Expert prognosis for the planet

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yes.

Which ones? I cannot seem to find it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Ummm...

https://www.subaru.com/engineering/eyesight.html



And, while not the same thing as diabetes...

https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/

No literally, Subaru is doing nothing to prevent me from getting into my BRZ and driving it into someone on the road. They did nothing when it was made, and they are doing nothing now to retrofit anything to my car to change its capabilities. They aren't issuing a recall or offering to upgrade my vehicle with safety systems. The government isn't mandating they do these things. They could have easily created a system a long time ago where the car lost power or stopped if a seat belt was taken off or a driver climbed out of their seat with the cruise control on. Manufactures or the government could limit speeds or limit acceleration to "safe levels". Driver monitoring systems are equally easy to create that require driver engagement to limit drunk driving, distracted driving, medical conditions that mean a driver is impaired, etc, but they don't and the government too hasn't mandated it.

Are they putting warnings on fish for pregnant and lactating women like the FDA? Some warnings might be good you know. I'm not saying all warnings are bad. For instance, the Tesla warns people when they don't touch the steering wheel or when they need to or when it detects an issue like in the Youtube video I posted, where there was a loud warning and a large, red, steering wheel image on the screen with hands on the wheel signaling the driver, and it required the driver to push the accelerator again.

https://www.fda.gov/media/102331/download

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Which ones? I cannot seem to find it.

Don't get fixated on the name. Full Self-Driving mode could mean full driver assistance. Nowhere does it say or describe being level 5 autonomy or full autonomy or full automation, which is how levels are described. Nowhere does the system say the driver can be anywhere but the driver's seat and attentive. It does use the word full, but I wouldn't be surprised if they use a different name for level 4/5 autonomy like Taxi Mode or something more clever.

Meanwhile, we have many companies with level 2 autonomy, which is what Tesla and others describes its Autopilot to be, and what Tesla describes its FSD mode beta to be (or Level 2+) with the idea that it will be level 3 when it becomes available to the entire fleet. Honda has released a level 3 autonomous car, and AutoX already has level 4 autonomous taxis in service, and they have trials in other cities. Honda is teaming up with AutoX to gain AutoX's capabilities for Hondas in China.

https://europe.autonews.com/automake...f-driving-cars

https://www.gizmochina.com/2021/04/1...cars-in-china/

[soundman98]

and that is exactly why i hate tesla. "Full Self Driving"


my nickname is now "Monster Penis". i don't understand why all the ladies look let down when they finally see it.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Some warnings might be good you know.

The one I have trouble with is the warning "Contains Nuts" on packets of peanuts.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

The one I have trouble with is the warning "Contains Nuts" on packets of peanuts.

Because peanuts are legumes?

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

The one I have trouble with is the warning "Contains Nuts" on packets of peanuts.

Now don't lie. How many times have you put that bag on your head and asked your wife to read the warning label?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

and that is exactly why i hate tesla. "Full Self Driving"

my nickname is now "Monster Penis". i don't understand why all the ladies look let down when they finally see it.

I think it is important to clarify what are the different levels autonomy. When considering the levels below, imagine what the vehicles will likely look like. For instance, full autonomy is likely a ways away, and it will likely be for taxis or for cars that resemble taxis. They won’t have steering wheels or pedals. They might have unconventional layouts to cars today that focus on entertainment and productivity like a family room or office on wheels, respectively. There will be no “driving”. Level 4 autonomy will be exactly like level 5 vehicles, but can only operate like level 5 vehicles in cities at limited speeds and in limited zones as shuttles, taxis or whatever. Maybe level 4 vehicles will exist on standard cars for cities like owning a personal taxis, and then the driver can take over for when they leave the geofenced area—the city and then they become the driver and assume a more level 3 autonomy. Level 3 will be the highest level of driver aids that still require a driver all the time.

In this sense, level 3 autonomy is full driving assistance autonomy. Level 4 and 5 autonomy is the car being autonomous of a driver where there is no driver in the driver’s seat, or there is no driver’s seat. The real name should be Full Driver Assistance mode or something. Maybe that was already copyrighted.

