Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Rejected More Advanced Driver Monitoring Features On Its Cars, Says Report (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Engineers inside Tesla wanted to add robust driver monitoring systems to the company's cars to help make sure drivers safely use Autopilot, and Tesla even worked with suppliers on possible solutions, according to The Wall Street Journal. But those executives -- Elon Musk included -- reportedly rejected the idea out of worry that the options might not work well enough, could be expensive, and because drivers might become annoyed by an overly nagging system.

Tesla considered a few different types of monitoring: one that would track a driver's eyes using a camera and infrared sensors, and another that involved adding more sensors to the steering wheel to make sure that the driver is holding on. Both ideas would help let the car's system know if the driver has stopped paying attention, which could reduce the chance of an accident in situations where Autopilot disengages or is incapable of keeping the car from crashing. Musk later confirmed on Twitter that the eye tracking option was "rejected for being ineffective, not for cost."

143 comments

  1. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Knowing that the driver is holding the steering wheel is not enough. You need to ascertain that all the muscular groups between the fingers and the spine are actively engaged and under tension. That is - fingers, palm, wrist, forearm, elbow, arm, shoulder... only if the muscules in all there areas are actively engaged you will ensure that the driver can take over. Eye tracking and a neural brain interface too to know what the driver is thinking...

    1. Re:Not enough by sheph · · Score: 0

      I don't know. How come no one is focusing on the personal responsibility of the driver? It's well documented that this is assist technology. You can't just set it and let it go. So if someone does that, ultimately it's no different than driving under the influence, or falling asleep behind the wheel. Why is it up to the car company to ensure the driver is paying attention? No other car company does that.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    2. Re:Not enough by Train0987 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's supposed to be assist technology then why market it as "autopilot"?

    3. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because they call it fucking AUTOPILOT. Auto, as in automatic, not manual, no human interaction needed, done for you. You claim it's well documented it's assist technology, and if you dig into the fine print I'm sure you're right. But it's also documented very well in the goddamn name that it's not assist technology, it's automatic. Not manual. Not assist. No human interaction needed. Done for you. Auto-fucking-pilot. Fine print disclaimers do not change that.

    4. Re:Not enough by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      I think he's arguing that we're supposed to automatically assume that Musk is lying about everything, so the joke's on us that we don't.

    5. Re:Not enough by Dare+nMc · · Score: 0

      > How come no one is focusing on the personal responsibility of the driver?

      Why would it be, if Musk is telling the truth? If "autopilot" is safer than a driver as Musk says, then intervening is more dangerous. Musk now needs to truly prove that autopilot is safer than a person driving a similar car with all of the lane assist, automatic emergency braking, Automatic pedestrian braking... that others manufactures are putting out, or take responsibility for these accidents and deaths. If autopilot is saving lives, then it is up to Musk, citizen planers, etc to work out solutions to work out the remaining blind-spots, and deserve their rewards for doing it.

      As is Musk has a system that is impossible for humans to handle, to constantly monitor a system you are not in control of, and take over. Tesla doesn't have enough feedback for users to know close call, IE when the Tesla maps were off, GPS was weak, real time camera faults... The Ford system could drive people down the center of the lane, but they have the driver do this task, if they reach a edge, it over corrects, which gives negative feedback to the driver and passenger, and tells everyone in the car when the driver is tired.

      It appears some of musk's betta testers are paying the ultimate price for that un-paid position. But I could be wrong, I don't have enough data to honestly know if the Tesla/Elon system of selling as smooth and easy autopilot system is placing marketing over lives. But if it turns out this is marketing over lives, then the liars need to take the blame, not the victims.

    6. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's what operator assist technologies are generally called for vehicles.

      Even the vehicles with the most advanced autopilots (commercial jet liners) still require an alert pilot in spite of being capable of end to end autonomous flight.
      Less advanced ones like common marine autopilots or the autopilot in a 2 seat prop plane will often just hold a compass headding and (if a plane) altitude.

    7. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you've arranged for a closed casket funeral. Else, you could become an internet sensation in your death -- pictures of you in your casket with your dick in one hand, a phone in the other, and the imprint of a Tesla logo on your forehead where it hit some Tesla badge during the crash will just be too hard to resist sharing.

    8. Re:Not enough by uncqual · · Score: 1

      But all, when engaged, are expected to quite safely move the vehicle through the space it's traveling in and allow the pilot to take their hands off the controls and, for modestly short times (ten seconds or more), divert their attention to doing other things (such as looking at charts) with only occasional scans of the area (either visual or via radar etc). Tesla autopilot seems to require the driver's constant attention to avoid running into stationary objects that are routinely encountered on roads (gore points, fire trucks, etc...). The "auto" pilot in "autopilot" implies that the feature can be safely used for significant portions of your trip without close second by second monitoring and that's simply not the case with Tesla's feature so the name is very misleading.

      Yes, drivers should heed all the warnings, but it's a little like selling "8 ton automotive jackstands" with a sticker on them saying "Do not get any part of body under a vehicle elevated on these jackstands" and blaming the user because the "jackstands" collapsed when their 1.5 ton car fell on them during brake job.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    9. Re:Not enough by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      -- M. Zuckerberg's notes on experiencing driver's education

    10. Re:Not enough by sheph · · Score: 1

      They might call it autopilot, but on their web site where they describe the feature it says: "Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time." How could anyone possibly interpret that as "I can take a nap while my car drives me home"? https://www.tesla.com/autopilo...

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    11. Re:Not enough by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 2

      Because it sounds catchy and is technically accurate, even if it's misleading to people who aren't professional airline pilots.

      Actual autopilot on aeroplanes is purely assistive - there to make flying the plane a bit easier and somewhat reduce the opportunities for human error - and does not in any way remove the need to have an actual pilot controlling the plane. Tesla's Autopilot serves the exact same role as an aeroplane's autopilot with the same limitation, but in a car, so I suppose they feel that they are perfectly in the right to name it as such.

      While actual pilots are trained to know what autopilot is, those not in the field tend to have the impression that it's an autonomous system to take over for the pilots when they need to take a break. Tesla can keep on informing drivers that you still need to be driving the car while Autopilot is running, but it will always be an uphill battle against some drivers who jump to the conclusion that Autopilot is some kind of autonomous driving system and disregard the all warnings to the contrary as some sort of unnecessary legal formality.

      Yes, it's absolutely the drivers' fault when they crash because they weren't even paying attention to the road or even controlling the vehicles, but Tesla does need to accept the reality that the name provokes this sort of recklessness. I doubt that any amount of adversarial driver monitoring would be as effective as simply changing the name to something that doesn't suggest that the car can pilot itself automatically.

    12. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a way.

      If the system actually keep the driver attention on the road, which is easy to do*, how would Musk sell his 'Autopilot' snake oil to drivers who want to take their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road when it seems to them safe to do so.

      * it's easy because look at how easy it is for a Tesla to keep your attention on the road and your hands on the wheel when the system decides things like lane markings are insufficient for autosteer to function.

