7 ms·

$10K to whoever can show a Fortune 500 product is less reliable than Tesla's FSD

19 points by icapulet2 5y ago

guardiangod 5y ago
Dumb stunt- has a critical safety malfunction on average every 8 minutes; has been on the market for at least 6 months; has never been recalled. Have they tried Ford's self driving system on the Mach-E, and see how it auto-disengages when a highway curved more than what the system can handle? Would that count as a critical safety malfunction? I'd never use FSD in its current state, but FSD had plenty of recalls by way of version rollbacks.
- waffle_maniac 5y ago
  FSD needs a permanent recall. I don't consent to alpha software being used on roads.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I appreciate the sentiment, especially given the types of failure mode, but the stats (such as they are) indicate the cars are safer with it switched on than without it. To the extent that it’s possible to know anything, it looks like it makes cars less unsafe.
    - waffle_maniac 5y ago
      It looks like that because they only release FSD to Tesla cult members that know the software is dangerous. Once they start rolling out to lower safety scores (i.e. normal people) the suicide missions will begin.
    - icapulet2 5y ago
      The data comes from Tesla, not from third party investigators. The minimal data from third parties, like Consumer Reports, says it's shit outside of highway use (which is the safest kind of road to travel on already).
  - spiderice 5y ago
    Why do you think your consent is necessary or relevant? You do consent, by driving on the roads with them. "I don't consent to sharing the road with large SUVs" Did I just make large SUVs illegal?
    - ben_w 5y ago
      > You do consent, by driving on the roads with them. That’s not how consent works. Implied consent doesn’t override explicit refusal of consent. > Did I just make large SUVs illegal? No, but you could reasonably infer that you want them to be made so.
- tyrfing 5y ago
  None of these systems are "self driving", and Tesla is the only company I've seen falsely advertise their system as capable of such. Ford's BlueCruise, for example, requires the driver to watch the road, and seems to be pretty accurately advertised: https://www.consumerreports.org/driver-assistance-systems/ford-bluecruise-active-driving-assistance-system-review-a5728630415/ https://www.consumerreports.org/driver-assistance-systems/fo...
adolph 5y ago
Look at those "Additional Rules" including: * You may only use contest hashtags with Tweets relevant to the hashtag topic.
natch 5y ago
These people's reading comprehension is atrocious. Tesla's FSD does not exist yet. A beta product is not the same as a product. Yes one can pre-pay for the product and get some features now, but actual FSD is simply not here yet. By "actual FSD" I mean something that is non-beta and actually does full self driving, in case that needs to be spelled out. Boy.
- CharlesW 5y ago
  > Tesla's FSD does not exist yet. Someone should tell Telsa! "The complimentary FSD computer upgrade for owners with Full Self-Driving capability is now available." https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Quite a lot of people have told Tesla to choose a better name for the feature, precisely because the name implies greater capabilities than the it actually has. It’s good, but it’s not good enough for that name to not be misleading.
  - natch 5y ago
    Cute, but having the "capability"... as in, will be capable of FSD in the future when the software is ready... ...does not mean that the functionality has come out of beta.
    - kjreact 5y ago
      Where does it say on Tesla’s official FSD page that it is still in beta? Also why would I assume that the software is only ready in the future when it says “The complimentary FSD computer upgrade for owners with Full Self-Driving capability is now available.” What part of “available now” is meant to imply it’s ready in the future?
      - natch 5y ago
        It’s ok… I guess it’s just not for you.
maxharris 5y ago
This is a stunt by Green Hills Software, a maker of embedded operating systems and programming tools. You might be interested to know that they initiated a public relations campaign decrying the use of Linux as insecure: https://lwn.net/Articles/83242/ https://lwn.net/Articles/83242/ Here's an article by the very same Dan O’Dowd: "Linux: unfit for national security?" https://web.archive.org/web/20040912190752/http://www.ghs.com/news/eet4817_final2.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20040912190752/http://www.ghs.co... https://web.archive.org/web/20040916074333/https://www.ghs.com/linux/unfit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040916074333/https://www.ghs.c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software
- Ourgon 5y ago
  If I'm not mistaken the Green Hills "Integrity" OS is used in HP's iLO which has some [1] interesting [2] flaws [3]. Maybe these are all HP's fault, maybe they are partly due to the way "Integrity" works but it would be highly surprising if "Integrity" is indeed blameless. So, "Integrity, unfit for national security" and "Integrity is insecure" are probably just as "true" as the statements made by the above gentleman. [1] https://airbus-seclab.github.io/ilo/RECONBRX2018-Slides-Subverting_your_server_through_its_BMC_the_HPE_iLO4_case-perigaud-gazet-czarny.pdf https://airbus-seclab.github.io/ilo/RECONBRX2018-Slides-Subv... [2] https://vulmon.com/searchpage?q=ilo-- https://vulmon.com/searchpage?q=ilo-- [3] https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10/product_id-23648/HP-Integrated-Lights-out-4-Firmware.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10/p...
bushbaba 5y ago
Simple McDonald’s froyo machines :D
- riskneutral 5y ago
  I think someone owes you $10K.
accountLost 5y ago
Some context: https://dawnproject.com/full-self-driving-cars-software-at-its-most-dangerous/ https://dawnproject.com/full-self-driving-cars-software-at-i...
natch 5y ago
If this meets their condition of being from a Fortune 500 company (?) then their non-responding website is eligible to win. I wonder what OS they use to host it.
osrec 5y ago
I assume this is sarcasm?

