6 ms·

Well there were probably some early warning signs The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster

rvnx 2y ago
If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  Tesla autopilot is not supposed to be unmonitored, so any accidents under its control are entirely the fault of the driver. If a driver disengaged 0.1s before impact, they were derelict in their driving.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment. Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you. "Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.
        ETH_start 2y ago
        What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        There's a reason "it does what it says on the tin" is generally seen as a positive aspect of a product. When a product's naming and branding is well aligned with its actual utility, it builds trust with the customer. The customer doesn't feel like the seller is trying to pull a fast one on them. Tesla chose their branding direction and Elon chooses to make his "optimistic" predictions that have made it sound like true self driving is right around the corner for years. That people take this impression away is no fault of anyone but those that put the impression out there in the first place.
        2y ago
    - lowkeyoptimist 2y ago
      If a driver is using any driver assistance feature they need to be paying attention all the time. Not only is it stated in all vehicle manuals, it is the intelligent way to use the features given that automated driving is still far from perfect. Your analogy makes no sense given that the risk is always on the driver whether there are driver assistance features or not.
      - gridspy 2y ago
        Unfortunately it is very difficult to remain vigilant when the automated system seems to be doing a great job. Eventually you will become distracted. Even in accident cases, remember that the Teslas involved are not new - they have had dozens or hundreds of successful drives before the accident.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - toss1 2y ago
    This is true, but it also falsifies Tesla's naming, promotion, abd advertising of the capability as "Full Self-Driving". ("Self-Driving" alone could be reasonable in certain contexts, but insisting on "Full Self-Driving" is a flat-out lie in plain language. Saying " Alan is fully capable of driving the car." means that he requires zero monitoring and/or intervention; same for the "Fully..." phrase.)
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control.
      - toss1 2y ago
        Yup. It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.". While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.
        ETH_start 2y ago
        More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving. Like I said in the other comment: There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program. Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions
        toss1 2y ago
        >>conspiracy theories ... agenda-driven and a result of emotions No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior. No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility. Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available. Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist. Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility. When the driver MUST BE fully engaged (as you argue and I just documented), the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving". The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive. The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said: They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer. There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged. I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional. Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    You're completely right, but unfortunately people place too much trust in it.
  - 6510 2y ago
    It reminds me of the data entry days. You can have someone type a million table rows into a form and catch all typos but if you give the same person the same data and the same time without having them type it they find non of them.
- lukan 2y ago
  Is there data, that indicates Tesla did this, or something like this?
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Kind of? Autopilot has a habit of disengaging right before crashes [1]; which may not be a bad thing, your seat belt also has a habit of not being adjustable in a crash (dunno if an ICE engine will turn off). Mix that with Elon had a habit of commenting on crashes [2] to keep good marketing about FSD. And like who cares if it was "Auto lane control" vs "Autopilot" that let somebody drive the car from the passenger seat but Elon made sure to let everybody know "Autopilot" wasn't engaged. [1]: https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest... [2]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/elon-musk-says-autopilot-was-not-engaged-in-last-weekends-fatal-crash-042021.html https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/elon-musk-says-autopilo...
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Your second link makes it clear that no version of self-driving was on anywhere near that particular crash, so that does not support the above comment at all. If the only true part is that the system disengages at some point, then "kind of" is much too generous for that kind of rumor-mongering. But if I ever see some real proof I'll spread it far and wide.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper. The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric. On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.
wongarsu 2y ago
There were plenty of early warning signs. In a previous dive back in 2019 they had professional submersible designer Karl Stanley on board, who later wrote an email to OceanGate about the worrying cracking sounds he heard. > "What we heard, in my opinion ... sounded like a flaw/defect in one area being acted on by the tremendous pressures and being crushed/damaged," Stanley wrote in the email, a copy of which has been obtained by CNN. > "From the intensity of the sounds, the fact that they never totally stopped at depth, and the fact that there were sounds at about 300 feet that indicated a relaxing of stored energy /would indicate that there is an area of the hull that is breaking down/ getting spongy," It's more impressive that the sub continued to work while giving warning signs for 4 years. https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oceangate-the/13421666/ https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oce...
- sjm-lbm 2y ago
  They seem to have totally recreated the hull using a different manufacturing method in late 2020/early 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-inside-story-oceangate-files/ https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid... They seem to have run fewer tests on the new hull, though. From the outside, it looks like one of the lessons they learned from earlier tests was that tests can create bad news, so if you're optimizing for the best reports back to investors you should stop running tests.

rvnx 2y ago

If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.

