- [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish1 month
Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
So not actually FULL anything and Tesla should be held accountable for creating safety issues due to false advertising.
The driver is to blame for their actions, but not the only one to blame.
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
the driver of a Tesla who crashed into a house in June had pressed the accelerator pedal to 100%, overriding the company’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) software.
Yes the naming convention is dumb but it wasn’t at fault here.
- takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
Can we trust that pedal didn’t malfunction this time and was actually pressed?
- 1 month
Driver claims he was passed out, so his account isn’t necessarily conflicting with the pedal being pressed.
- kn33@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
Even if that was the case, the driver should’ve pressed the brakes which would’ve overrode the accelerator.
- flubba86@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
If it’s anything like the e-pedals used in Subaru and Honda vehicles, they should have two different independent position sensors in the pedal. The ecu monitors both, and the value from both must match. If there is a discrepancy, it uses the lower value or zero. So it’s extremely unlikely the pedal could malfunction in a way to show 100% pressed.
But I don’t know if Tesla does the same.
- HMitsuha@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 month
Drive-by-wire cars should all have two position sensors for the pedal. Teslas should have it too.
- 1 month
Yup. It’s completely false advertising and dangerous to call something Full Self-Driving or Autopilot when it clearly does not do what the common understanding of the names imply.
- 1 month
Good thing its called Full Self Driving (Supervised) then.
- 1 month
Good thing its called Full Self Driving (Supervised) then.
- 1 month
Good thing its called Full Self Driving (Supervised) then.
1 monthI think it is very clear from what they wrote that they want Tesla’s advertising practices, such as calling their driver aids “Full Self-Driving” to stop, since it creates a false impression.
- Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
Ah, so just botching in general and not at all related to the article in someone died.
If I want crass, I’ll go to Facebook.
Lemmy never lets silly things like “relevance” get in the way of their hate boners.
- Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
Nor can they handle critism.
Tiny little egos with low emotional intelligence and no desire to grow, just point fingers and whine.
- Zombie@feddit.ukEnglish1 month
Who is “they” on a decentralised platform?
Who is being crass now?
I think you’re telling us more about yourself than anything else.
- [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish1 month
Not at all and I have no idea how you got from ‘this name is misleading in a dangerous way’ to suggesting it work differently.
- Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
No, I get it. You could resist the opportunity.
I sure the victim and her family appreciates you guys using her death to drag Tesla despite being on a platform where almost everyone is in agreement.
- [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish1 month
I’m sure Tesla appreciates you defending them and a check will be in the mail soon.
- Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
I didn’t defend tesla at any point. You injected it that for your own personal narrative to make sense.
- wasabi_noir@lemmy.zipEnglish1 month
I don’t trust anything that makes Tesla look innocent. This administration is too full of fucking shit and bending over backwards too far to tongue musks asshole already I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked to hear that NTSB is fully fucking compromised and corrupt as fuck.
- 1 month
I’m going to frame this comment and submit it to this article:
Shouldn’t the so-called smart technology pick up on the fact that you are driving full speed into a house? Is that not an easy error to avoid?
- Ava@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish1 month
I mean, I think the reasons that automated systems should allow for overrides by human operators should be pretty apparent.
- grahamja@reddthat.comEnglish1 month
I might have to drive over highwaymen, or dodge between 30 or 40 wild boar. I don’t need Asimov’s first law of robotics to confuse my car and make life or death decisions for me.
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
With how all cars are connected these days, we could easily throttle them using GPS data depending on the road you’re on. I don’t really get why cars can even go so fast in general, max should be twenty over the highway limit.
Nobody really wants that though I’m guessing.
- Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
When you car slams on the brakes suddenly because it thinks you’re suddenly driving on the jog road next to the highway, don’t complain to me.
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
The same applies to stopping it from driving full speed into a house. Hence why I said most don’t want that. Some clear drawbacks.
That being said, putting a max speed that is only a bit above highway speed is an easy win imo.
- ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
Slamming the brakes on the highway because either map data is incorrect, it misread a sign, or GNSS is misplacing the car is not a drawback, it’s a massive fucking safety hazard.
- ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 month
No a drawback would be a minor nuisance. You can live with a drawback. That would not be a minor nuisance and definitely not something you could live with.
- Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish1 month
It’s a skill issue on the driver’s part… or do you want the Tesla to come to a screeching halt on the highway every time the cameras white out from the sun?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
I want vehicles that rely on cameras for detecting obstacles to be banned.