19 points by icapulet2 5y ago

Dumb stunt- has a critical safety malfunction on average every 8 minutes; has been on the market for at least 6 months; has never been recalled. Have they tried Ford's self driving system on the Mach-E, and see how it auto-disengages when a highway curved more than what the system can handle? Would that count as a critical safety malfunction? I'd never use FSD in its current state, but FSD had plenty of recalls by way of version rollbacks.

waffle_maniac 5y ago
FSD needs a permanent recall. I don't consent to alpha software being used on roads.
- ben_w 5y ago
  I appreciate the sentiment, especially given the types of failure mode, but the stats (such as they are) indicate the cars are safer with it switched on than without it. To the extent that it’s possible to know anything, it looks like it makes cars less unsafe.
  - waffle_maniac 5y ago
    It looks like that because they only release FSD to Tesla cult members that know the software is dangerous. Once they start rolling out to lower safety scores (i.e. normal people) the suicide missions will begin.
  - icapulet2 5y ago
    The data comes from Tesla, not from third party investigators. The minimal data from third parties, like Consumer Reports, says it's shit outside of highway use (which is the safest kind of road to travel on already).
- spiderice 5y ago
  Why do you think your consent is necessary or relevant? You do consent, by driving on the roads with them. "I don't consent to sharing the road with large SUVs" Did I just make large SUVs illegal?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > You do consent, by driving on the roads with them. That’s not how consent works. Implied consent doesn’t override explicit refusal of consent. > Did I just make large SUVs illegal? No, but you could reasonably infer that you want them to be made so.
tyrfing 5y ago
None of these systems are "self driving", and Tesla is the only company I've seen falsely advertise their system as capable of such. Ford's BlueCruise, for example, requires the driver to watch the road, and seems to be pretty accurately advertised: https://www.consumerreports.org/driver-assistance-systems/ford-bluecruise-active-driving-assistance-system-review-a5728630415/ https://www.consumerreports.org/driver-assistance-systems/fo...

adolph 5y ago

Look at those "Additional Rules" including: * You may only use contest hashtags with Tweets relevant to the hashtag topic.

natch 5y ago

These people's reading comprehension is atrocious. Tesla's FSD does not exist yet. A beta product is not the same as a product. Yes one can pre-pay for the product and get some features now, but actual FSD is simply not here yet. By "actual FSD" I mean something that is non-beta and actually does full self driving, in case that needs to be spelled out. Boy.

CharlesW 5y ago
> Tesla's FSD does not exist yet. Someone should tell Telsa! "The complimentary FSD computer upgrade for owners with Full Self-Driving capability is now available." https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer
- ben_w 5y ago
  Quite a lot of people have told Tesla to choose a better name for the feature, precisely because the name implies greater capabilities than the it actually has. It’s good, but it’s not good enough for that name to not be misleading.
- natch 5y ago
  Cute, but having the "capability"... as in, will be capable of FSD in the future when the software is ready... ...does not mean that the functionality has come out of beta.
  - kjreact 5y ago
    Where does it say on Tesla’s official FSD page that it is still in beta? Also why would I assume that the software is only ready in the future when it says “The complimentary FSD computer upgrade for owners with Full Self-Driving capability is now available.” What part of “available now” is meant to imply it’s ready in the future?
    - natch 5y ago
      It’s ok… I guess it’s just not for you.

maxharris 5y ago

This is a stunt by Green Hills Software, a maker of embedded operating systems and programming tools. You might be interested to know that they initiated a public relations campaign decrying the use of Linux as insecure: https://lwn.net/Articles/83242/ https://lwn.net/Articles/83242/ Here's an article by the very same Dan O’Dowd: "Linux: unfit for national security?" https://web.archive.org/web/20040912190752/http://www.ghs.com/news/eet4817_final2.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20040912190752/http://www.ghs.co... https://web.archive.org/web/20040916074333/https://www.ghs.com/linux/unfit.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040916074333/https://www.ghs.c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Hills_Software

Ourgon 5y ago
If I'm not mistaken the Green Hills "Integrity" OS is used in HP's iLO which has some [1] interesting [2] flaws [3]. Maybe these are all HP's fault, maybe they are partly due to the way "Integrity" works but it would be highly surprising if "Integrity" is indeed blameless. So, "Integrity, unfit for national security" and "Integrity is insecure" are probably just as "true" as the statements made by the above gentleman. [1] https://airbus-seclab.github.io/ilo/RECONBRX2018-Slides-Subverting_your_server_through_its_BMC_the_HPE_iLO4_case-perigaud-gazet-czarny.pdf https://airbus-seclab.github.io/ilo/RECONBRX2018-Slides-Subv... [2] https://vulmon.com/searchpage?q=ilo-- https://vulmon.com/searchpage?q=ilo-- [3] https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10/product_id-23648/HP-Integrated-Lights-out-4-Firmware.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-10/p...

bushbaba 5y ago

Simple McDonald’s froyo machines :D

riskneutral 5y ago
I think someone owes you $10K.

accountLost 5y ago

Some context: https://dawnproject.com/full-self-driving-cars-software-at-its-most-dangerous/ https://dawnproject.com/full-self-driving-cars-software-at-i...

natch 5y ago

If this meets their condition of being from a Fortune 500 company (?) then their non-responding website is eligible to win. I wonder what OS they use to host it.

osrec 5y ago

I assume this is sarcasm?