4 ms·

Tesla FSD wont be authorized in Europe, this will be one direct consequence of all of that. In addition, tariffs will be put on cars coming from the US. Plus,

by rvnx 2y ago

Tesla FSD wont be authorized in Europe, this will be one direct consequence of all of that. In addition, tariffs will be put on cars coming from the US. Plus, US is now recognized as a very unreliable partner in terms of defense, that Europe regrets buying their systems.

alanfranz 2y ago
Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?”
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  The US is already effectively saying that.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    Yeah when you unilaterally give up your largest bargaining chip, you stop getting any say in what happens.
    - dukeyukey 2y ago
      Which ironically means the US also loses it's leverage. They're already threatening to functionally (if not actually) withdraw from NATO and economically split off via tariffs. The next step is actual invasion, which while sorta-kinda has been talked about with Greenland, probably won't happen.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I can see Trump putting hostile troops in Greenland. Tiny population despite the size, and I think Trump (at least) does not believe Europe would respond seriously. I don't even know how Europe would respond to that, and I live in Berlin. Canada… not so much. For all the talk, he'd be absolutely screwed if he tried. If you think Fentanyl is a problem now, wait until it's supplied for free by drones sent by Canadian civilians paying for it out of pocket because they've never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention. (Harder done than said, of course; if it was that easy to mess with populations, western Russia would be high as a kite right now).
        dybber 2y ago
        Europe will respond with drastic economic sanctions that will act quickly. Tariffs are slow to make a difference, but EU have prepared what they call an economic “bazooka”, that will very quickly hit US economy if force is used against a member state.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Sanctions, even well targeted ones, as the only consequence for an invasion, seems to me to likely be a risk Trump is willing to take. Even if the sanctions would include, e.g. all Trump assets (like the Scottish golf course) being seized.
- lompad 2y ago
  That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.]. Also, france has a first-strike policy. So even without US troops, europe will be fine. A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.
  - blargthorwars 2y ago
    >>france has a first-strike policy. It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.
  - croemer 2y ago
    > Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search. Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions. What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.
    - lompad 2y ago
      Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case. [1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwaffen-schutz-deutschland-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
      - croemer 2y ago
- weatherlight 2y ago
  The US has basically said that. It doesn't matter though, because at the end of the day, dramatic foreign policy shifts and realignments only make the U.S. even less attractive as an ally and a partner. Decades of relationships are being strained in the attempt of mending ties with a state that never really did much to advance America's interests in the modern era. And it could all be completely undone in four years. The whip lash of back and forth, radical shifts in policy, are as damaging as the acts that directly alienate America's global partners.
- PUSH_AX 2y ago
  Bidens aid undoubtedly moved the needle, but that’s over and from what I’ve heard weapon deliveries have already stopped. So I guess my question is aren’t Europe already by themselves?
  - croemer 2y ago
    Trump can still make things worse, e.g. explicitly saying "If Putin invaded Estonia, US would stay out of it" or things like this. He hasn't said that (I hope) so there's still some strategic ambiguity - i.e. it's not clear for Putin if Trump is just uttering empty words re letting Europe go or whether he would in the end do defend.
- antirez 2y ago
  That's not a problem, US is doing that, effectively marginalizing the importance they will have in the future.
- nathanlied 2y ago
  This is already the expectation from our leaders. It is the belief of a good % of EU leaders that, if Russia were to push into Poland and the Baltic states, and Article 5 was invoked, the US would not respond. Or at least not without some Versailles Treaty-level extortion, as they're trying to do with Ukraine.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?” If push came to shove, the only ally Ukraine needs to equal Russia (as it is today) is Poland. They'd rather not have to as it would be expensive, but Poland could match 100% of current outside assistance for Ukraine[0] for a smaller fraction of their GDP than Ukraine itself is currently spending on the war[1]. The USA and Russia agreeing with each other to carve up Ukraine would be a much harder battle. Well, it would be harder unless DOGE actually does make good on the claim of $2T cuts, because the only way of reaching $2T without touching the "mandatory" budget (mandatory = social security etc.) is to delete the entire armed forces and the CIA (and basically everything else) and just under half the interest payments on the loans, which in turn means they'd have no power to carve anything up. [0] $380bn over the first 2 years according to Wikipedia, so lets say $190bn/year [1] Ukraine plans to spend ~$53.7 billion in 2025, about 26% GDP Poland's GDP is $915, 26% of that would be $237.9 billion / year.