Again, I’ll restate: Full Autonomy or Full Automation or Level 5 Autonomy will not have a driver or likely have any driver’s controls or driver’s seat. The name Full Self-Driving really doesn’t have much meaning on its own in a literal way or trying to interpret its meaning: is full self-driving referring to the driver as self or the car as self? Is Full Self-Driving short for Full Assistance Package for Self-Driving, referencing a human driver, versus the Partial/Full Car Autonomy, which is free from a driver?

If Autopilot is level 2 and the jump to 3 is so much more and is the maximum assistance a driver can have then what should they call it? Maybe they should have used the word complete or total or absolute or maximum along with Autopilot instead of Full and something else. I don’t think it really matters. It seems what is more important is the government needs to create a standard, instead of the states like the article mentions, and idiots will still be idiots, but there should be a public campaign or educational requirement when purchasing a car with such features or have unique penalties for abusing the systems or something universal, so people don’t continue special pleading.

Level 3 (Conditional Driving Automation)

The jump from Level 2 to Level 3 is substantial from a technological perspective, but subtle if not negligible from a human perspective.

Level 3 vehicles have “environmental detection” capabilities and can make informed decisions for themselves, such as accelerating past a slow-moving vehicle. But―they still require human override. The driver must remain alert and ready to take control if the system is unable to execute the task.

Almost two years ago, Audi (Volkswagen) announced that the next generation of the A8―their flagship sedan―would be the world’s first production Level 3 vehicle. And they delivered. The 2019 Audi A8L arrives in commercial dealerships this Fall. It features Traffic Jam Pilot, which combines a lidar scanner with advanced sensor fusion and processing power (plus built-in redundancies should a component fail).

However, while Audi was developing their marvel of engineering, the regulatory process in the U.S. shifted from federal guidance to state-by-state mandates for autonomous vehicles. So for the time being, the A8L is still classified as a Level 2 vehicle in the United States and will ship without key hardware and software required to achieve Level 3 functionality. In Europe, however, Audi will roll out the full Level 3 A8L with Traffic Jam Pilot (in Germany first).

Level 4 (High Driving Automation)

The key difference between Level 3 and Level 4 automation is that Level 4 vehicles can intervene if things go wrong or there is a system failure. In this sense, these cars do not require human interaction in most circumstances. However, a human still has the option to manually override.

Level 4 vehicles can operate in self-driving mode. But until legislation and infrastructure evolves, they can only do so within a limited area (usually an urban environment where top speeds reach an average of 30mph). This is known as geofencing. As such, most Level 4 vehicles in existence are geared toward ridesharing. For examplesee link)

Level 5 (Full Driving Automation)

Level 5 vehicles do not require human attention―the “dynamic driving task” is eliminated. Level 5 cars won’t even have steering wheels or acceleration/braking pedals. They will be free from geofencing, able to go anywhere and do anything that an experienced human driver can do. Fully autonomous cars are undergoing testing in several pockets of the world, but none are yet available to the general public.

https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/...ng-levels.html

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Because peanuts are legumes?

So why say "Contains Nuts" if it doesn't? lol


































Well, I thought it was funny.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I think it is important to clarify what are the different levels autonomy. ...]

You do realize we all get this right? Don't think it needs repeating.

The bottom line is Tesla does nothing to discourage the behavior you see from a few with whatever you want to call their system. The fact that they have "Summon" turned on in a car they say can't really drive itself is even more hypocrisy on their part, and leads people to say "well, heck, if it can do that..."


I think we are at another of those "agree to disagree" on this. As I said earlier, the drivers are idiots, and Tesla does nothing to discourage it because it's free advertising for them (usually positive, occasionally negative, but press is press).