    13. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's supposed to be assist technology then why market it as "autopilot"?

      This is almost a troll, but as a pilot, autopilot systems necessarily require competent, certified pilots at the controls. Automation systems in aviation allow you, the pilot, to monitor what is going on which is more valuable than hand-flying the whole flight. Stepping back and allowing the computer to follow the flight plan and maintain proper attitude and altitude frees mental cycles especially if there are issues during the flight. In cruise, if the plane is configured correctly, I can think about the approach, other traffic, if the ATC instructions are OK, etc. If I have to go around, it's just two presses on the TO/GA button, the plane rotates smoothly, TO/GA power is commanded automatically, and the plane will fly the missed approach. The PNF can configure the plane for the climb out, we can notify ATC, and keep our heads in the game especially if it is a windshear warning. The point is, you still have to think, and automation gives you more time to think. It's a tool you have to use correctly.

    14. Re:Not enough by pots · · Score: 1

      In airplane lingo that's how the term is used. They should have recognized that it's not how the term is used in the eye of the public, but they didn't know or didn't care. "Autopilot" certainly has more marketing potential than "Fancy Cruise Control."

    15. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, while on 'auto-pilot' doing 60mph or higher, Tesla's have rear ended two stopped fire trucks. It seems at highway speed Tesla cars need to 'ignore' stationary objects, else they would be braking for anything stationary. It is not "ready for prime time", and "Auto-Pilot" should be reserved for only aircraft. Musk is doing great things to advance the world of the future, but it ain't happening today. 10 years from now, maybe...

    16. Re:Not enough by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Oh really? If others didn't call it Assist you might have a point. Pretty much EVERYONE else calls it Driver Assist; only Tesla is brash (and stupid) enough to call it "Autopilot".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because marketing wouldn't let the engineers call it "AutoCrash" even though it does.

    18. Re:Not enough by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How about because it is an accurate description based upon past use. Autopilot in planes and ships, they will take you on the course set, they will not avoid shit or take complex routes, you set them and away they go, don't pay attention and a plane or ship or any other obstacle gets in your path and the AUTOPILOT will stay on course, bad fucking luck, well not luck, stupidity. So it is called autopilot because that is all it is, exactly as used and described for decades. People are now just choosing to reinterpret autopilot in another way now because 'hmm', vested interests and oh yeah, dick brains.

      So the design choices not around sound design but design around idiots, how to make a device idiot proof, reliable and low cost. Want to make a Tesla vehicle idiot proof, then don't install the batteries and let the idiots admire the car in their drive way and pose with it in front of passers by.

      How to make cars idiot proof, don't fucking let idiots drive them. So zero driver monitoring and instruction in their use is required during driver training and then they should be tested for knowledge on autopilot systems to get their drivers licence. Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... look it the fuck up. Do not confuse it with 'ROBOTIC' vehicles like the idiots that kill themselves with autopilot vehicles, I certainly hope you do not have one.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:Not enough by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Tesla's system doesn't even use the driver's seat occupancy sensor to make sure there is actually someone sat behind the wheel.

      The "autopilot assistant" trick of wedging fruit into the steering wheel to make it think you have hands on is well known too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Not enough by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's an accurate description or not, it's what people believe that counts. People have heard that autopilot can fly a plane from take off to destination and they even saw a simulator land by itself on Mythbusters. This leads even quite intelligent people to argue for taking the pilots out of the cockpit.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    21. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And EVERYONE else measures in meters and degrees centigrade. Are you automatically wrong for daring to be different?

    22. Re:Not enough by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      If your "being different" causes confusion and leads to injury or death of others, then yes - you ARE wrong for daring to be different.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess you'll be signing the petition for the US to go metric then. Great, they need all the help they can get.

    24. Re:Not enough by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      How many deaths in the US are attributable to the use of Imperial, rather than Metric, units?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell me.

    26. Re:Not enough by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Zero. Thus it's a non-issue - unlike the naming of "autopilot" by Tesla.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    27. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds easy to achieve, just send a moderate current through the drivers arms and all's fixed. You're sure to grab their attention that way!

    28. Re:Not enough by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      So you want a type rating for cars and a minimum of driving hours beyond which the driving license would be suspended?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    29. Re:Not enough by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tesla autopilot seems to require the driver's constant attention to avoid running into stationary objects that are routinely encountered on roads (gore points, fire trucks, etc...).

      Welcome back to hyperbole land.

      The average US car goes 80 million miles between fatal accidents.
      The average Tesla goes 320 million miles between fatal accidents.
      1/3rd to 1/2 of all Tesla miles are on Autopilot.

      Now let's say that all fatal Tesla accidents were on Autopilot. Let's ignore the fact most of the "The driver may have been on Autopilot!" crash reporting stories thusfar have ultimately turned out not to involve AP at all. Let's also ignore the fact that since AP driving is much more likely to involve highways and thus higher speeds, it would be expected to involve a higher share of the accidents. Let's just look at the numbers. Even with these assumptions, you would still be 33 to 100% safer driving a Tesla on AP than driving any other car. Acting like you take your attention off the road for a split second and it drives you into a post is just absurd.

      What I'm wondering is how long this media hype train can last. I mean, no freaking duh the more vehicles Tesla makes the more people are going to die while driving one. Are they seriously going to keep breathlessly reporting on every last Tesla crash - always with the no-evidence-whatsoever speculation that AP might have been in use, and no retraction whatsoever in the cases where it wasn't? 40 thousand people die on US roads every year. 1.3 million die in them worldwide. Seeing a Tesla on the roads is no longer a 1-in-a-million event; Tesla is quickly approaching 0,1% of all US vehicles on the road (nearing 200k). Believe it or not, like all vehicles, there will sometimes be Tesla crashes. And things like it being front page news that someone rear-ended a fire truck at 60 miles an hour as if there's something horribly wrong with Tesla, when the real story should be that someone hit a fire truck at 60 miles an hour and walked away with only a broken ankle, when such an accident should normally be fatal... I'm sorry, but Musk has a serious point about unfair, lopsided media coverage.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    30. Re:Not enough by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If it's supposed to be assist technology then why market it as "autopilot"?

      Because an actual autopilot is nothing more than an assist technology and ignorance is a reason to educate rather than a reason to appease.

    31. Re:Not enough by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Tesla is not an average car, hence your comparison is misleading and you would realise it yourself once you'd stop daydreaming about sucking Musk's dick. Seriously, your kind of fanboyism is bordering on fanatism.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    32. Re:Not enough by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "The average US car goes 80 million miles between fatal accidents.
      The average Tesla goes 320 million miles between fatal accidents.
      1/3rd to 1/2 of all Tesla miles are on Autopilot."

      This is not a good comparison. The average US car includes many older models, and many trucks and SUVs that are more likely to kill people than a sedan/crossover.