Anything that uses reasonable object detection methods should be banned if it lets you drive into a house. My Kia won’t let me drive into a house.
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
My kid tried to drive it into a hedge and it wouldn’t let them. Not the same as accelerating from across the road at a house but also the car makes no self driving claims.
- 1 month
Honestly curious, what will your Kia do if you point it at a house and floor the accelerator from a few hundred meters away? I have no idea how my BYD would react and I’m not eager to test it. It has emergency braking, but I don’t know how effective that actually is.
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
if you point it at a house and floor the accelerator from a few hundred meters away?
I don’t know for sure and I can’t think of a good way to test. It certainly wouldn’t hit it when “driving itself” with smart cruise control or if I tried to drive into it from a few metres away.
- 1 month
You may as well say you want people banned from driving then. We use “cameras” for object detection.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
You may as well say you want people banned from driving then. We use “cameras” for object detection.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
You may as well say you want people banned from driving then. We use “cameras” for object detection.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
Do you disagree? Do you understand how we perceive depth?
- SirActionSack@aussie.zoneEnglish1 month
Do you understand that the whole point of self driving cars is to not have humans with eyes and depth perception doing the driving?
Computers can’t even reliably differentiate between B and 8.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
- 1 month
It’s to not have humans doing the driving, so people don’t have to drive. It has nothing to do with the biology/mechanics of how we see.
This is the system that’s meant to drive the car autonomously?
Personally, I want cars that automate driving to use more than one type of sensor so that they react more realistically in more circumstances. Tesla going camera-only was a mistake and Elon just keeps doubling down on it.
- frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish1 month
I’d want it to not use sensors that get washed out by the sun. IR lidar, for example, instead of naive visible light cameras.
‘The family of the victim has since sued the alleged driver.’
Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. You can’t be accused of driving. It’s not ‘alleged.’
Makes sense. It’s not uncommon for people who aren’t paying attention to accidentally slam on the gas instead of the brake when they see they’re about to crash. Almost certainly what happened here.
- cecilkorik@piefed.caEnglish1 month
Agreed, I don’t think people who haven’t experienced this can really understand it. I was accelerating into an intersection about to get hit by cross-traffic and when I saw what was inevitably going to happen my body just went rigid, and one of my feet was firmly on the accelerator. Fortunately (or unfortunately?) my car was a manual, and the other foot was firmly on the clutch, because I think I had just started or intended to change gears, so my car just drifted slowly into the intersection while roaring loudly at the rev limiter, and I only got clipped. But if my left foot had not been on the clutch, it probably would’ve been a much worse accident. There was no time for anything resembling a conscious thought. My entire body was instantly reacting, I suppose to brace itself for impact, it was very primal and instinctive. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
- 1 month
Driver claims he was unconscious at the time, in case you’re unfamiliar with the details so far.
- 1 month
And he only claimed this after Tesla looked at the data and publicly refuted his version of events to begin with, which was that the car just drove into the house by itself.
- 1 month
And he only claimed this after Tesla looked at the data and publicly refuted his version of events to begin with, which was that the car just drove into the house by itself.
- 1 month
And he only claimed this after Tesla looked at the data and publicly refuted his version of events to begin with, which was that the car just drove into the house by itself.
- 1 month
Gee, who didn’t see this coming. As expected, it was user error.
- 1 month
Gee, who didn’t see this coming. As expected, it was user error.
- 1 month
Gee, who didn’t see this coming. As expected, it was user error.
How can one trust the data from the car without an audit into the software/hardware running at the time?
- 1 month
It’s really strange that search results are becoming so common in articles like this. I feel search results can only be used to manipulate the perception around a situation, and rarely prove anything. Guy owns a car, guy googled said car. Normal people would type something like “can I change how my self driving reacts?” “Can I speed up the acceleration for self driving?”
Who says, “FSD to Timid” unless they are writing a shit article or being linked there by an article that was telling people about such.
The guy was very much likely to be an idiot, but if those search results frame him in any way I feel I’d be framed for hundreds of crimes. Government: are you building a nuclear bomb? If not why were you looking into the processes on how to slow the reactions and how they have changed over the years?
Also how does that relate to your searches about Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, S.A., U.A.E., various terrorist attacks you have googled over the years? Are you a terrorist!
Lol, nah man… It’s the internet… Sometimes we just search things because of interests or something someone said and want to know more.