- computerthings 2y ago
  Oh, we're already looking at the likelihood of Trump arming Russia and joining the war on the side of Putin. But for some people, although probably a minority, that just increases the resolve. They simply will never be part of something like this: https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqwkie3kc24 https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqw...
ben_w 2y ago
Given the constant promises and slow rate of improvement, there's a high chance Tesla's FSD was never going to be authorised in Europe even absent this.
- whynotminot 2y ago
  I think this is true. Given the regulatory environment, it's hard to imagine FSD ever getting approved -- even if it actually does get truly safer than the average driver! Europe does not want innovation. And it will not take the (admittedly non trivial) risks required to have it.
  - culi 2y ago
    BlueCruise and BMW's systems are both approved. The truth is Tesla is simply behind on self-driving tech. In part due to Musk's insistence on relying solely on cameras without use of radars
miklosz 2y ago
There's already 10% tariff on cars from US imported into Europe. But somehow I have feeling that even if it would be reduced to 0%, it wouldn't make a big difference Cars of US brands are generally terrible, not sure how they fulfill EU emission standards, have poor MPG which with EU gas prices are very expensive in maintenance. Maybe Japanese, Korean or EU brands manufactured US could do better.
- loloquwowndueo 2y ago
  They probably fulfill EU emission standards the same way Volkswagen diesels did. (Joking)
- ojhughes 2y ago
  Fords are very popular in the UK and my Mondeo hasn’t missed a beat in years. the European models aren’t made in US which speaks volumes
  - black_puppydog 2y ago
    > the European models aren’t made in US which speaks volumes No wonder; the US tanks could just roll over one of the reasonably-sized european cars...
  - iamtheworstdev 2y ago
    not to be a contrarian but I'm assuming that's European made Fords? Because, in America, Ford right now leads in total recall expenditures of all manufacturers. It's been an issue of theirs for two or three years now.
    - miklosz 2y ago
      Yeah, I meant cars made for US market from US brands. True, that Ford is US brand with strong European presence, but I think the model line is quite different. Jeeps getting more popular in EU, since it's part of Stellantis now (company headquartered in EU), but has engines for European market etc.
pavlov 2y ago
I have a Tesla with so-called FSD in Europe, and it still feels like it’s ten years away from being road-safe. It can’t even recognize speed limit signs correctly. I bought this car six years ago paying for the FSD feature upfront, and since then Tesla and their CEO have been constantly lying about it. I’ll never buy another car from this company just for this reason. I think Musk probably sees the writing on the wall. Tesla’s brand is destroyed in Europe and they can’t ship these promised advanced features in this market. But he doesn’t mind giving up the European market because he’s got a sweet deal at home where his businesses are now part of a 1930s-style union between corporations and authoritarian government. The gains from that arrangement far outweigh the headaches of trying to sell cars globally.
- qwerpy 2y ago
  Counterpoint, I helped my father buy a model Y and it helps him do the 2 hour drive to visit his grandchildren. The FSD marketing has been a bit over the top but it’s still the best system by far.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    In Europe? I believe it works better in the US. Elsewhere in the world it’s still practically useless, yet they’ve been selling it for years on the pretense that it’s just around the corner. Cruise control on a Volkswagen is smarter than “FSD” on a Tesla. It’s just sad for a 7,500 euro feature.
    - qwerpy 2y ago
      They probably should not have offered it in Europe until they figured it out in their home country. Too many different things to handle in all the different countries.
      - Sammi 2y ago
        Yeah but they did, and now the Europeans hate them. They ripped people off and people are pissed.
culi 2y ago
Tesla FSD should never have been authorized in the US tbh. The safety record is horrifying. The whole reason Google didn't buy Tesla out early on is because they found out how much of their autonomous driving tech claims were all just marketing. Mercedes-Benz and many other vehicles are way ahead of Tesla on this front but Tesla still goes the most in on marketing this feature

by rvnx 2y ago

alanfranz 2y ago

Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?”