      Do you have stats for similar cars? A quick Google only turned up stuff about the Volvo XC90 and Toyota Highlander having zero fatal accidents one year.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:Not enough by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      The other thing I often wonder based on these stats... Wouldn't someone driving a very expensive Tesla car probably also be driving more responsibly than someone with say... at 30 year old $300 car? Would the Tesla drivers be as likely to be out driving drunk, driving on dirt/mud/gravel roads? A lot of bad accidents come from people being stupid idiots, rather than the car being any kind of issue. Auto pilot won't help someone driving almost blackout drunk at 50mph over the speed limit.

    34. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people buy a Tesla thinking 'autopilot' means the car can drive itself? Zero - Thus it's a non-issue.

    35. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny about that is, the US has been on the metric system for over 100 years. Don't believe me? Look up how all of our units are defined. Yup, in metric units. The US is on metric with a conversion factor. An inch is defined to be 2.54 cm. A pound is defined to be 0.45359237 kg.

      And before anyone goes off on how stupid it is to use a conversion factor and blah blah blah, especially if you're from the UK, hold your tongue. At least we don't measure distance in km and speed in MPH, that's properly stupid. And seriously, stones?

    36. Re:Not enough by houghi · · Score: 1

      So it is called autopilot because that is all it is, exactly as used and described for decades.

      These companies spend millions on advertising and they know what colors bring up what emotions. They know what font to use to be serious or not, depending on what they want the people to understand.
      They know how words can be used and how they will make people feel. They use it to sell beer and shaving cream and beverages and food.

      So they have to be aware what "autopilot" will mean to the majority of people. This is just the newspeak that we are used to today. "Uber is not a taxi company." is the most famous one. Hiding behind a dictionary is not how language works.
      Every dictionary will tell you that it does not matter what it says. It could easily mean something different. "Autopilot" to the majority of people means a self driving car where you can sleep in the car while the autopilot takes over.

      The ad companies know this. That means that their clients, the companies know this. So there are two ways to look at it:
      The ad company gave wrong advice and should not only be fired, but held responsible for the failure. As that has not happened there is only one other option: the company is full aware what is going on and should be held responsible for what they have done.

      This is just another "You are holding it wrong' thing and it WILL get worse as companies are not held accountable for anything they do. At most they get a slap on their fingers to do a better job the next time they try to pull it off and that the laws need to be changed to make what they do legal the next time around.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    37. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Autopilot has always been marketing. Calling it "Autopilot" means something; it tells the driver that the car will steer itself. Psychologically the users will respond then assuming it can take over when it can't. People make the argument that an Autopilot in a plane doesn't fly the plane on it's own and they're right, but pilots go through far more extensive training than the average driver and they are prepared for what a plane Autopilot does. The average car driver is not prepared or trained for what Tesla's Autopilot does, and they will assume incorrectly enough times; even if .01% of people make the mistake, it's not adding safety to the system.

      I personally think Tesla's "Autopilot" is a complete disaster. It's too difficult for most users to calibrate their level of attention required to where Tesla thinks it should be. Individuals can't calibrate that easy; either the driver is fully in control, or the car is fully in control. In between is just asking for disaster.

    38. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about because it is an accurate description based upon past use. Autopilot in planes and ships, they will take you on the course set, they will not avoid shit or take complex routes, you set them and away they go, don't pay attention and a plane or ship or any other obstacle gets in your path and the AUTOPILOT will stay on course, bad fucking luck, well not luck, stupidity. So it is called autopilot because that is all it is, exactly as used and described for decades. People are now just choosing to reinterpret autopilot in another way now because 'hmm', vested interests and oh yeah, dick brains.

      So the design choices not around sound design but design around idiots, how to make a device idiot proof, reliable and low cost. Want to make a Tesla vehicle idiot proof, then don't install the batteries and let the idiots admire the car in their drive way and pose with it in front of passers by.

      How to make cars idiot proof, don't fucking let idiots drive them. So zero driver monitoring and instruction in their use is required during driver training and then they should be tested for knowledge on autopilot systems to get their drivers licence. Autopilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... look it the fuck up. Do not confuse it with 'ROBOTIC' vehicles like the idiots that kill themselves with autopilot vehicles, I certainly hope you do not have one.

      You can't make this argument. You're defining Autopilot in a void, but the problem with any autopilot system is it includes a user and a computer. In planes and ships, the pilot is extensively trained far more on the system than the average driver; those autopilots take into account who is operating the vehicle and their experience. Autopilot asks the average driver to do something outside of their experience or training; drivers are not trained like ship pilots or navigators. The Tesla Autopilot system is designed like a ship Autopilot but doesn't take into account who the user is and their level of training.

      And no, you can't ask to train drivers more. All people drive cars; Pandora's box is open and there's no going back to add training; it's too expensive and people won't do it and they won't give up their mobility provided by cars. Autopilot needs to be complete control and full responsibility for the car, or not at all a system; there is no in between when it's deployed to average drivers.

    39. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only total as$holes and dumb F#$%@#^ are driving Tesla's thinking they are cool...In reality they pay for some company to experiment on their @$$

    40. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm wondering is how big the group of Tesla shills is on this site since they always manage to mod you up even for the most outrageously skewed posts. You really need to be more transparent by revealing your financial interests are in Tesla, Rei.

    41. Re:Not enough by eth1 · · Score: 1

      So the design choices not around sound design but design around idiots, how to make a device idiot proof, reliable and low cost. Want to make a Tesla vehicle idiot proof, then don't install the batteries and let the idiots admire the car in their drive way and pose with it in front of passers by.

      If only there was a way to prevent installing the idiot... :P

    42. Re:Not enough by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      > but it ain't happening today. 10 years from now, maybe...

        People are horrible at assessing risk, with 500,000 cars on the road even if it handles a few situations worse, if those situations are rare enough Tesla's on autopilot could still be much safer (or not I don't have the stats.) For example seat-belts and airbags have resulted in many serious injuries, and even a few deaths that wouldn't have happened otherwise. But they prevent many times more deaths in the majority of accidents. For example a friend of mine rolled her truck while not wearing a seat-belt, the entire top of the cab smashed completely flat down to the seat, but she got thrown into the floorboard and escaped with minor injuries. It would have been impossible for her to survive if wearing a seat-belt. Those few incident doesn't equal that seat-belts don't save lives overall.

      Personally, that Tesla is doing these autopilot and control system updates over the air, scares the shit out of me. It appears they are done without government oversize, and minimal communications to the drivers. I would really like to know how the validation process is done to insure it is always a positive safety impact, and that process has oversight with criminal enforcement in place for any violation.

    43. Re:Not enough by Rei · · Score: 1

      You mean the financial interests I announced in my first point in this thread? You mean the financial interests that I didn't have until the shorts banking on this absurd hyperbole pushed the stock down to ~$250 last month, which was just too tempting for me to keep staying on the sidelines? In case you haven't noticed, I've been talking about Tesla on this site for a lot more than a month.

