Which of my claims do you disagree with? - That the vehicle planned a route that it shouldn't, but corrected that route plan? - That the vehicle entered an ar

Which of my claims do you disagree with? - That the vehicle planned a route that it shouldn't, but corrected that route plan? - That the vehicle entered an area where it shouldn't enter? - That Tesla doesn't use radar? - That Tesla doesn't use lidar? - That the calculations were done on GPU rather than CPU and so it doesn't make sense to think that the reason this happened was an overloaded CPU? - That the Hacker News title is editorialized, in contradiction to Hacker News guidelines? I think the last one is probably most contentious and you are most likely to consider it sarcasm. So I'll point this out and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from. If you renamed the video title to, "Tesla FSB Beta does not cause a head-on collision" it would be just as accurate for the situation in question. However, it would also be more accurate for the majority of the video. As such, it is a more accurate headline. Meanwhile, the name of the video is changed from the name on YouTube. Clearly an editorial choice was made. Was it a good one? To really get to the heart of the matter: no one died in this video, but if we had a similar bias against traditional vehicles we would see 90 videos of deaths every single day. A similar level of antagonism would demand that more then the entirety of the entire front page of Hacker News was completely taken up with actual deaths. Every day. The actual statistics at the heart of driving safety are very clear - human + AI is currently much much safer than human alone. That is the actual reality. This headline contradicts the underlying reality and it does so because the author knew the headline would attract more attention. It was optimizing for engagement, not for accuracy. I feel this sort of approach to headlines strongly contradicts the guidelines of Hacker News.