dukeyukey 2y ago
The US is already effectively saying that.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Yeah when you unilaterally give up your largest bargaining chip, you stop getting any say in what happens.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Which ironically means the US also loses it's leverage. They're already threatening to functionally (if not actually) withdraw from NATO and economically split off via tariffs. The next step is actual invasion, which while sorta-kinda has been talked about with Greenland, probably won't happen.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I can see Trump putting hostile troops in Greenland. Tiny population despite the size, and I think Trump (at least) does not believe Europe would respond seriously. I don't even know how Europe would respond to that, and I live in Berlin. Canada… not so much. For all the talk, he'd be absolutely screwed if he tried. If you think Fentanyl is a problem now, wait until it's supplied for free by drones sent by Canadian civilians paying for it out of pocket because they've never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention. (Harder done than said, of course; if it was that easy to mess with populations, western Russia would be high as a kite right now).
      - dybber 2y ago
        Europe will respond with drastic economic sanctions that will act quickly. Tariffs are slow to make a difference, but EU have prepared what they call an economic “bazooka”, that will very quickly hit US economy if force is used against a member state.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Sanctions, even well targeted ones, as the only consequence for an invasion, seems to me to likely be a risk Trump is willing to take. Even if the sanctions would include, e.g. all Trump assets (like the Scottish golf course) being seized.
lompad 2y ago
That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.]. Also, france has a first-strike policy. So even without US troops, europe will be fine. A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.
- blargthorwars 2y ago
  >>france has a first-strike policy. It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.
- croemer 2y ago
  > Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment. Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search. Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions. What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.
  - lompad 2y ago
    Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case. [1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwaffen-schutz-deutschland-100.html https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...
    - croemer 2y ago
weatherlight 2y ago
The US has basically said that. It doesn't matter though, because at the end of the day, dramatic foreign policy shifts and realignments only make the U.S. even less attractive as an ally and a partner. Decades of relationships are being strained in the attempt of mending ties with a state that never really did much to advance America's interests in the modern era. And it could all be completely undone in four years. The whip lash of back and forth, radical shifts in policy, are as damaging as the acts that directly alienate America's global partners.
PUSH_AX 2y ago
Bidens aid undoubtedly moved the needle, but that’s over and from what I’ve heard weapon deliveries have already stopped. So I guess my question is aren’t Europe already by themselves?
- croemer 2y ago
  Trump can still make things worse, e.g. explicitly saying "If Putin invaded Estonia, US would stay out of it" or things like this. He hasn't said that (I hope) so there's still some strategic ambiguity - i.e. it's not clear for Putin if Trump is just uttering empty words re letting Europe go or whether he would in the end do defend.
antirez 2y ago
That's not a problem, US is doing that, effectively marginalizing the importance they will have in the future.
nathanlied 2y ago
This is already the expectation from our leaders. It is the belief of a good % of EU leaders that, if Russia were to push into Poland and the Baltic states, and Article 5 was invoked, the US would not respond. Or at least not without some Versailles Treaty-level extortion, as they're trying to do with Ukraine.
ben_w 2y ago
> Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?” If push came to shove, the only ally Ukraine needs to equal Russia (as it is today) is Poland. They'd rather not have to as it would be expensive, but Poland could match 100% of current outside assistance for Ukraine[0] for a smaller fraction of their GDP than Ukraine itself is currently spending on the war[1]. The USA and Russia agreeing with each other to carve up Ukraine would be a much harder battle. Well, it would be harder unless DOGE actually does make good on the claim of $2T cuts, because the only way of reaching $2T without touching the "mandatory" budget (mandatory = social security etc.) is to delete the entire armed forces and the CIA (and basically everything else) and just under half the interest payments on the loans, which in turn means they'd have no power to carve anything up. [0] $380bn over the first 2 years according to Wikipedia, so lets say $190bn/year [1] Ukraine plans to spend ~$53.7 billion in 2025, about 26% GDP Poland's GDP is $915, 26% of that would be $237.9 billion / year.
computerthings 2y ago
Oh, we're already looking at the likelihood of Trump arming Russia and joining the war on the side of Putin. But for some people, although probably a minority, that just increases the resolve. They simply will never be part of something like this: https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqwkie3kc24 https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqw...