      If you're so anti-Tesla and so utterly convinced it's going to fail, I assume you've shorted TSLA? If not, do you not believe your own rhetoric? If you believed your own rhetoric that Tesla is going to fail, why wouldn't you make a no-brainer investment and double your money? Surely your money won't earn that good of a return anywhere else, right? Or if you are short already, then why aren't you more transparent, like I was?

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    44. Re:Not enough by Rei · · Score: 2

      The average driver does not drive a 30 year old car. The average driver drives a 10 year old car. Car safety records have not improved 4-fold in the past 10 years.

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    45. Re:Not enough by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      False. When a tech site believes it is "supposed to deliver full self-driving", then I would proffer the majority would as well.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    46. Re: Not enough by Rei · · Score: 1

      Also, do you not see the irony of someone criticizing someone for "transparency"... posting AC?

      --
      "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    47. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The majority and theverge.com all bought Tesla's? No wonder their stock price is so high.
      Maybe you are having readong troubles?

      How many people buy a Tesla thinking 'autopilot' means the car can drive itself? Zero - Thus it's a non-issue.

    48. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck is it NOT a good comparison?
      Yea' a lot of cars and trucks are old and shitty, and people get killed.
      Teslas are not old and shitty, and they are safer..

      Unless you are suggesting that we make old crappy cars and trucks illegal you don't have a point.

    49. Re:Not enough by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Because they call it fucking AUTOPILOT. Auto, as in automatic, not manual, no human interaction needed, done for you. You claim it's well documented it's assist technology, and if you dig into the fine print I'm sure you're right. But it's also documented very well in the goddamn name that it's not assist technology, it's automatic. Not manual. Not assist. No human interaction needed. Done for you. Auto-fucking-pilot. Fine print disclaimers do not change that.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Your understanding of autopilot is incorrect. I believe the word you are looking for is autonomous, not automatic.

      I think this is an issue of the common layperson assuming they know what autopilot means based on video games, movies, and TV. Autopilot in airplanes and ships is not a complete hands-off automatically do everything for you system. It is essentially the same as tying a rope to the steering wheel in your car and placing a brick on your gas pedal.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    50. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla doesn't spend any money on advertising. Also, to say that Tesla is misleading people by calling it Autopilot ignores the evidence that the people who have accidents when AP is in use have generally had their Tesla cars for a while and were therefore quite familiar with AP, not people who just got the cars and would therefore be unfamiliar with its limitations.

    51. Re:Not enough by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Even if Teslas are safer than a comparable priced new BMW or Volvo or Mercedes because they have better survivability (due, for example, to a superior front end crumple zone because there's no need to accommodate an engine/transmission in that area in a Tesla), that's irrelevant to any judgement on Autopilot (for example, if it's technically appropriate or if its name is misleading).

      Suppose a Tesla model had 10% the fatality rate per passenger mile of the "average" car. Musk then figured out they could decrease the weight of the model to improve its acceleration performance by reducing strength of crash safety members and eliminating "extra" battery shielding and sold this option as "Insane Ludicrous Mode" -- but elimination of those safety features would make the car 3X more lethal to occupants in crashes. The car would still have 30% the fatality rate per passenger mile of the "average" car. Would Tesla fans here say "Oh, that's fine -- it's still safer than the 'average' car and the fine print mentions that this performance improvement was accomplished by reducing the safety so drivers should drive more carefully" (and, would they say that if a family member was killed as a passenger in someone else's "Insane Ludicrous Mode" Tesla when it was t-boned by a red light runner and it was apparent that the fiery death would likely not have occurred in the "standard" model)?

      Another thing to consider is "passenger miles" vs. "vehicle miles" (the alleged stats quoted above are not clear, but the stats appear to be vehicle, not passenger, mile based). I rarely see a Tesla with more than one person in it. I don't know if that's typical, but it's my observation. With the exception of the recent "Tesla crematorium" case, I believe all of the publicized fatal and non-fatal Tesla crashes had only one person in the Tesla - the driver. If the number of passenger miles per vehicle mile are lower in Teslas than, say, Dodge minivians, of course the fatalities per vehicle mile will be less for Teslas because there are fewer people IN the average Tesla subjected to the force of the crash. It's quite common for cars with multiple occupants to crash and result in fatalities to some, not all, of the occupants (sometimes at least one occupant is killed and at least one literally walks away).

      The demographics of the drivers are also important. Generally, due to the cost and interest in technology, Teslas are owned and driven by those in the age "sweet spot" of safe driving -- old enough not to be really stupid (i.e., 19 years old males prefacing their driving antics with "here, hold my beer") and young enough not to have impaired night vision, reaction time, and cognitive functions. The younger demographic usually just can't afford a Tesla and the older demographic (even if they feel they can afford one even though they are living on retirement savings) is generally less inclined to be drawn to newer technology.

      Also, remember that (unless their batteries give out which is a distinct possibility -- but it's likely by then that there will be rebuilders who will take worn out battery packs and rebuild them with slightly used batteries from electric cars which have been totalled), the "safe" Teslas of today will be being compared in 15 years to the "average" car which by then will have more safety features and Teslas won't look as good when the $3000 used Tesla with 2016 safety levels are included in the mix. If Tesla wanted to avoid that, they could have by only leasing the cars and recycliing them after five years but they didn't choose to do that.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    52. Re:Not enough by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Every single person who buys a Tesla has it clearly explained to them that it is not a self driving car. None of them buy one thinking it is 'full self-driving'.
      Appears Tesla has better marketing than all those other brands you mentioned previously.

  2. Suppliers?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ....Tesla even worked with suppliers ...

    Tesla has no suppliers! They are 100% vertically integrated!! That's why when it's reported in their income statement that they lost money, they didn't really lose money!! They paid themselves!!! They are BUILDING UP!!!!

    How stupid are you people!!

    All of you are morons!! And ignore the reports of Tesla's top engineering talent leaving. Tesla is AOK!! Musk is the most Brilliant engineer EVAR! And he can fix anything with a hack-a-thon because we all know assembly lines and building things is JUST like publishing software.

    You Morons!!

    Come on Rei! Tell these ignorant assholes that I'm right!!!

    1. Re: Suppliers?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Where is Rei?

  3. Re: These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate you.

  4. Elonz Nutz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Y'all need to get off Elonz Nutz.

  5. Re:These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tesla haters can continue to hate but there other factors, like investors, that need to be in play.

    Yeah those Telsa haters! Reading the income statements, the cash flow statements and the balance sheet and asking, "Hey, what's going on with our money Musk?!"

    Stupid haters asking stupid questions!! They should just STFU!!

    What next, are they gonna ask something really stupid like, "Hey Musk, what about those 500,000 cars you promised to make by the end of 2018!"

    Haters!! I really hate HATERS!!!!

  6. Re:These are business decisions by AvitarX · · Score: 0, Troll

    They absolutely are.

    In this specific business decision they chose to ignore the engineers and do something that appears to be dangerous.

    At least vs other systems that do lane keeping and follow distance.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  7. Tesla is collapsing by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The whole company is collapsing. Stock is plummeting, execs are leaving, they had to put their factory up as collateral for their credit line, Musk is reorganizing the entire thing. The shorts are making money though.