In the end, GM's Super Cruise does what Tesla's does, and it better protects riders and the driving public at the same time.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

So why say "Contains Nuts" if it doesn't? lol

Lots of seeds and legumes are called nuts in the culinary world, as well as, in the medical world, since nuts, seeds and legumes have similar allergic manifestations, and the word for nuts, seeds and legumes don't always translate perfectly across cultures. Convention led to the universal expression for these things all being nuts.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

You do realize we all get this right? Don't think it needs repeating.

The bottom line is Tesla does nothing to discourage the behavior you see from a few with whatever you want to call their system. The fact that they have "Summon" turned on in a car they say can't really drive itself is even more hypocrisy on their part, and leads people to say "well, heck, if it can do that..."


I think we are at other of those "agree to disagree" on this. As I said earlier, the drivers are idiots, and Tesla does nothing to discourage it because it's free advertising for them (usually positive, occasionally negative, but press is press).

In the end, GM's Super Cruise does what Tesla's does, and it better protects riders and the driving public at the same time.

Well, I think not everyone gets it, which is why I posted the response. Specifically, people seem more focused that the name FSD implies Level 5 autonomy and that the name leads to the incorrect behavior. This is not the case. People aren't naive; they are actively trying to circumvent the warnings. Again, my argument is the name is not the contributor. People are just abusing the system, and Tesla is taking a passive approach in regulating how Tesla's customers use their own possessions. Why they are taking a passive approach is unclear, so I guess someone could conclude it is because they want free good or bad publicity, but that would be baseless conjecture at this point.

I agree that Supercruise offers more protections. Many cars offer more protection to the driver and to the driving public too with safety software and driver aids. I am assuming you aren't special pleading Tesla and are equally disgruntled with them too.

Story update:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesl...on-musk-2021-4

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

.. am assuming you aren't special pleading Tesla and are equally disgruntled with them too...

Not sure I'm understanding this sentence, but I have nothing specifically against Tesla other than I don't agree with a lot of their business practices. There are other businesses that I don't like their practices either, and for the most part I don't do business with them.

The article you quoted even plays to that a bit. Rather than talking to the authorities and trying to help with the ongoing investigation, which would help with public safety, etc, Musk just tweets "Yea, ain't our problem".

I also think this says a lot from the article "Saturday's incident is the 28th Tesla crash to be investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Autopilot has played a role in more than 20 of these Tesla crashes, Reuters reported in March."

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not sure I'm understanding this sentence, but I have nothing specifically against Tesla other than I don't agree with a lot of their business practices. There are other businesses that I don't like their practices either, and for the most part I don't do business with them.

The article you quoted even plays to that a bit. Rather than talking to the authorities and trying to help with the ongoing investigation, which would help with public safety, etc, Musk just tweets "Yea, ain't our problem".

I also think this says a lot from the article "Saturday's incident is the 28th Tesla crash to be investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Autopilot has played a role in more than 20 of these Tesla crashes, Reuters reported in March."

Special pleading can be when someone makes an argument that applies to many, except to someone/something, or the opposite, where they don't apply a rule, except to someone/something. In this case, it seems that people aren't logically consistent across the industry. Either they are holding manufactures who provide driver aids to a higher standard than those that omit them, or they are calling out Tesla for inaction in providing safety to the public and the drivers/passengers of their cars, but not other manufactures for their inaction in providing safety. Thus, I was saying that I can safely assume that you are being logically consistent and are also just as disgruntled at other manufactures for their shortcomings.

I feel like in any other context, we would say these idiots, who are driving drunk or car surfing or whatever, win the Darwin Award, and if their idiocy caused collateral damage, injuries or deaths then we would say it is a shame these idiots exist, but we wouldn't blame Ford or Toyota. The comments made about Tesla comes off as special pleading.

Tesla might not volunteer to release private information to the authorities, but they may comply with a warrant. Would you want car manufactures to voluntarily, or upon request, give authorities video surveillance or vehicle information of you driving? That doesn't immediately make you cringe thinking about the violations of your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures? Reminds me of Apple and the FBI:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/roge...s-for-doj.html