ben_w 2y ago

Given the constant promises and slow rate of improvement, there's a high chance Tesla's FSD was never going to be authorised in Europe even absent this.

whynotminot 2y ago
I think this is true. Given the regulatory environment, it's hard to imagine FSD ever getting approved -- even if it actually does get truly safer than the average driver! Europe does not want innovation. And it will not take the (admittedly non trivial) risks required to have it.
- culi 2y ago
  BlueCruise and BMW's systems are both approved. The truth is Tesla is simply behind on self-driving tech. In part due to Musk's insistence on relying solely on cameras without use of radars

miklosz 2y ago

There's already 10% tariff on cars from US imported into Europe. But somehow I have feeling that even if it would be reduced to 0%, it wouldn't make a big difference Cars of US brands are generally terrible, not sure how they fulfill EU emission standards, have poor MPG which with EU gas prices are very expensive in maintenance. Maybe Japanese, Korean or EU brands manufactured US could do better.

loloquwowndueo 2y ago
They probably fulfill EU emission standards the same way Volkswagen diesels did. (Joking)
ojhughes 2y ago
Fords are very popular in the UK and my Mondeo hasn’t missed a beat in years. the European models aren’t made in US which speaks volumes
- black_puppydog 2y ago
  > the European models aren’t made in US which speaks volumes No wonder; the US tanks could just roll over one of the reasonably-sized european cars...
- iamtheworstdev 2y ago
  not to be a contrarian but I'm assuming that's European made Fords? Because, in America, Ford right now leads in total recall expenditures of all manufacturers. It's been an issue of theirs for two or three years now.
  - miklosz 2y ago
    Yeah, I meant cars made for US market from US brands. True, that Ford is US brand with strong European presence, but I think the model line is quite different. Jeeps getting more popular in EU, since it's part of Stellantis now (company headquartered in EU), but has engines for European market etc.

pavlov 2y ago

I have a Tesla with so-called FSD in Europe, and it still feels like it’s ten years away from being road-safe. It can’t even recognize speed limit signs correctly. I bought this car six years ago paying for the FSD feature upfront, and since then Tesla and their CEO have been constantly lying about it. I’ll never buy another car from this company just for this reason. I think Musk probably sees the writing on the wall. Tesla’s brand is destroyed in Europe and they can’t ship these promised advanced features in this market. But he doesn’t mind giving up the European market because he’s got a sweet deal at home where his businesses are now part of a 1930s-style union between corporations and authoritarian government. The gains from that arrangement far outweigh the headaches of trying to sell cars globally.

qwerpy 2y ago
Counterpoint, I helped my father buy a model Y and it helps him do the 2 hour drive to visit his grandchildren. The FSD marketing has been a bit over the top but it’s still the best system by far.
- pavlov 2y ago
  In Europe? I believe it works better in the US. Elsewhere in the world it’s still practically useless, yet they’ve been selling it for years on the pretense that it’s just around the corner. Cruise control on a Volkswagen is smarter than “FSD” on a Tesla. It’s just sad for a 7,500 euro feature.
  - qwerpy 2y ago
    They probably should not have offered it in Europe until they figured it out in their home country. Too many different things to handle in all the different countries.
    - Sammi 2y ago
      Yeah but they did, and now the Europeans hate them. They ripped people off and people are pissed.

culi 2y ago

Tesla FSD should never have been authorized in the US tbh. The safety record is horrifying. The whole reason Google didn't buy Tesla out early on is because they found out how much of their autonomous driving tech claims were all just marketing. Mercedes-Benz and many other vehicles are way ahead of Tesla on this front but Tesla still goes the most in on marketing this feature