Depending on whose numbers you believe, the National Safety Council says that the U.S. average is 1.25 deaths per 100 million miles. So that number is in the ballpark.
However, your estimate of the number of autopilot miles is probably about an order of magnitude low. There are news articles from late 2016 claiming over 300 million miles traveled with autopilot/autosteer active. If it's not at least half a billion by now, I'd be surprised, and I wouldn't be shocked if it hit a solid billion already.
So if you ignore Waymo (too small a sample size) and Uber (trying to deploy FSD before their tech was ready), and concentrate only on Tesla, that's a pretty sizable drop in fatalities — around a factor of 5–10.
Remember that the bulk of those auto fatalities are the result of intoxication or driving in bad conditions. AI cars aren't driving in storms and they aren't getting drunk. Including the worst case drivers in the statistics is misleading to the point of being pointless.
No, it really isn't. Self-driving tech doesn't have to be better than the best drivers to be useful. It just has to be better than the worst drivers before requiring people to use it when drunk or fatigued will save lives.
Not in California, it isn't. You're required to yield to the pedestrian and drive in a manner that avoids putting the pedestrian in danger. You are NOT required to wait until the pedestrian is safely on the opposite curb. Laws requiring that are exceptionally rare in the U.S.:
Minnesota is the only state with such a law that applies in all circumstances.
Washington D.C., Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oregon require you to stop if they're in your lane or an adjacent lane. For a two-lane road, that's effectively the same thing as requiring you to stop until the pedestrian has fully crossed.
New Jersey requires you to stop if they're in your lane or an adjacent lane, but only for marked crosswalks.
Tennessee has such a law, but it applies only in school zones when the warning lights are flashing.
The company in this case is making up a rule about the distance from the pedestrian being critical (and asking us to trust it's assessment that the ped was 10 feet away). The actually rules have nothing to do with distance:
[link to driver handbook]
The California driver handbook is not considered binding law. It is just a set of recommendations for how to interpret the law.
The actual law says that you have to yield the right of way to pedestrians, which means you may not block them and you may not hit them or come close to hitting them. If a pedestrian is not already in your path, you do not legally have to yield, and if you are close enough that you would not be able to stop if the pedestrian stepped into your path, the pedestrian would be legally required to yield to you.
It is polite to yield to pedestrians who are not in your path yet, and it is generally a good idea as a signal to drivers in other lanes who might actually be required to stop, but as long as you don't hit the pedestrian, block the pedestrian's path, or come so close that you blow the pedestrian over, you're technically probably okay according to California law. And people wonder why so many California drives drive like a**holes....
I grew up in Tennessee, and that set off my "that doesn't sound right" alarm. Unless there's a local law in Gatlinburg:
TCA 55-8-134 - Pedestrian's Right-of-Way in Crosswalks
(a) (1) Unless in a marked school zone when a warning flasher or flashers are in operation, when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
There's nothing there about a median. You just have to stop while they're in your lane or when they're about to be in your lane (coming from either side).
Of course, when you're in a school zone while the lights are flashing, what you said is correct per (a)(2). You can tell those intersections by the yellow painted zebra stripes and the flashing yellow lights next to or over the roadway.
Interestingly, this section of the law completely fails to provide rules for traffic-light-controlled intersections, so presumably it defers to TCA 55-8-110(1)(A) and (3)(A), which say that when making a right on red or a left or right on green, you have to yield the right of way to pedestrians, but does not say that you have to wait for the pedestrian to completely cross.
So basically, if you're at a yellow crosswalk in a school zone and the lights are flashing, you must ensure that the crosswalk is completely clear. Otherwise, you don't. Somewhere in the back of my mind, there's a voice telling me that there's a second situation where you are supposed to wait for the intersection to completely clear, or at least that there used to be twenty years ago, but I don't remember what, and I can't find any pertinent bits in TCA, so maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.
On the plus side, in Tennessee, it's a class C misdemeanor that can get you up to a $50 fine and 30 days in jail to cross the street between marked crosswalks at traffic lights, walk facing away from traffic on a highway (even a minor, two-lane "highway" through town) unless you're in a wheelchair, or walk on any road that has a crosswalk next to it, so fans of self-driving cars have that going for them, which is nice.
