5 ms·

Meh. I think criticism/public outcries of self driving is neccessary. Needs tight regulations because as much as I think self driving is entirely moronic, it is

Meh. I think criticism/public outcries of self driving is neccessary. Needs tight regulations because as much as I think self driving is entirely moronic, it is becoming reality, and that reality needs a way for the law and justice systems to be able to deal with it acccordingly. The tech itself is impressive but not really a leap forward for humanity or transportation. More sideways meamdering than anything.

ajross 4y ago
The question was "was autopilot engaged before this collision?" though. Increasingly the evidence (c.f. this decidedly fake story) seems questionable. Criticism is fine. Mistrusths are not. You agree with that much, right?
- epgui 4y ago
  Untruths* ?
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > decidedly fake story You type that, which is easy. Can you address the story on its merits?
  - tzs 4y ago
    He's questioning whether the story even has addressable merits. The story says the NHTSA report confirms FSD was on, but the story cites as its source and appears to have just cribbed their story from the CNN story. The CNN story just says that the NHTSA confirms that Tesla's "controversial driver-assist software" was engaged and later says that the NHTSA has been investigating both Autopilot and Full Self Driving. There's nothing in the CNN story that tells if "controversial driver-assist software" is Autopilot or FSD. CNN does not link to the actual NHTSA report. I could not find it with a brief search, and found on Reddit people who are much more familiar with NHTSA report procedures also failing to find out. I wouldn't call the submitted article a "fake story" like he did. It's more a pointless story that has no good reason to exist and should be replaced with the CNN story and the CNN story's title.
    - jjulius 4y ago
      >The CNN story just says that the NHTSA confirms that Tesla's "controversial driver-assist software" was engaged and later says that the NHTSA has been investigating both Autopilot and Full Self Driving. There's nothing in the CNN story that tells if "controversial driver-assist software" is Autopilot or FSD. Umm, this is from the CNN article linked to as a source at the bottom... >The Tesla’s driver told authorities that the vehicle’s “full self-driving” software braked unexpectedly and triggered the pileup on Thanksgiving day. CNN Business was first to report last month the driver’s claim that “full self-driving” was active. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/17/business/tesla-8-car-crash-autopilot/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/17/business/tesla-8-car-cras... Edit: This is not me taking a position in this discussion, just clarifying that the article does, in fact, say that.
      - tzs 4y ago
        I guess I wasn't clear. There's nothing in the CNN article to support that the NHTSA found that FSD was engaged, which is what the submitted article said. The driver said it was engaged but drivers are not always correct. They can confuse Autopilot with FSD (especially given Tesla's misleading naming of "Autopilot"). Drivers even occasionally will lie after an accident if they think it might in any way be their fault. I had a someone hit me once and it was amazing how blatantly they lied to the police about it. A friend of mine had recently moved to someplace in the hills near Los Gatos, and I was trying to drive from Cupertino to their place for the third time. The first two times I had missed a left turn to the road they were on, and there was no place to turn around for a mile or two so missing that left turn was quite annoying. On this third visit I was being very careful to memorize the names of the crossroads and the landmarks that I would see as I neared their road so I would not miss it (this was before consumer GPS was common). On this third trip, my trip ended with me waking up in my car stopped beside the road a little ways before the left turn, with someone standing beside my car asking me if I was alright. I apparently then lost consciousness again. My next memory is me still in the car, and I could see another car on the other side of the road that had evidently been in an accident, and was being tended to by police and an ambulance crew. I passed out again. Next memory is the ambulance