    1. Re:Tesla is collapsing by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Trolls" is the new word for someone "saying things I don't agree with". Tesla IS collapsing. You can check ANY of my claims in my post above yourself. Executives are leaving. The put their factory up as collateral last week on their credit line (even though Musk said he doesn't want to go back to the credit markets). His arrogance on his conference call (which he apologized about) was very Enron like. Sorry you guys are so enamored with Tesla, but Nissan is doing a much better job producing an affordable electric car.

    2. Re:Tesla is collapsing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your short actually was making money, you wouldn't keep shouting that the stock was plummeting.

    3. Re:Tesla is collapsing by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      Another Tesla battery fire is making its way into the US news cycle. This one was fatal. The photos are astonishing; the whole car was slagged right down to the pavement with the driver is inside. Not a good look.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  8. Re:These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OP here - agree with your comments. I didn't craft my original reply enough to reinforce that Musk/Tesla is faced with fiscal reality. But first post, or whatever.

  9. Why does it work for Cadillac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am loathe to link to Ars because its quality has gone down hill, but Cadillac's Supercruise is geofenced and uses eyetracking with rave reviews.

    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/02/the-cadillac-ct6-review-super-cruise-is-a-game-changer/

    1. Re:Why does it work for Cadillac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >I am loathe to link to Ars because its quality has gone down hill

      You're posting at former tech site Slashdot, that's now a bottom of the hill nerd-rage site.

    2. Re:Why does it work for Cadillac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't understand why people are upset at Tesla for treating them like adults. Every time you enable autopilot it tells you to keep both hands on the wheel and be prepared to take control at any time. They also tell you to only use it on limited access roads (freeways, etc...). If you choose to ignore that, it's on you, not them. It's your car and you decide how to use it. If you want a car company to treat you like a child, then by all means buy a Cadillac with its geofenced, eyeball tracking supercruise.

  10. Nagging system is what we need by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Thats what they use in Locomotives to make sure the drivers have not fallen asleep.

    Eye tracking may or may not be reliable enough. But if eye tracking is not reliable, then nagware is definitely needed.

    I feel this whole auto pilot, full self driving a big distraction from the core reason why I support Tesla.:

    1. Make an electric that is affordable for at least 50% of the Americans.

    2. Make a no negotiation, everyone pays the same price model for the cars, price transparency (secondary minor goal)

    I wish Tesla would just let someone else develop this tech and license it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Nagging system is what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way Tesla can reduce the costs is buy selling way more vehicles. At this point in time they can't even build the capacity they already have which is very minimal compared to any other car maker.

    2. Re: Nagging system is what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Locomotives made in Easter Europe have a dead hand system. The machinist has to press a number that is a sum of two randomly displayed numbers every 90 seconds or the locomotive stops.

    3. Re:Nagging system is what we need by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      "That's just like, your opinion, man."

      I'm after autopilot. Electric and affordability aren't worth nearly as much to me as my time. There are many things I'd do differently for each X percent of the drive my car can conduct without me. The value of the car is literally measurable in dollars-per-hour times the hours per year I get to rearrange where and how I conduct my life. I can't afford a driver, but give me a car that lets me focus on work or lets me sleep, and a thousand unavailable desires are answered: fishing on my lunch break; going to an event that is hours away; meeting with faraway friends. Just picking a distant favorite spot to plop down and do work among redwoods or on an overlook. Shlepping things and family around. Skiing for an hour on a work day.

      For business owners: Autopilot lets shipping firms negotiate 3-shift deliveries. Trucks and cabs run 24x7, as long as endpoints are willing to do odd hours in return for discounts.

      Autopilot. All your stuff is already solved by a used prius.

    4. Re:Nagging system is what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you're short-selling. Lame comment, since you no doubt know that the funny thing about factories and economies of scale: the production rate leaps forward each time a process-limiting glitch is fixed. Ditto for parallelization. If productivity is at 10-20%, getting it to 80 is huge. Laying additional process lines once optimized is huge.

      Every process has this. Food, consumer goods, etc. Sometimes it's hidden a bit -- like with semiconductors: First Intel CPUs using new processes may face horrifically low per-wafer yields, and the chips get priced at $1000. Then process improves and price plunges to $250, then $100, etc.

    5. Re:Nagging system is what we need by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Tesla is not hitting any of their estimates for Model 3 production. Not even close. Considering they estimated 20K/month min to "break even", there is no surprise at all they are still losing billions of dollars - BEFORE capital and NRE expenses.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re: Nagging system is what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a sexist plan to keep women from being train engineers.

    7. Re:Nagging system is what we need by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Elon was able to persuade the board of a publicly traded company (Tesla) to bail out a pet project (Solar city). SpaceX is flush with cash, and credit and is a private company. Tesla is just six months behind target in production.

      Gentlemen, place your bets.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sort of ..... the markets rely on Musk raising capital. And Moody's bond rating of Tesla is based upon that.

    What Musk discounted was that the "shorts" - the folks that short stocks - aren't people who wake up one day and think, "I hate this company."

    They are mostly CPAs and lawyers and total accounting geeks. They examine financial documents like we read sci-fi books.

    They discovered Enron's BS before it became publicly known and every other BS company.

    They aren't "Haters". They are cold calculating bean counters and are not to be taken lightly like Musk did.

    I could go on.....but it 's gonna be a book.

    1. Re:The Shorts by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Musk has been putting in a very Enron like performance lately as well. The parallels are very compelling.

    2. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still hope the shorts get hilariously fucked. Tesla isnt perfect, but it's better for planet earth than the other American car companies.

    3. Re:The Shorts by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Troll

      No it isn't. Tesla is building playthings for the 1%. Other companies are building affordable electric vehicles.

    4. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I still hope the shorts get hilariously fucked. Tesla isnt perfect, but it's better for planet earth than the other American car companies.

      Tesla is NOT the only electric car company out there.

      There is CURRENTLY - Nissan, Chevy, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, .......

    5. Re:The Shorts by Smidge204 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Model 3 has an MSRP of $35K. That's significantly more on the "affordable" end of the spectrum and is on par with other EVs available now.

      The Model S and Model X are high cost to try and actually make money off of them. Pretty much the only reason Tesla has lasted this long, and gotten this far, is by aiming high and building brand reputation. There's just no margin in $35K vehicles and they'd never sell without the branding to back them up.

      It was a good strategy and it's worked out brilliantly for them. Victims of their own success at this point.
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:The Shorts by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah right. The $35k is not available. Model 3s right now are $55K. The Nissal Leaf is $30k, actually availble. More Tesla lies.

    7. Re:The Shorts by steveha · · Score: 1

      The Model S and Model X are high cost to try and actually make money off of them. Pretty much the only reason Tesla has lasted this long, and gotten this far, is by aiming high and building brand reputation. There's just no margin in $35K vehicles and they'd never sell without the branding to back them up.