That said, the present rules are generally built around the premise that human drivers cannot make those kind of determinations accurately are simply required to stop no matter what if someone is at the crosswalk. So it may not be unreasonable legally that a ticket was issued, but it wasn't exactly reckless of human life on the AI's part either.
Actually, in most of the U.S., the laws say that you have to wait for the pedestrian to have finished crossing your path. In this case, the pedestrian had already finished crossing the path of the car and was proceeding across a subsequent lane. It doesn't take much mental calculation to conclude that it is safe for the car to pass, provided that the pedestrian is not, in fact, actually a squirrel in disguise.
All traffic must stop until there are no pedestrians.
Nope. That's not what those laws say.
The first one defines the limit line before a pedestrian crossing, indicating where you are required to stop if you are stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
The second one is the law that says that drivers are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians. It says nothing about continuing to wait for pedestrians for the entire time they are crossing the road — only that you must stop until such time as continuing would not pose a risk to the safety of the pedestrian.
The third one is the law that says that pedestrians aren't allowed to step out right in front of cars. If a car is only 10 feet away, odds are, the pedestrian broke that law.
I'm not sure that's the case. Does CA law require completely clear crosswalks?
Yes [ca.gov]. In marked AND unmarked (implicit at each intersection) crosswalks the pedestrian has the right-of-way.
Right of way != completely clear.
California law says you have to yield the right of way to the pedestrian. That means you're not allowed to hit the pedestrian or get close enough to knock the pedestrian over. It does not mean that you have to wait for the crosswalk to be completely clear of pedestrians if those pedestrians are not in the path of your vehicle.
To the best of my understanding, the answer is no; the intersection does NOT have to be completely clear of pedestrians before vehicles are allowed to go. That said, if there is a vehicle coming towards you in the other direction, it is generally a good idea to remain stopped until you are certain that the oncoming driver has seen the pedestrian and is stopping.
If they cyclists "fuck up", they tend to get the brunt of the injuries anyway, or even die.
The physical injuries, sure. But if they die, the drivers that hit them are scarred for life in ways that won't ever heal.
But crossing against a light isn't a mortal sin if you actually bother to look and there's no cross traffic with clear lines of sight.
All it takes is one pedestrian that you didn't see who steps out from behind a parked car, and now you've just killed someone because you crossed the road illegally while they had a walk light. You should always, ALWAYS obey the lights.
The steering really only works in ideal conditions, does not deal well with exit ramps (or similar issues), and can also tend to shimmy side-to-side hunting for markers, or drives too close for comfort to barriers or adjacent cars.
It got dramatically better in the 2018.10.4 firmware, though it still has an unnatural tendency to hug center barriers a little too closely and get a little too close to other cars. And it still occasionally ignores solid lines and drives right across gore areas, like the one between the two merging bits of exit ramp at Charleston Rd. in Mountain View, coming from the supercharger to SB 101.
What is the point to an autopilot if I have to be fully attentive and ready to take over?
Simple: If you fall asleep behind the wheel of a Tesla with Autosteer engaged, odds are good that you will survive the experience. If you fall asleep behind the wheel of a car without Autosteer, you probably won't.
Okay. One dollar for the first person, times one dollar for the second,... times one dollar for the millionth. Perfect. So it will only cost us a dollar to leave things wide open. Sounds good.:-D
I don't know how Duet could abuse private APIs and get approval from Apple for the App Store.
Duet consists of two separate pieces:
An iOS app, which is in the app store. This piece gets reviewed by Apple, and would have no need to use private APIs; it is basically just a streaming video player with DNS service discovery and authentication.
An in-kernel device driver that runs on your Mac. This piece cannot be in the App Store, because Apple doesn't allow kexts in App Store apps, and therefore it is unlikely to have ever been reviewed by Apple in any way.
It's that second part that I could easily see depending on SPI.
This is terrible. Did you know that 102 people die in car crashes every day in the US? And 1,300 people die from smoking? But yeah, they found 200 instances of bacteria in labs last year. Time to panic.
Oh, no. Someone died in a car crash a few blocks from me, and then the car crash spread to the first responders, which spread to the police officer who eats at the restaurant where I ate a few days ago, and now I might die from that car wreck, too.... No, wait. Those things aren't similar.
