this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
87 points (93.9% liked)

Electric Vehicles

3217 readers
85 users here now

A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.

Rules

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No self-promotion
  4. No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
  5. No trolling
  6. Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sunshine@lemmy.ca
87
Tesla Bet On 'Pure Vision' For Self-Driving. That's Why It's In Hot Water (insideevs.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by MyOpinion@lemm.ee to c/evs@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A fan of Tesla might think that the automaker just can't catch a break when it comes to its autonomous driving tech. It’s already subject to several federal investigations over its marketing and deployment of technologies like Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD), and as of last week, we can add another to the list involving around 2.4 million Tesla vehicles. This time, regulators are assessing the cars' performance in low-visibility conditions after four documented accidents, one of which resulted in a fatality.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says this new probe is looking at instances when FSD was engaged when it was foggy or a lot of dust was in the air, or even when glare from the sun blinded the car’s cameras and this caused a problem.

What the car can "see" is the big issue here. It's also what Tesla bet its future on.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He's probably stuck on his decision to cut on LIDARs and compensate it with machine learning on cam inputs alone. That doesn't bring him the edge he wanted. Still, he doubles down as he's not risking anything besides being proclaimed wrong with that decision.

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s hilarious because every single time he speaks about some unique aspect of starship that goes against conventional rocketry wisdom, like “we don’t need flame trenches. You get more efficiency on flat ground”, we just have to wait a year or two and all of a sudden they’re adding back the thing they tried to do without (see tower 2 flame trench going in as we speak).

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Then they brag about doing the thing everyone else was already doing as if it was some new concept and his Muskrats eat it up.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago

He needs to risk something to care. As long as his bubble keeps floating, he can sell everything to institutions, businesses and consumers. With existing baby mittens he is cared by, he can openly scam people and burn money with a flamethrower without any repercussions.

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 7 points 2 weeks ago

It sucks because the talent and skill on display over there is insane and incredible, they really work so hard to achieve never before things. But he has to speak and be the key man PR idiot and diminish those amazing accomplishments.