3 ms·
I'd like to believe that this is done in the interest of driver safety. However unlike past administrations, where most departments tended to stay in their lane
by bdcravens 1y ago
I'd like to believe that this is done in the interest of driver safety. However unlike past administrations, where most departments tended to stay in their lane (no pun intended), everything these days seems driven from the top, with punishment and retribution often the goal. I can't help but think this is an opportunity to get back at Musk for his post on X saying that Trump was in the Epstein files (the post was deleted, and Musk issued a hand-wavy apology, but he never retracted the statement)
- jeremyjh 1y agoTesla is shady as hell though; they intentionally market this technology as something that it is not. The idea that people will stay engaged in the driving task when they are not actually doing it is absurd. Either cars should be level 2 or level 4/5; level 3 is a completely broken idea and Tesla isn't even actively pursuing certifications beyond it. They want to pretend its a level 2 system and not their problem. We don't let people sell cars that are known to explode on contact, and we shouldn't allow people to sell cars that use a completely discredited automation model. Just six more months though...
- maxdo 1y agoLevel 2-3 is a just a buzzword that doesn't mean anything. In reality the car is safe enough to drive in the wild or not. It's a binary state, the rest is just a regulatory patchwork.
- jeremyjh 1y agoIt is not just a buzzword, but I don't care what words you want to use. I think my comment is very clearly critiquing the set of capabilities in level 3, where the car can do almost all the driving in many conditions but relies on a human to respond in a few seconds when it disengages. That is a broken idea that has been thoroughly discredited.