The fact that Apple didn't test with Duet ($10 on the iOS App Store) is a bit more disconcerting. Apple probably should test that when making big changes to the display support. It doesn't require any hardware that they don't have in-house, they can probably download the app for free for internal testing purposes, and I'd wager there are a lot more people using that than USB monitors. That said, without being inside the mothership or Duet, I can't guess whether they were (ab)using private APIs; there might not have be any way for Apple to fix it on their side, in which case working with Duet to fix the problem might be the only possible approach.
Much as I hate to agree with TheFakeTimCook, that's pretty much accurate. Even I can't play devil's advocate here. Their Mac drivers have been crap for many years.
It is also relatively unsurprising that Apple didn't test their hardware. USB monitors are quite rare, in large part because USB 2.0 just wasn't fast enough to provide a good experience, and USB 3.0 usually shares a port with Thunderbolt, which can carry DisplayPort data without the need for software-based compression or custom drivers. The only place their technology really makes sense is in products designed for use with tablets and smartphones (which lack DisplayPort/Thunderbolt).
To be blunt, we're rapidly heading towards a future in which the entire concept of tunneling video over USB no longer makes sense, and it already makes no sense when you're talking about computer-based operating systems, making these devices thoroughly legacy hardware. I assume that the chipset manufacturer recognizes this, and won't spend much time or effort trying to improve the quality of the drivers. Thus, we should expect the drivers to degrade more and more until they become completely unsupported/unusable.
IMO, the best thing they can do for their users would be to open source their entire driver and software stack so that people who still care about maintaining compatibility can continue to hack on it in their spare time. In the meantime, they need to find a new niche if the company wants to stay in business long-term, because this niche is rapidly ceasing to have significant value in the marketplace.
It may SEEM like a minor Update; but it rolled-out eGPU support for macOS; so OBVIOUSLY there were some fairly "deep" changes to the whole Display Framework; so, breaking a couple of THIRD PARTY display products is pretty much a foreseeable thing.
According to the version number, it IS a minor update. That's why we call that digit the MINOR VERSION.
The fact that Apple (probably unwisely) ignored their versioning policies and chose to roll out a major kernel-level feature in a software update doesn't change the fact that this is a software update, not a version upgrade, and software updates normally do NOT break things — particularly drivers. The whole reason Apple users are so willing to blindly install every software update, but drag their heels on major version upgrades, is that the former are expected not to break things, and the latter often do. When things like this happen, it undermines the perception of Apple as a quality software vendor, and runs the risk of leaving users vulnerable to serious security flaws because they feared installing some minor update that would have fixed it.
On the flip side, I looked into DisplayLink-based hardware a few years ago, and the sheer number of complaints about the drivers being badly broken left me so disgusted that I didn't go down that path. And they still haven't fixed those problems after what, four years?
So when I heard that it broke completely in a software update, my response was "must be Tuesday." Then, I realized it was Wednesday, and I was slightly alarmed, but only slightly, and only because today feels like Tuesday for some reason.
You are a fucking retard trying to access like a hard ass.
Ad hominem fallacy
I did more than a decade of military services de and your piss ant bs is just that.
Appeal to authority fallacy
People are the only valuable thing and imagined fantasy does nothing.
Black-or-white fallacy
This is a clear cut cas where human rights experts have identified the actions of Facebook that were responsible.
Appeal to authority fallacy
I bet you have no clue dear why Facebook is big in Burma or how it has expanded audience and been able we’d by the military government to kill.
Ad hominem fallacy
Seriously you need to shut the fuck in!
Argumentum ab malis verbis fallacy
And of course, your core argument is a giant post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Congrats. You've hit all the major logical fallacies and several minor ones, too. Your debate teacher must be very proud.
Or, to put it another way, the debate is over; you have lost.
The language I am using is romanticizing murders? What are you smoking, and where can we get some?
Okay, here's a reality check for you, since you obviously need one. In the real world, people are killed every day, and for the foreseeable future, people will continue to be killed every day. To the extent that companies like Facebook are inadvertently playing a role in that, it is their responsibility to take steps to minimize that role. HOWEVER — and this is a BIG however — it is not possible to completely prevent bad people from using any publishing platform (social or otherwise) to cause harm. This is equally true whether you're talking about Facebook, other social media, public comment areas at the end of news stories, or even the bulletin board down in front of city hall (though admittedly that last one is likely to cause less harm before it gets noticed, thanks to scale).