      You aren't quite correct here.

      It's true that the price of the Model S and Model X is high to make a profit. However, it's not true that there is "no margin in $35K vehicles"... Tesla has spent big on factories (including their own battery factory) so that they can make a car at that price point and make a profit.

      Their plan, which was never a secret: first, make the Roadster; sell it for $120,000 and up, and make a profit on each car sold. Then, use the lessons learned from the Roadster and make the Model S, sell that for $60,000 and up, and make a profit on each car sold. Finally, use the lessons learned from Model S, Model X, and the Roadster, make the Model 3, sell it for $35,000 and up, and make a profit on each car sold.

      One of the nice things about this plan is that at each step, the number of vehicles they make goes up. A problem on the Roadster didn't affect that many cars. A problem on the Model S would affect more cars. They had best have the problems figured out before mass-producing the Model 3. I think overall they have... the Model 3 is getting really good reviews, and the only real problem is that they can't make them fast enough yet.

      Note that GM takes a loss on the Chevy Bolt, which is why they sell enough of them to collect EV credits but they aren't going for mass production. The Model 3 is a much better car, and Tesla will be able to sell it for $35,000 at a profit once Tesla has the production rate up high enough. (Right now their factory expenses are being spread across 2000 to 3000 cars per week, instead of the planned 5000 per week. Once the per-car factory expenses are low enough Tesla will be making money on the cars. Even though their expenses are high right now, they are generating cash flow, which is a good thing for them, and much better than paying for the factories while not selling any cars at all.)

      Only Tesla knows for sure, but experts are guessing that Tesla will make a 25% margin on the Model 3.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    8. Re:The Shorts by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      $35,000 for the base model. There's no lie there, but there's no fancy options either.

      I mean if you're going to play that game, the Nissan Leaf actually has an MSRP of $41,057 (according to their website, highest trim level and all available options...)
      =Smidge=

    9. Re:The Shorts by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > Only Tesla knows for sure, but experts are guessing that Tesla will make a 25% margin on the Model 3.

      Keyword: "Will"

      Maybe I didn't phrase it properly, but my point was it would have been impossible for them to start out with a low cost vehicle like the Model 3. They didn't have any ability to leverage economies of scale, and they didn't have a brand reputation to support them. As we both point out, the plan was always to aim high.
      =Smidge=

    10. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Model 3 has an MSRP of $60K.

      Fixed that for you.

    11. Re:The Shorts by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      So if I order a base model 3 today, when will it be delivered? Bear in mind that the waiting list is at least two years long and they haven't even started building the $35k version.

      Also, Tesla is making the $65k version and is still operating at a loss. How are they going to then make a profit on a car that is substantially the same (i.e. costs nearly as much to make) but sells for $30k less?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    12. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. Go get a base Model 3 for 35,000 right now. I'll wait, and I'll pay you a thousand dollars once you get it. What have you got to lose?

      Right - you CAN'T get it, because Tesla aren't making them right now, because they don't have capacity. That's the point - but you knew that. You're just being deliberately obtuse.

    13. Re:The Shorts by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The $35k is not available.

      I know right, kind of like there are production issues or something going on.

    14. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla is making $200,000 cars and selling them for $135,000. Of course people like a deal like that. I suspect they are building $75,000 cars and selling them for $60,000.

    15. Re:The Shorts by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That "something else" is Tesla producing the more expensive options first in order to increase margins. There are production problems as well.

    16. Re:The Shorts by steveha · · Score: 1

      my point was it would have been impossible for them to start out with a low cost vehicle like the Model 3.

      Oh, I see. I agree completely with you, then.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    17. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your use of the English language seems sloppy. Do you see no distinction between "not yet in production" and "more Tesla lies"? IOW, when the $35k base model does become available sometime in the next 12 months, will you admit you were wrong?

    18. Re:The Shorts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't selling the $35k model right now. They are prioritising the more expensive versions. They won't get to the $35k model until they get their manufacturing sorted out.

      I'm a fan of Tesla, but you can't honestly say the $35k model is available to buy right now. And to be fair to Tesla, financially it makes sense to prioritise the customers who are paying more, especially while they are still working on ramping up their manufacturing.

    19. Re:The Shorts by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That "something else" is Tesla producing the more expensive options first in order to increase margins.

      I like that word. "first". Your word, not mine. So what you're saying is there is a cheap model, it exists, and you can pre-order it, but it's just not coming off the production line due to the production issues they are facing.

  12. Car makers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe Cadillac is made by people with experience making cars? And not some Silly Valley big talker?

    1. Re:Car makers by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And not some Silly Valley big talker?

      You mean the Silly Valley big talker who created the company that is well on the way to being the first manufacturer to lose their EV credits when they ship too many EVs beating those "expereienced" people?

      Yeah what a failure he is.

    2. Re:Car makers by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      "well on the way"
       
        Call me when he gets his backlog of car orders filled. Call me again when Tesla stops bleeding money. Call me yet again when Tesla becomes more than a boutique/niche car manufacturer. If they can't hit at least Porsche yearly sales levels, they will never be considered anything else.
       
        Is he a smart guy? Sure. The problems with Tesla take nothing away from the awesomness of SpaceX. Smart people make mistakes though. Tesla, like Apple, tries so hard to be "different" that it sometimes backfires.

    3. Re:Car makers by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Call me when he gets his backlog of car orders filled.

      I don't need to. I'm calling you out right now for the pathetic little twerp who shits on quite epic achievements of other people that you are.

      Call me yet again when Tesla becomes more than a boutique/niche car manufacturer

      This one fascinates me, given that this company has singlehandedly changed both the car and the power industry. I guess you'll keep shitting on them until they somehow become some major monopoly force, all the while completely ignoring that Tesla has achieved far more in their first 15 years than Ford ever did.

      If they can't hit at least Porsche yearly sales levels, they will never be considered anything else.

      Hit Porche where? Telsa delivered 50% more cars in their home market of America (a market of 350million people) than Porch did in all their home market of Europe (a market double the size). The fact that you think a car company that delivered just shy of 100000 vehicles in 2017 despite only having 2 very expensive cars in a market that is actively aggressive to their technology is a minor "boutique/niche" company is quite laughable.

      Now you can call me when you change the world. Tesla already have those credentials by proving something that car companies have dismissed and in doing so they became the number one EV manufacturer in America. How "boutique".

    4. Re:Car makers by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      Give me a break... I'm not shitting on anything. I'm just pointing out that Teslas accomplishments are nowhere near as game changing as their fanboys would have us believe. Having a huge backlog and bleeding investor dollars is not shitting, they are facts. You seem to think they are irrelevant for some reason. Tesla or not, the industry was headed hybrid and later electric. Tesla may have sped things up a bit, but that was probably based on their over the top predictions for Model 3 deliveries. As far as the power market goes, do you live in Silicon Valley or San Francisco? Maybe powerwalls are ubiquitous there, but the rest of the country still lives in the real world.