crew putting me in the ambulance. According to what the other driver told police they had been going the opposite way as me approaching while I waited to make my left turn. Then at the last second I suddenly started my turn and they didn't even have time to react, hitting me at 55 mph (the speed limit there), which knocked my car back the way I'd come. I found that story totally believable. It was pretty much the only way I could imagine our cars ending up where they did, given my planned route and the utter impossibility that I could miss the left turn a third time. However, all the witnesses told a different story. Apparently, and I still cannot believe this even though dozens of witnesses and a bunch of physical evidence say otherwise, I missed the freaking left turn again! I drove the mile or two to the first place I could turn around, came back, and was in the right lane slowing down to start my right turn when the other car came from behind, going around 75 mph, and slammed into me. That knocked my car across both lanes in that direction, across both lanes of heavy oncoming traffic miraculously missing everyone, where it came to rest as described above. The driver of the other car then leapt out, not checking on his passengers (one of whom was seriously injured apparently having come out of his seat and slammed into the windshield cutting up his face quite badly) or me but instead trying to hide the open bottles of beer they had been drinking behind some bushes. The physical evidence also backed this up. When I got hit I locked the breaks (I don't know if I actually was able to consciously do that or it just happened somehow) and the police found skid marks from my car from the point of collision all the way to where my car ended up. Also, my rear window popped out at the point of collision, without shattering, and fell to the street where it then shattered leaving a nice indicator of where the collision actually happened. I spent a night in the hospital for observation for a concussion, and spent the next week or so kind of in a fog. A couple days after I got home I got a pamphlet in the mail from the hospital called something like "What To Expect After a Minor Concussion" that among other things warned me I might get some strong feelings of déjà vu. Someone screwed up at the hospital (or someone there has a twisted sense of humor) and they mailed me another copy of that pamphlet the next day. Reading again that I might get strong feelings of déjà vu invoked strong feelings of déjà vu. After a week or so the mental fog cleared up, and my only other apparent injuries from the accident (a sprained wrist and a bruised leg) had cleared up and I was back to normal. The other driver got fined and I think maybe a license suspension. I don't remember if he got any jail time. If he did it was only a small amount. Around 20 years later I was going through some old files and saw my old copy of the police's accident report. I Googled the other driver curious to see if he'd gotten into any more drunk driving incidents. His name did come up in a recent drunk driving story, but he was not the driver. A few years after hitting me he evidently got married and had a son. That son had grown up to be a high school student, excelling academically and in extracurriculars like sports and music. In his junior year he went to a big graduation party some seniors threw which of course had a lot of underage drinking. He stayed sober but the friends did not. Unfortunately one of his friends was his ride home and that friend was drunk. The friend still drove, the son made the mistake of still going with his friends and they had an accident. The friend was OK, but the son (and I think another passenger) died.
  - ajross 4y ago
    Really? It's published on a laptop review link farm populated mostly with presumptively-auto-generated content, not written by a journalist with a byline in any major publication. It makes a blockbuster claim for which it fails to cite sources (which should be trivially easy, since it's claiming the DOT "released a report"!). It's by an author who seemingly (see his history page) generates one hit piece on Tesla or Musk properties every few days. If there's ever a fake source, this is it. If there was an NHTSA report corroborating this, then the direct link would be everywhere.
- themitigating 4y ago
  What's a mistruth? Why not just use the word lie