The other thing you're critically missing is that for every a**hole who has used social media to rile people up against various ethnic and religious groups like the Rohingya, there are tens of thousands of people who learned about the ethnic cleansing via social media and have written their government representatives in an effort to pressure their governments to intervene in Myanmar. Eventually someone will, and social media will be the hero of that story, not the villain.
So your choices are either A. ban all speech, or B. give communication-based companies time to find ways to minimize the damage caused by the most heinous forms of speech. If you choose A., remember that this has been tried many times before, and it has never ended well. And remember that social media, like any tool, can be used for good or evil, and if you focus only on the bad things that happen in the world, you will always be sad, because you'll miss out on all the good in the world.
Nah, it's not lack of demand. If another automaker could produce an EV with a similar feature set and price point to the Model 3, they could probably sell them as fast as they could make them.
No, they really couldn't. It isn't just car features like extended range that sell Teslas that the other car makers lack. It is also the ability to fully fill the battery in less than a day.
None of the other car makers have a nationwide network of fast DC chargers to rely on. A decent percentage of Tesla's customers rely heavily on superchargers, and that's a big selling point for their cars even among people who don't have to rely on them very often.
Unless they partner with Tesla's supercharger network, short of a revolution in battery tech that allows 10000-mile range and battery swapping instead of oil changes, the other automakers are likely to take at least a decade to get to the point where they can adequately compete with Tesla. They are just way too far behind, both in charge speed (most CHAdeMO stations aren't the 150 kW variety) and in quantity (most CHAdeMO stations are single-car stations).
Their business model is predicated on inserting itself into sensitive issues and making things worse.
So is the business model of the entire news industry. Folks were complaining about "if it bleeds, it leads" way back in the 1990s. There is no realistic incentive for them to do anything to reduce or prevent the cycle of escalating anger between both sides of political situations, either, other than perhaps "... because if we don't do this, we'll help bring about the end of the world."
But that should be reason enough. If it isn't, we have much bigger problems than Facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on whose numbers you believe, the National Safety Council says that the U.S. average is 1.25 deaths per 100 million miles. So that number is in the ballpark.
However, your estimate of the number of autopilot miles is probably about an order of magnitude low. There are news articles from late 2016 claiming over 300 million miles traveled with autopilot/autosteer active. If it's not at least half a billion by now, I'd be surprised, and I wouldn't be shocked if it hit a solid billion already.
So if you ignore Waymo (too small a sample size) and Uber (trying to deploy FSD before their tech was ready), and concentrate only on Tesla, that's a pretty sizable drop in fatalities — around a factor of 5–10.
No, it really isn't. Self-driving tech doesn't have to be better than the best drivers to be useful. It just has to be better than the worst drivers before requiring people to use it when drunk or fatigued will save lives.
Not in California, it isn't. You're required to yield to the pedestrian and drive in a manner that avoids putting the pedestrian in danger. You are NOT required to wait until the pedestrian is safely on the opposite curb. Laws requiring that are exceptionally rare in the U.S.:
Source: NCSL
Notice that California isn't on that list. California law just requires you to yield.
The California driver handbook is not considered binding law. It is just a set of recommendations for how to interpret the law.
The actual law says that you have to yield the right of way to pedestrians, which means you may not block them and you may not hit them or come close to hitting them. If a pedestrian is not already in your path, you do not legally have to yield, and if you are close enough that you would not be able to stop if the pedestrian stepped into your path, the pedestrian would be legally required to yield to you.
It is polite to yield to pedestrians who are not in your path yet, and it is generally a good idea as a signal to drivers in other lanes who might actually be required to stop, but as long as you don't hit the pedestrian, block the pedestrian's path, or come so close that you blow the pedestrian over, you're technically probably okay according to California law. And people wonder why so many California drives drive like a**holes....
I grew up in Tennessee, and that set off my "that doesn't sound right" alarm. Unless there's a local law in Gatlinburg:
There's nothing there about a median. You just have to stop while they're in your lane or when they're about to be in your lane (coming from either side).
Of course, when you're in a school zone while the lights are flashing, what you said is correct per (a)(2). You can tell those intersections by the yellow painted zebra stripes and the flashing yellow lights next to or over the roadway.
Interestingly, this section of the law completely fails to provide rules for traffic-light-controlled intersections, so presumably it defers to TCA 55-8-110(1)(A) and (3)(A), which say that when making a right on red or a left or right on green, you have to yield the right of way to pedestrians, but does not say that you have to wait for the pedestrian to completely cross.