      Anyway, why this focus on "home market"? The auto industry is global these days. Tesla delivered ~103,000 cars globally in 2017, Porsche delivered ~246,000. That makes both of them niche products in an industry where the top 5 each sell over 1 million cars per QUARTER.

      http://carsalesbase.com/global...

      P.S. Pathetic little twerps make personal attacks on the internet when their favorite BOUTIQUE car manufacturer gets called out.

    5. Re:Car makers by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Give me a break... I'm not shitting on anything.

      You realise the entire thread is in reply to "Silicon Valley Big Talker".

      I'm just pointing out that Teslas accomplishments are nowhere near as game changing as their fanboys would have us believe.

      And yet look at how much the industry has stood up and taken notice.

      Having a huge backlog and bleeding investor dollars is not shitting, they are facts.

      And it's also not relevant at all to a discussion of technology or changing a market. Which means someone is just looking for reasons to shit on an achievement.

      Tesla or not, the industry was headed hybrid and later electric.

      Horseshit and you know it. The entire industry basically laughed at Telsa as "impossible". A token effort was given to hybrid and electric didn't exist. It wasn't until Telsa well and truly proved it possible that the industry took notice at all. It wasn't until Teslas started driving across the USA that they even started considering that maybe this electric thing is a risk they need to invest in. Here we are 15 fucking years later and Tesla still has no domestic competitor in the USA. The industry isn't headding this direction, they are being dragged kicking and screaming throwing a horrible tantrum on the way.

      Tesla may have sped things up a bit, but that was probably based on their over the top predictions for Model 3 deliveries.

      The fact you think that this has anything to do with a Model 3 shows that you haven't been paying attention the past 15 years.

      Maybe powerwalls are ubiquitous there

      Err maybe China has bears that are black and white. What's your point? You looking on another product to shit on and pronounce a failure prematurely?

      Anyway, why this focus on "home market"?

      The car industry is highly styalised for the local home market. It is the only market that matters for a specific model. Telsa sells like shit in Europe because it's an oversized tank. The Renault Zoe isn't even on offer in America because it wouldn't even be a success if it was powered by a V8. Telas market is localised in far few countries than Porche and all of its products including the Model 3 are distinctly American. Unlike say Porche who offers a large variet of models for local markets.

      P.S. Pathetic little twerps make personal attacks on the internet when their favorite BOUTIQUE car manufacturer gets called out.

      LOL. I don't give a shit about Telsa. I drive an electric Renault. I do however defend people against stupidity. And writing boutique in bold doesn't make your comment or your lack of knowledge seem any less stupid.

  13. Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So this information was thoughtfully reviewed, felt not to be in the driver's best interest / effective enough to integrate and wasn't. This doesn't seem like an interesting story. This isn't gross negligence, this is just decision making and business.

    1. Re:Not news by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So this information was thoughtfully reviewed, felt not to be in the driver's best interest / effective enough to integrate and wasn't. This doesn't seem like an interesting story. This isn't gross negligence, this is just decision making and business.

      Elon Musk is saying it was ineffective, but he also keeps calling the system an Autopilot.

      This is just more evidence that Tesla is trying to have it both ways.

      Informally they say:
      "Look! It's a self-driving car! You just relax and it does everything!!"

      Officially they say:
      "It's basically just fancy cruise control, you need to watch it like a hawk every second it's engaged!!"

      In practice they want and expect people to treat it as a self-driving car, but they need to tell them it's cruise-control for legal reasons.

      That's why they ditched the eye tracking and other fancy tech that would keep people engaged. The "pay attention" safeguards are in-effective by design.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but he also keeps calling the system an Autopilot.

      It is telling that even when people against Tesla have a valid point, they can't help but talk about this again and again and again. GET. OVER. IT.

    3. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you write "Informally they say", what you mean is that you imagine people say that in conversation, but you can't actually find or produce an actual example (and that would be because they haven't ever said that, but lots of other people have said that about them). That is a text book example of a strawman argument. You are eliminated from the debate, as you've demonstrated you don't work in facts.

  14. On the surface, a bad choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think annoying drivers to prevent deaths is a acceptable compromise. How many bad decisions has Tesla made so far? Are they skimping in other technologies as well?

    1. Re:On the surface, a bad choice by urbanriot · · Score: 2

      It's not an acceptable compromise for those buying the vehicles, I certainly wouldn't want a nagging vehicle when I already have a wife.

  15. Steering wheel feedback annoying by vanyel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I test drove a Nissan Leaf with ProDrive, which is a lane following assist tech. It uses steering wheel feedback to make sure you're paying attention, and it felt like I was constantly fighting the car to drive.

    1. Re:Steering wheel feedback annoying by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've used ProLilot in a Leaf and it was very relaxing and easy. The car seemed more confident and sure of itself than Autopilot when entering corners.

      The other big difference is that it starts nagging you a few seconds after you take your hand of the wheel. Tesla lets you go for much longer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Steering wheel feedback annoying by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I test drove a Nissan Leaf with ProDrive, which is a lane following assist tech. It uses steering wheel feedback to make sure you're paying attention, and it felt like I was constantly fighting the car to drive.

      Back off and let the car do its thing. If you're fighting it then you're not actually using the technology as intended. I am driving a 2018 model Nissan Qashqai this week and it's especially great on the highway. Rest your hand on the wheel and let the steering wheel do the work.

  16. As opposed to a Silly Slashdot Big Talker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe Cadillac is made by people with experience making cars? And not some Silly Valley big talker?

    When Cadillac launches a vehicle into space then you might have a point. Tesla has its issues, but to dismiss Elon Musk as a "Silly Valley big talker" is pretty ignornant--he's achieved quite a bit more than most entrepreneurs in and out of the valley. Doesn't mean he'll manage to displace (or even join) the automotive cartel, but he's certainly more than just a "big talker."

    1. Re:As opposed to a Silly Slashdot Big Talker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Cadillac is made by people with experience making cars? And not some Silly Valley big talker?

      When Cadillac launches a vehicle into space then you might have a point.

      When launching cars into space makes them good cars, then you might have a point, retard.

    2. Re:As opposed to a Silly Slashdot Big Talker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:As opposed to a Silly Slashdot Big Talker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I’ll take my Model 3 (the one parked in my garage right now) over anything GM has ever produced. I’ve driven many a GM product in my day, most of them were dreadful.

      I even rented a convertible Cameron on my most recent trip to Hawaii in January. It pales in comparison to the Model 3 in every way — performance, handling, tech and obviously, efficiency.

      Hate all you want, I’m never going back to a shitty IC product after owning a Tesla.

    4. Re:As opposed to a Silly Slashdot Big Talker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I’ll take my Model 3 (the one parked in my garage right now) over anything GM has ever produced because I’m a massive retard.

      Fixed that for you.

  17. Re:These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every single time you enable autopilot it tells you to keep both hands on the wheel and be prepared to take control at any time. If you don't do that, it's your fault, not Tesla's.