ajross 4y ago

The question was "was autopilot engaged before this collision?" though. Increasingly the evidence (c.f. this decidedly fake story) seems questionable. Criticism is fine. Mistrusths are not. You agree with that much, right?

epgui 4y ago
Untruths* ?
wolverine876 4y ago
> decidedly fake story You type that, which is easy. Can you address the story on its merits?
- tzs 4y ago
  He's questioning whether the story even has addressable merits. The story says the NHTSA report confirms FSD was on, but the story cites as its source and appears to have just cribbed their story from the CNN story. The CNN story just says that the NHTSA confirms that Tesla's "controversial driver-assist software" was engaged and later says that the NHTSA has been investigating both Autopilot and Full Self Driving. There's nothing in the CNN story that tells if "controversial driver-assist software" is Autopilot or FSD. CNN does not link to the actual NHTSA report. I could not find it with a brief search, and found on Reddit people who are much more familiar with NHTSA report procedures also failing to find out. I wouldn't call the submitted article a "fake story" like he did. It's more a pointless story that has no good reason to exist and should be replaced with the CNN story and the CNN story's title.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >The CNN story just says that the NHTSA confirms that Tesla's "controversial driver-assist software" was engaged and later says that the NHTSA has been investigating both Autopilot and Full Self Driving. There's nothing in the CNN story that tells if "controversial driver-assist software" is Autopilot or FSD. Umm, this is from the CNN article linked to as a source at the bottom... >The Tesla’s driver told authorities that the vehicle’s “full self-driving” software braked unexpectedly and triggered the pileup on Thanksgiving day. CNN Business was first to report last month the driver’s claim that “full self-driving” was active. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/17/business/tesla-8-car-crash-autopilot/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/17/business/tesla-8-car-cras... Edit: This is not me taking a position in this discussion, just clarifying that the article does, in fact, say that.
    - tzs 4y ago
      I guess I wasn't clear. There's nothing in the CNN article to support that the NHTSA found that FSD was engaged, which is what the submitted article said. The driver said it was engaged but drivers are not always correct. They can confuse Autopilot with FSD (especially given Tesla's misleading naming of "Autopilot"). Drivers even occasionally will lie after an accident if they think it might in any way be their fault. I had a someone hit me once and it was amazing how blatantly they lied to the police about it. A friend of mine had recently moved to someplace in the hills near Los Gatos, and I was trying to drive from Cupertino to their place for the third time. The first two times I had missed a left turn to the road they were on, and there was no place to turn around for a mile or two so missing that left turn was quite annoying. On this third visit I was being very careful to memorize the names of the crossroads and the landmarks that I would see as I neared their road so I would not miss it (this was before consumer GPS was common). On this third trip, my trip ended with me waking up in my car stopped beside the road a little ways before the left turn, with someone standing beside my car asking me if I was alright. I apparently then lost consciousness again. My next memory is me still in the car, and I could see another car on the other side of the road that had evidently been in an accident, and was being tended to by police and an ambulance crew. I passed out again. Next memory is the ambulance crew putting me in the ambulance. According to what the other driver told police they had been going the opposite way as me approaching while I waited to make my left turn. Then at the last second I suddenly started my turn and they didn't even have time to react, hitting me at 55 mph (the speed limit there), which knocked my car back the way I'd come. I found that story totally believable. It was pretty much the only way I could imagine our cars ending up where they did, given my planned route and the utter impossibility that I could miss the left turn a third time. However, all the witnesses told a different story. Apparently, and I still cannot believe this even though dozens of witnesses and a bunch of physical evidence say otherwise, I missed the freaking left turn again! I drove the mile or two to the first place I could turn around, came back, and was in the right lane slowing down to start my right turn when the other car came from behind, going around 75 mph, and slammed into me. That knocked my car across both lanes in that direction, across both lanes of heavy oncoming traffic miraculously missing everyone, where it came to rest as described above. The driver of the other car then leapt out, not checking on his passengers (one of whom was seriously injured apparently having come out of his seat and slammed into the windshield cutting up his face quite badly) or me but instead trying to hide the open bottles of beer they had been drinking behind some bushes. The physical evidence also backed this up. When I got hit I locked the breaks (I don't know if I actually was able to consciously do that or it just happened somehow) and the police found skid marks from my car from the point of collision all the way to where my car ended up. Also, my rear window popped out at the point of collision, without shattering, and fell to the street where it then shattered leaving a nice indicator of where the collision actually happened. I spent a night in the hospital for observation for a concussion, and spent the next week or so kind of in a fog. A couple days after I got home I got a pamphlet in the mail from the hospital called something like "What To Expect After a Minor Concussion" that among other things warned me I might get some strong feelings of déjà vu. Someone screwed up at the hospital (or someone there has a twisted sense of humor) and they mailed me another copy of that pamphlet the next day. Reading again that I might get strong feelings of déjà vu invoked strong feelings of déjà vu. After a week or so the mental fog cleared up, and my only other apparent injuries from the accident (a sprained wrist and a bruised leg) had cleared up and I was back to normal. The other driver got fined and I think maybe a license suspension. I don't remember if he got any jail time. If he did it was only a small amount. Around 20 years later I was going through some old files and saw my old copy of the police's accident report. I Googled the other driver curious to see if he'd gotten into any more drunk driving incidents. His name did come up in a recent drunk driving story, but he was not the driver. A few years after hitting me he evidently got married and had a son. That son had grown up to be a high school student, excelling academically and in extracurriculars like sports and music. In his junior year he went to a big graduation party some seniors threw which of course had a lot of underage drinking. He stayed sober but the friends did not. Unfortunately one of his friends was his ride home and that friend was drunk. The friend still drove, the son made the mistake of still going with his friends and they had an accident. The friend was OK, but the son (and I think another passenger) died.
- ajross 4y ago
  Really? It's published on a laptop review link farm populated mostly with presumptively-auto-generated content, not written by a journalist with a byline in any major publication. It makes a blockbuster claim for which it fails to cite sources (which should be trivially easy, since it's claiming the DOT "released a report"!). It's by an author who seemingly (see his history page) generates one hit piece on Tesla or Musk properties every few days. If there's ever a fake source, this is it. If there was an NHTSA report corroborating this, then the direct link would be everywhere.
themitigating 4y ago
What's a mistruth? Why not just use the word lie