So basically, if you're at a yellow crosswalk in a school zone and the lights are flashing, you must ensure that the crosswalk is completely clear. Otherwise, you don't. Somewhere in the back of my mind, there's a voice telling me that there's a second situation where you are supposed to wait for the intersection to completely clear, or at least that there used to be twenty years ago, but I don't remember what, and I can't find any pertinent bits in TCA, so maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.
On the plus side, in Tennessee, it's a class C misdemeanor that can get you up to a $50 fine and 30 days in jail to cross the street between marked crosswalks at traffic lights, walk facing away from traffic on a highway (even a minor, two-lane "highway" through town) unless you're in a wheelchair, or walk on any road that has a crosswalk next to it, so fans of self-driving cars have that going for them, which is nice.
Actually, in most of the U.S., the laws say that you have to wait for the pedestrian to have finished crossing your path. In this case, the pedestrian had already finished crossing the path of the car and was proceeding across a subsequent lane. It doesn't take much mental calculation to conclude that it is safe for the car to pass, provided that the pedestrian is not, in fact, actually a squirrel in disguise.
Nope. That's not what those laws say.
Right of way != completely clear.
California law says you have to yield the right of way to the pedestrian. That means you're not allowed to hit the pedestrian or get close enough to knock the pedestrian over. It does not mean that you have to wait for the crosswalk to be completely clear of pedestrians if those pedestrians are not in the path of your vehicle.
To the best of my understanding, the answer is no; the intersection does NOT have to be completely clear of pedestrians before vehicles are allowed to go. That said, if there is a vehicle coming towards you in the other direction, it is generally a good idea to remain stopped until you are certain that the oncoming driver has seen the pedestrian and is stopping.
FTFY.
The physical injuries, sure. But if they die, the drivers that hit them are scarred for life in ways that won't ever heal.
All it takes is one pedestrian that you didn't see who steps out from behind a parked car, and now you've just killed someone because you crossed the road illegally while they had a walk light. You should always, ALWAYS obey the lights.
FTFY.
It got dramatically better in the 2018.10.4 firmware, though it still has an unnatural tendency to hug center barriers a little too closely and get a little too close to other cars. And it still occasionally ignores solid lines and drives right across gore areas, like the one between the two merging bits of exit ramp at Charleston Rd. in Mountain View, coming from the supercharger to SB 101.
Simple: If you fall asleep behind the wheel of a Tesla with Autosteer engaged, odds are good that you will survive the experience. If you fall asleep behind the wheel of a car without Autosteer, you probably won't.
I know. I just couldn't resist. :-D
Okay. One dollar for the first person, times one dollar for the second, ... times one dollar for the millionth. Perfect. So it will only cost us a dollar to leave things wide open. Sounds good. :-D
Duet consists of two separate pieces:
It's that second part that I could easily see depending on SPI.
Oh, no. Someone died in a car crash a few blocks from me, and then the car crash spread to the first responders, which spread to the police officer who eats at the restaurant where I ate a few days ago, and now I might die from that car wreck, too.... No, wait. Those things aren't similar.
The fact that Apple didn't test with Duet ($10 on the iOS App Store) is a bit more disconcerting. Apple probably should test that when making big changes to the display support. It doesn't require any hardware that they don't have in-house, they can probably download the app for free for internal testing purposes, and I'd wager there are a lot more people using that than USB monitors. That said, without being inside the mothership or Duet, I can't guess whether they were (ab)using private APIs; there might not have be any way for Apple to fix it on their side, in which case working with Duet to fix the problem might be the only possible approach.
Much as I hate to agree with TheFakeTimCook, that's pretty much accurate. Even I can't play devil's advocate here. Their Mac drivers have been crap for many years.
It is also relatively unsurprising that Apple didn't test their hardware. USB monitors are quite rare, in large part because USB 2.0 just wasn't fast enough to provide a good experience, and USB 3.0 usually shares a port with Thunderbolt, which can carry DisplayPort data without the need for software-based compression or custom drivers. The only place their technology really makes sense is in products designed for use with tablets and smartphones (which lack DisplayPort/Thunderbolt).