  18. The eye tracker could have saved them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All this bad PR lately revolving around Autopilot involved drivers who weren't paying attention. They really should have incorporated the eye tracker, that alone would have made a huge difference.

    I see idiots in my city zipping around in their Teslas with their eyes in their lap all the time, even when there's kids in the back. It's infuriating.

    In the mean time, I really think wanton police brutality needs to be legally sanctioned for people who are caught texting and driving, autopilot or no autopilot.

  19. how ai really works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are supposed to believe they can design cars to safely drive with neural nets but they cannot make a neural net to see if the driver is paying attention.

  20. Re:These are business decisions by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    I figured it may be a troll/sarcastic.

    I am a fan of Tesla, and want them to succeed, but I think they really oversold autopilot, and now it appears their engineers thought they did too.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  21. Re:These are business decisions by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    So then Autopilot does???

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  22. Re:These are business decisions by ixidor · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, that shit is easy to look up. level 2 autonomy? lane assist, crash avoidance, speed stuff.

  23. You should definitely short them, please. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    You're clearly very smart, put your money where your mouth is.

    1. Re:You should definitely short them, please. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Oh, I have! Most of it is in nice dividend stocks with a 10%+ yield... I'm not going to risk on an emotionally-driven stock like TSLA. Having a price manipulated by pronouncements of a CEO, or buoyed up irregularly by irrational investors is something I do not want to play around in. My guess is we get near the end of the year, TSLA is down to 3-4 months of cash and credit left in the room, and probably is bought out by another major brand. But we'll see...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:You should definitely short them, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are invested in 10%+ yield dividend stocks, you are already taking a high risk. Best to check the financials again, as there is a reason why the yield is so high.

  24. Re:These are business decisions by Rei · · Score: 1

    Yeah those Telsa haters! Reading the income statements, the cash flow statements and the balance sheet and asking, "Hey, what's going on with our money Musk?!"

    I seriously doubt you're a Tesla investor. I am. And like most Tesla investors, I'm very happy with the company's management under Musk.

    "Hey Musk, what about those 500,000 cars you promised to make by the end of 2018!"

    Wait, the company is half a year behind the ridiculously-aggressive schedule they set for themselves? No way! Why didn't someone tell me? This fact certainly hasn't been flooding my newsfeed with relentless hyperbole.

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
  25. Re:These are business decisions by Rei · · Score: 1

    There's not many other systems that use eye tracking, although there are a few; I'd like more specifics about what Musk was referring to. There are some weaknesses with eye tracking, like how it doesn't work with sunglasses on, but beyond that.... I just don't think periodic torquing of the wheel is enough (at least it's better than just a pressure sensor... since you can fall asleep while still putting pressure on the wheel).

    On the other hand, I have trouble buying into the other claim that it was "too expensive". Given that Tesla included a selfie camera on the lower cost model, the Model 3, which could be used for eye tracking.

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
  26. Re:These are business decisions by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The Cadillac one works with sunglasses. There is a video on YouTube somewhere of a journalist trying it.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. They Were Warned About This by segedunum · · Score: 1

    Quite a while ago. To build a confused autonomous driving system that actually isn't and needs drive involvement is just dangerous because the human element is just going to switch off. Musk has this bizarre belief that the crashes so far can be blamed on the driver (gee, thanks). It's a scam. They (Musk in particular) are trying to give the impression that self-driving cars are here when they are anything but.

  28. Re:These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are very happy because the house of cards has not collapsed...yet

  29. Re:These are business decisions by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    If you design a system thinking people will use it wrong, and then have a warning label, but an excessive amount of people use it wrong. Likely you'll be punished.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  30. Re:These are business decisions by Rei · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, longs keep making money and shorts keep losing their shirt, cycle after cycle of doom-and-gloom short-selling, followed by none of the doom-and-gloom panning out and the company successfully continuing on its exponential growth pace. Who exactly needs to examine their underlying assumptions here?

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
  31. Re:These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rei posting at 0742 Iceland time.
    Claims don't sleeps until after 0300

    The energy boosting powers of the Elon Musk bukake energy drink is impressive.

  32. Waiting for Complete Safety by Doctrinsograce · · Score: 1

    As soon as human driving becomes completely and entirely safe, then I will settle for self-driving cars to simply be more safe than humans.

  33. Re: These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but that's not autopilot, a lot of cars have exactly that,lane assist, cruise control adaptive distance control, automatic braking etc, not sold as 'autopilot' by anyone except tesla and certainly no 3k upgrade to "full autonomous" vaporware packages available.

  34. Re: These are business decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U need a finance course. In a capital intensive business, where you're spending $3 or $4bn a year, a 6 month 'delay' in reaching manufacturing scale promised, while spending Capex at 100% or more of the scale required is a big ass issue. You'll run out of cash before you have a chance to hit the breakeven point.
    So yes you'really an investor, but wait for your stock to get diluted in the next equity or conveetoble warrant sale. You could just wait to buy in at a lower price point at that next funding round, rather than hold on now.

    Not to mention, a question investors forget is if the likelihood of a triple in tesla stock is greater than a 50% drop, and whether that risk is anddequately rewarded. Tesla has 3 vehicles for sale and some future projected products. There anddequatelyre more than 20 new competing evs coming online in the next 18 months, and tesla will only have 1 mid market vehicle in that time. The model s is already aged out and has declining yoy rates of growth. Model 3 isn't far behind

  35. Re:These are business decisions by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    What house of cards? I've had my Model S for 5 years and it is by far the most reliable car I've ever owned. It is better than new with the relatively common and painless software improvements. People are amazed when I tell them its over 5 years old because it is still like new.

    What I see is a battle of hype vs. misinformation from large market forces who have a great deal to lose when everyone realizes that except for long trips, electric cars are superior in every respect.

    The fact is that the Tesla cars while not perfect are excellent products made by people who care. I cannot say that about the Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and Toyota cars I've owned. Most of my conventional cars were designed to fall apart and then be replaced after 5 or 6 years. If success is measured by a company producing great product that stands the test of time than Tesla can't lose.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  36. The Geek Fallacy. by westlake · · Score: 1

    How about because it is an accurate description based upon past use. Autopilot in planes and ships, they will take you on the course set, they will not avoid shit or take complex routes, you set them and away they go

    That describes the autopilot of a DC-3 or the Chris Craft cabin cruiser of 1954..

    The problem is that when the general public thinks "autopilot" what they visualize is the automation and glass cockpit of a modern jumbo jet ---- which can be programmed for collision avoidance and complex routing.

    You see this all the time on Slashdot. The geek quotes from the dictionary or tech manual and ignores common usage. It is when the geek turns to marketing that the habit becomes dangerous.

  37. Re:These are business decisions by Rei · · Score: 1

    1) "I usually don't go to bed until after 3 AM, unless I'm covering shifts."

    2) Stop stalking me. Seriously, there's something wrong with you.

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
  38. Re:These are business decisions by Rei · · Score: 1

    Here, a gift for you: link

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."