ETH_start 2y ago
Tesla autopilot is not supposed to be unmonitored, so any accidents under its control are entirely the fault of the driver. If a driver disengaged 0.1s before impact, they were derelict in their driving.
- abduhl 2y ago
  OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment. Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you. "Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        There's a reason "it does what it says on the tin" is generally seen as a positive aspect of a product. When a product's naming and branding is well aligned with its actual utility, it builds trust with the customer. The customer doesn't feel like the seller is trying to pull a fast one on them. Tesla chose their branding direction and Elon chooses to make his "optimistic" predictions that have made it sound like true self driving is right around the corner for years. That people take this impression away is no fault of anyone but those that put the impression out there in the first place.
        2y ago
  - lowkeyoptimist 2y ago
    If a driver is using any driver assistance feature they need to be paying attention all the time. Not only is it stated in all vehicle manuals, it is the intelligent way to use the features given that automated driving is still far from perfect. Your analogy makes no sense given that the risk is always on the driver whether there are driver assistance features or not.
    - gridspy 2y ago
      Unfortunately it is very difficult to remain vigilant when the automated system seems to be doing a great job. Eventually you will become distracted. Even in accident cases, remember that the Teslas involved are not new - they have had dozens or hundreds of successful drives before the accident.
- richrichie 2y ago
  [flagged]
- toss1 2y ago
  This is true, but it also falsifies Tesla's naming, promotion, abd advertising of the capability as "Full Self-Driving". ("Self-Driving" alone could be reasonable in certain contexts, but insisting on "Full Self-Driving" is a flat-out lie in plain language. Saying " Alan is fully capable of driving the car." means that he requires zero monitoring and/or intervention; same for the "Fully..." phrase.)
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control.
    - toss1 2y ago
      Yup. It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.". While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving. Like I said in the other comment: There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program. Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions
        toss1 2y ago
        >>conspiracy theories ... agenda-driven and a result of emotions No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior. No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility. Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available. Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist. Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility. When the driver MUST BE fully engaged (as you argue and I just documented), the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving". The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive. The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said: They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer. There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged. I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional. Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  You're completely right, but unfortunately people place too much trust in it.
- 6510 2y ago
  It reminds me of the data entry days. You can have someone type a million table rows into a form and catch all typos but if you give the same person the same data and the same time without having them type it they find non of them.
lukan 2y ago
Is there data, that indicates Tesla did this, or something like this?
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Kind of? Autopilot has a habit of disengaging right before crashes [1]; which may not be a bad thing, your seat belt also has a habit of not being adjustable in a crash (dunno if an ICE engine will turn off). Mix that with Elon had a habit of commenting on crashes [2] to keep good marketing about FSD. And like who cares if it was "Auto lane control" vs "Autopilot" that let somebody drive the car from the passenger seat but Elon made sure to let everybody know "Autopilot" wasn't engaged. [1]: https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-investigation-shutoff-crash/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest... [2]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/elon-musk-says-autopilot-was-not-engaged-in-last-weekends-fatal-crash-042021.html https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/elon-musk-says-autopilo...
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Your second link makes it clear that no version of self-driving was on anywhere near that particular crash, so that does not support the above comment at all. If the only true part is that the system disengages at some point, then "kind of" is much too generous for that kind of rumor-mongering. But if I ever see some real proof I'll spread it far and wide.

cjbgkagh 2y ago

I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper. The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric. On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.

wongarsu 2y ago

There were plenty of early warning signs. In a previous dive back in 2019 they had professional submersible designer Karl Stanley on board, who later wrote an email to OceanGate about the worrying cracking sounds he heard. > "What we heard, in my opinion ... sounded like a flaw/defect in one area being acted on by the tremendous pressures and being crushed/damaged," Stanley wrote in the email, a copy of which has been obtained by CNN. > "From the intensity of the sounds, the fact that they never totally stopped at depth, and the fact that there were sounds at about 300 feet that indicated a relaxing of stored energy /would indicate that there is an area of the hull that is breaking down/ getting spongy," It's more impressive that the sub continued to work while giving warning signs for 4 years. https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oceangate-the/13421666/ https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oce...

sjm-lbm 2y ago
They seem to have totally recreated the hull using a different manufacturing method in late 2020/early 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-inside-story-oceangate-files/ https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid... They seem to have run fewer tests on the new hull, though. From the outside, it looks like one of the lessons they learned from earlier tests was that tests can create bad news, so if you're optimizing for the best reports back to investors you should stop running tests.