To be blunt, we're rapidly heading towards a future in which the entire concept of tunneling video over USB no longer makes sense, and it already makes no sense when you're talking about computer-based operating systems, making these devices thoroughly legacy hardware. I assume that the chipset manufacturer recognizes this, and won't spend much time or effort trying to improve the quality of the drivers. Thus, we should expect the drivers to degrade more and more until they become completely unsupported/unusable.
IMO, the best thing they can do for their users would be to open source their entire driver and software stack so that people who still care about maintaining compatibility can continue to hack on it in their spare time. In the meantime, they need to find a new niche if the company wants to stay in business long-term, because this niche is rapidly ceasing to have significant value in the marketplace.
According to the version number, it IS a minor update. That's why we call that digit the MINOR VERSION.
The fact that Apple (probably unwisely) ignored their versioning policies and chose to roll out a major kernel-level feature in a software update doesn't change the fact that this is a software update, not a version upgrade, and software updates normally do NOT break things — particularly drivers. The whole reason Apple users are so willing to blindly install every software update, but drag their heels on major version upgrades, is that the former are expected not to break things, and the latter often do. When things like this happen, it undermines the perception of Apple as a quality software vendor, and runs the risk of leaving users vulnerable to serious security flaws because they feared installing some minor update that would have fixed it.
On the flip side, I looked into DisplayLink-based hardware a few years ago, and the sheer number of complaints about the drivers being badly broken left me so disgusted that I didn't go down that path. And they still haven't fixed those problems after what, four years?
So when I heard that it broke completely in a software update, my response was "must be Tuesday." Then, I realized it was Wednesday, and I was slightly alarmed, but only slightly, and only because today feels like Tuesday for some reason.
Ad hominem fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
Black-or-white fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
Ad hominem fallacy
Argumentum ab malis verbis fallacy
And of course, your core argument is a giant post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Congrats. You've hit all the major logical fallacies and several minor ones, too. Your debate teacher must be very proud.
Or, to put it another way, the debate is over; you have lost.
The language I am using is romanticizing murders? What are you smoking, and where can we get some?
Okay, here's a reality check for you, since you obviously need one. In the real world, people are killed every day, and for the foreseeable future, people will continue to be killed every day. To the extent that companies like Facebook are inadvertently playing a role in that, it is their responsibility to take steps to minimize that role. HOWEVER — and this is a BIG however — it is not possible to completely prevent bad people from using any publishing platform (social or otherwise) to cause harm. This is equally true whether you're talking about Facebook, other social media, public comment areas at the end of news stories, or even the bulletin board down in front of city hall (though admittedly that last one is likely to cause less harm before it gets noticed, thanks to scale).
The other thing you're critically missing is that for every a**hole who has used social media to rile people up against various ethnic and religious groups like the Rohingya, there are tens of thousands of people who learned about the ethnic cleansing via social media and have written their government representatives in an effort to pressure their governments to intervene in Myanmar. Eventually someone will, and social media will be the hero of that story, not the villain.
So your choices are either A. ban all speech, or B. give communication-based companies time to find ways to minimize the damage caused by the most heinous forms of speech. If you choose A., remember that this has been tried many times before, and it has never ended well. And remember that social media, like any tool, can be used for good or evil, and if you focus only on the bad things that happen in the world, you will always be sad, because you'll miss out on all the good in the world.
No, they really couldn't. It isn't just car features like extended range that sell Teslas that the other car makers lack. It is also the ability to fully fill the battery in less than a day.
None of the other car makers have a nationwide network of fast DC chargers to rely on. A decent percentage of Tesla's customers rely heavily on superchargers, and that's a big selling point for their cars even among people who don't have to rely on them very often.
Unless they partner with Tesla's supercharger network, short of a revolution in battery tech that allows 10000-mile range and battery swapping instead of oil changes, the other automakers are likely to take at least a decade to get to the point where they can adequately compete with Tesla. They are just way too far behind, both in charge speed (most CHAdeMO stations aren't the 150 kW variety) and in quantity (most CHAdeMO stations are single-car stations).
How many of them are turning into later reservations? I'd imagine a lot of folks are deferring their orders until the dual-motor version is ready.
So is the business model of the entire news industry. Folks were complaining about "if it bleeds, it leads" way back in the 1990s. There is no realistic incentive for them to do anything to reduce or prevent the cycle of escalating anger between both sides of political situations, either, other than perhaps "... because if we don't do this, we'll help bring about the end of the world."
But that should be reason enough. If it isn't, we have much bigger problems than Facebook.