Veserv

48 ms·

661.
by Veserv 3y ago
Great, where is the audit demonstrating it achieves those goals? Here is the security certification page for Windows Server [1]. They achieved EAL1+ which is: "applicable where some confidence in correct operation is required, but the
662.
by Veserv 3y ago
The general answer is so that you can get the output at a program-configurable location rather than a hardware-fixed location. For instance, I want to shove out a frame of data and then get the decoded data back into a appropriately-sized s
663.
by Veserv 3y ago
The analogy was provided to help illustrate the difference between complacency and confusion. You can not substitute driving any vehicle into the analogy unchanged because in normal vehicles the overwhelming majority of vehicle operators do
664.
by Veserv 3y ago
Nobody knows. Tesla does not disclose the information needed to make a proper apples to apples comparison to the public or researchers. They do not disclose the number of miles or the number of accidents, let alone the conditions or circums
665.
by Veserv 3y ago
To wit, "incident was so catastrophic that restraint systems could not deploy"/"incident was so catastrophic it could not report" is not theoretical. In fact it is the case in the majority (yes, majority ) of rep
666.
by Veserv 3y ago
Tesla frequently loses telemetry in serious and fatal crashes [1]. For a specific example you can see here [2] listed as 13781-3074 where the fatal crash was detected by a complaint rather than telemetry. Of reported conclusively fatal acci
667.
by Veserv 3y ago
They are objectively, literally fatally confused as to the abilities of their vehicles. Tesla's systems, or any other ADAS for that matter, can not be safely used without a fully attentive driver and Tesla's system in particular f
668.
by Veserv 3y ago
Tesla does not even use it in the underground one-lane tunnel, the Las Vegas loop [1], instead opting for paid drivers operating the cars fully manually. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_.
669.
by Veserv 3y ago
No, you were arguing that general aviation is multiple orders of magnitude safer than ground vehicles. As noted in my citations it is, in fact, 3-5x more dangerous than ground vehicles per distance (the comparison metric most favorable to
670.
by Veserv 3y ago
Your assessment of the current state of affairs is spot on. However, there are a few additions. A. It is not metaphorically swiss-cheesed, the swiss-cheese model [1] of software security is officially endorsed. Just stack enough trash and m
671.
by Veserv 3y ago
Because auditable does not mean the same thing as audited. It is silly that people keep pushing that dead argument after Heartbleed pounded a stake through its heart. Audits are time consuming, challenging, and boring. Experience shows even
672.
by Veserv 3y ago
Because it can not meet minimum safety standards in other countries, so it is not street legal except in US, Canada, and maybe Mexico(?).
673.
by Veserv 3y ago
Okay, https://vimeo.com/933054717/e2c3a7c650 Consistently running down stationary children in the middle of a empty, well-lit road is not exactly what I am looking for in a autonomous vehicle. In my mind that qualifies
674.
by Veserv 3y ago
Yeah, remember that time they had 120,000 defective suspensions that routinely collapsed causing the wheels to fall off and also result in total loss of control at highway speeds [1]. But at least they covered it up for multiple years so th
675.
by Veserv 3y ago
You mean commercial air transport, not general aviation [1]. Private, personal aircraft usage by licensed operators, like how cars are owned and used, generally falls into the general aviation bucket. At 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 flight ho
676.
by Veserv 3y ago
Older Model 3s have no rear door mechanical door releases at all [1]. That is a video from 2023, but I do not know how old the vehicle itself is. You have to crawl out through the front door if you want to exit the vehicle in the event of p
677.
by Veserv 3y ago
Say I claim to have tight-rope walked between buildings. In my official report I have a continuous video clearly showing that. Simultaneously, I release a promo video that the report does not reference. You watch the promo video and then re
678.
by Veserv 3y ago
No, 36% is the overall Assistance Competence score as ADAS systems demand driver engagement to be operated safely. In case you did not know, Tesla ADAS systems must only be used with a fully attentive driver and require you to "keep yo
679.
by Veserv 3y ago
Lambert is a "journalist". It is unacceptable for him to willfully ignore easily accessible evidence and loudly and aggressively smear whistleblowers on a hunch to protect the company that owes him 500,000$ worth of cars [1][2]. T
680.
by Veserv 3y ago
That is false. They make operating systems and development tools for embedded applications such as aerospace and automotive. Some automotive companies may use the tools to make advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) or automated driving
681.
by Veserv 3y ago
Those are tests of automatic emergency braking (AEB) where advanced driver assist systems (ADAS) such as Tesla FSD are explicitly not enabled. In actual ADAS tests, such as the recent IIHS Partial Automation Safeguard Ratings [1] Tesla FSD
682.
by Veserv 3y ago
To clarify, I was stating it was engaged during the tests used to inform the test report and the campaign. The claim in the article is that "they never engaged FSD Beta during the test". That is demonstrably false. You could state
683.
by Veserv 3y ago
No, it is just bad at detecting small humans. Given that Tesla only uses monocular vision and thus does not have binocular depth perception, it is possible that it determines that children are just far away adults, though that is just specu
684.
by Veserv 3y ago
Except that it was engaged as stated in the Safety Test Report [1] and as seen in the raw footage [2]. Rather than acknowledging that a incomplete investigation with conflicting information demands waiting for confirmatory evidence such as
685.
Tesla FSD v12.3.3 still runs down child mannequins. Unfixed for 1.5 years [video](vimeo.com)
25 points by Veserv 3y ago|27 comments
686.
by Veserv 3y ago
Just to get ahead of the standard comments: 1. So-and-so Tesla Youtuber/Blog/News/Influencer said that they pressed the accelerator/manipulated results which invalidates the results and shows the test are untrustworthy.
687.
by Veserv 3y ago
Oh please. This entire comment chain is about how they do not demand highly certified systems. Literally the only substantial thing I mentioned is the thing they have not mandated or pushed to implement. The only secondary thing I mentioned
688.
by Veserv 3y ago
Okay, so you were not involved in a EAL5 or higher software certification. You did a checkbox-level certification and think that proves the harder certifications are all useless. Sure, if the harder certification was useless then you would
689.
by Veserv 3y ago
I have no idea why you think that explains anything. It is just saying that fuzzing is a inferior substitute for formal methods, but much cheaper and thus a more cost-effective option. That is totally divorced from literally any point I hav
690.
by Veserv 3y ago
I have no idea what you are even trying to say. In this thread we are talking about how cybersecurity is broken and how certification requirements have been continuously degraded to allow insecure systems to be deployed in inappropriate con

More ›