scenario and these two senors you get the result of 0.11 and 11 as your return from the two sensors. Lets say we average the result of these two sensors. The average is farther from the true value than the first sensor was. The less reliable sensor is adding noise to our measurement. It isn't high utility.

by screye 5y ago

misiti3780 5y ago

Tesla doesnt make a $200K car.......

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
They may not be in production yet, but they are asking $200k for the Roadster (and $250k for the founders), which might be the super car I presume parent is talking about. The plaid while not $200k still clocks in at $150k
- filoleg 5y ago
  >They may not be in production yet, but they are asking $200k for the Roadster (and $250k for the founders), which might be the super car I presume parent is talking about Well, that's the problem. Claiming that the car that isn't even in production yet has "underbraking" issue is misleading at best. Regardless, I don't think that person was talking about the upcoming Roadster, because they added a link as a citation in "having their $200k super car be criminally underbraked. [2]", and [2] is a link to a video review of Model S Plaid by a big car youtube channel. I have no idea why they linked that specific video, because it was a glowing review of the car. The reviewers were giddy and threw tons of praise at it in pretty much every aspect.
  - screye 5y ago
    I meant the plaid. Sorry. You are right, Tesla makes good cars. The rub is pretty much about carelessness on part of Tesla in safety design. I specifically linked the video because they are even handed in their reviews and not one of those who put down cars just because they don't like the CEO.
    - filoleg 5y ago
      Thanks for explaining your point, I really appreciate it. Mostly because the original reply seemed like it was just trying to insert a video that doesn't fit the criticism drawn in the comment, but is baiting for people who will just read the comment without watching the video. But I get the point you were trying to make now. While I disagree, I cannot in good conscience not upvote a point made well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vasco 5y ago

I don't know much about this but wasn't Tesla getting safety award after safety award in testing and that translating into lower insurance rates?

420official 5y ago
My understanding is that they are safe in the event of a crash, not that they have the best crash avoidance.
- I-Robot 5y ago
  That's patently a hilariously non-sequitur answer to the OP saying HE got rear ended by a Tesla. HE is the one with whiplash and a totaled car. Who CARES about how safe the stupid Tesla was that did it....
  - catlikesshrimp 5y ago
    So, it is safer "in the event of a crash" for the people inside the car, but if crash rates are higher (statistics pending) it might be more dangerous for everybody both outside and inside of the car.
    - 420official 5y ago
      Exactly. Tesla is 100% trying to keep you safe on the inside while disregarding safety on the outside. Just look at the Cybertruck, pedestrian safety is clearly their last thought.
adventured 5y ago
The first several model years of the Model S were generally considered to be among the safest vehicles in the history of automobiles. https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-tesla-model-s-achieves-best-safety-rating-of-any-car-ever-tested-2013-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-tesla-model-s-achieves...
- 5y ago

alphabetting 5y ago

thanks for intro to that car review channel. really good stuff

JoshCole 5y ago

Radar removal improved accuracy rather than harming it, they don't actually sell a car at the price point you listed. and inference from Tesla's award winning safety records suggests that Telsa does care about human life. The factual content in your comment is decisively lacking. Careless of you, I think.

catlikesshrimp 5y ago
"Radar removal improved accuracy rather than harming it..." Reference, please. When more sensors don't perform better than less sensors, either your hardware or your software is flawed. Removing a sensor from design because your system doesn't work speaks poorly of your product. Even following that simplistic logic, if autopilot isn't safe, How could they dare not remove it?
- JoshCole 5y ago
  From the keynote of CVPR. CVPR is the premier annual computer vision event comprising the main conference and several co-located workshops and short courses. https://cvpr2021.thecvf.com/ https://cvpr2021.thecvf.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrcCVPR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrcCVPR
- JoshCole 5y ago
  > When more sensors don't perform better than less sensors, either your hardware or your software is flawed. Consider that 99 cameras plus one radar does not make a system perform better if the task is identifying whether there is the color blue in an image. If we add ten thousand radars to this situation it doesn't produce an improvement, in fact, it gets worse, because there is more power being used by the sensors and a lot more complexity. > Removing a sensor from design because your system doesn't work speaks poorly of your product. This is a convoluted way of saying that making improvements to things is bad. That is nonsensical. > Even following that simplistic logic, if autopilot isn't safe, How could they dare not remove it? They did remove it.
- JoshCole 5y ago
  Just to show you mathematically that they're right consider that if you have two sensors that are both measuring the same thing. One is Norm(mean=0, std=0.00001) and the other is Norm(mean=0, std=10). The true quantity is always zero in the real world. Given this scenario and these two senors you get the result of 0.11 and 11 as your return from the two sensors. Lets say we average the result of these two sensors. The average is farther from the true value than the first sensor was. The less reliable sensor is adding noise to our measurement. It isn't high utility.