The car requires you to manually confirm that you understand that you're responsible for being alert and ready to take over from Autopilot, every single time you enable it.
So it puts up some boring and routine messages. It might cover Tesla's ass (if not their conscience) in the event of a collision. It doesn't enforce attentiveness though. As for the plane comparison, I expect most people have no idea what the autopilot does in a plane and probably assume it does everything including land if necessary.
To put it in perspective, look at the numbers. Tesla is 1 fatality for 130m miles driven, or 0.7 per 100m miles. The US average is 1.2 fatalities per 100m miles driven. So while you can't prove anything with small sample sizes (wait for 1B miles driven with Autopilot), it certainly indicates that Autopilot is relatively safe.
I am not saying that automated driving is unsafe per se, just that one that is a) flawed and b) doesn't enforce driver attention absolutely isn't safe. When those two conditions come together you get a crash. If a car enforces driver attention then at least if it screws up there is a backup who can hit the brakes. If it rectified both conditions it should be safer than a driver ever was on their own.
But Tesla isn't there yet and no autonomous solution is. In fact inattention is going to be a serious problem going forward. Unless the autonomous car does EVERYTHING, then the emerging behaviour for motorists will be to zone out, become distracted, play with their phones, drive while drunk and all the rest. This is completely forseeable. So the car has to enforce attentiveness or do everything. No inbetweens. If it doesn't then more people will die and not necessarily the driver either.
Exactly, no amount of warning signs. Which is why throwing up a few warnings on a car is useless. It has to be enforced in the same way a factory does and with as much rigor. e.g by enforcing the driver has both hands on the wheel and disengaging after sounding a warning if they don't. And that's aside from fixing the autonomous function to make it reliable.
And yes perhaps someone could tamper with the screws (safety barriers use tamper proof screws btw), or circumvent a safety system in a factory but that doesn't mean factories shouldn't bother at all.
No, it means you do a risk assessment and you do everything you can to minimize or mitigate the risk. In this case the autopilot doesn't work properly and the car doesn't force the driver's attention. The consequences of failure of both are entirely forseeable.
Some people appear more willing to make excuses for Tesla than accept they may have screwed up here.
Factories make "abundantly clear" that you shouldn't put your hand in a hydraulic press, or go near the robot and yet people do and get injured / killed for it. It's not always stupidity either but lack of training, inattentiveness, fatigue, work pressure etc. That is why modern factories are required to risk assess dangerous machinery and surround them with barriers, safety gates, sensors, pressure plates, two handed controls etc. to force the operator to interact with the machine in a certain way and put the machine into a safe state when there is reason to.
A car is a dangerous machine and risk should be measured in a similar way and minimized. If you are going to put an "autopilot" into a vehicle then you must first a) ensure it works as intended, and b) ensures / forces driver attentiveness just in case you're wrong about a). If both these conditions are met then the car should be safer than a driver by themselves and the risk is minimized. If a) doesn't work as intended and b) the human is away with the fairies then you get a fatal road collision.
This is a forseeable consequence of a bad design and Tesla have enjoyed the bad press that goes with it. And yes "autopilot" is a misleading term that only compounds the risk.
My opinion is Valve never expected SteamOS to take off. It's just a way to hustle devs to port their apps so if they launch a cloud / streaming service they'll have a lot of games that can be hosted without paying Microsoft a license to do it.
Maybe you should check again or actually compare like with like. Macbook Air currently use Broadwell CPUs, X1s are using Skylake. Macbook Air has a 1400x900 display, X1 has a 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 pixel display.
But Apple doesn't undercut its competitors. The only time I've ever seen them "cheaper" than anyone else is if they're first to market with some chipset and there is nothing else to make a direct comparison with. Once there is a competitor they are cheaper and usually by a substantial margin.
Some big auto makers have already reduced development in EVs or have decided to market them in only certain markets
Like who? As far as I can tell most manufacturers are ramping up, in some cases massively so. There appears to be a general recognition across manufacturers that the electric market is taking off fast and they all have plans to capitalize on it. I'm sure some will stumble on the way and some markets will be more receptive than others but that's the way of things.
As for Apple, I see no time now or in the future where they will make their own cars. They don't even make their own electronic devices and manufacturing a car is a vastly more complex endeavour. More likely they'll pay a 3rd party to build it for them or they'll buy out a manufacturer or gain a controlling interest. Even then developing a new vehicle from scratch is hard, particularly (since this is Apple) they would wish to build and own the infrastructure that goes with it.
I expect that's where most of these makers see profit - with a petrol vehicle their revenue stops with the sale of the car, but with electric they can lease batteries, bill for charging, subscription services etc. They see Tesla doing it and they want a piece of that action too. The dangerous bit is that unless governments mandate a common charging and billing infrastructure things could get horribly proprietary and fragmented very quickly.
He pops pills thinking it will make him immortal, he promotes ideas like the "singularity" where people will upload their minds into computers and other such nonsense. The hubris is so great he'll probably die by having a heart attack and his autopilot Tesla will plough straight into picture of a sunset.
The car might be working just fine at hitting the brakes when an obstacle appears in front of it and still seriously screwed up when asked to do lane tracking and overtaking. Secondly, if the car allows a human to become inattentive then there is no one to override its behaviour when it does screw up. Human inattention is a completely forseeable consequence of a mode which claims to be "autopilot" and therefore attention should be compelled in some fashion to counteract this.
The only way self driving will be safe in the forseeable future is if a) the car behaves in a sane and predictable fashion, and b) the human is attentive and alert at all times. Only if those two conditions hold true is car at least as safe than a human by themselves.
Bad enough to waste money on this, but the cinema system costs $35k and shows new movies (from some studios) at a mere $500 a pop in 1080p. A total waste of money.
I freeze milk and bread. Works out pretty handy to have some spare around although as you say it takes a while to defrost. About the only thing to be wary of is milk expands when frozen so best to defrost in a sink in case the container split.
No, it's virtually never as good as the premium item. It might be passably all right in its own right and bear a superficial resemblance to the original but that's all you can say for it. At the end of the day, a cheap pair of flip flops with Birkenstock on the side might still suit their purpose well enough that it doesn't matter if they're real or not. But someone expecting they bought the original would be pissed if they got some knockoff. But quality control will be practically non existent. I remember getting a fake Tommy Hilfiger shirt from someone in Thailand who failed to notice the buttons had Van Heuson on them. Another shirt had one arm stitched to the breast pocket.
Maybe knockoffs aren't big deal for clothes and fashion items. Things like counterfeit drugs or car parts could well kill you. Counterfeit makeup and other products could well be hazardous too.
So which of these things do you think would be most detrimental to your life if it was revealed to your coworkers / boss / family / congregation etc - a) getting a car fixed in a garage, b) buying a car from a used car dealership, c) a visit to a nightclub, d) a meal in a restaurant, e) paying money to fuck a hooker.
Congratulations if you said e). Maybe prostitutes are by and large honest (despite operating outside the law). The potential for harm is still far worse. And the risk isn't even just blackmail or extortion. Maybe she's assaulted or gets raided by the cops and her client book or phone record gets taken in as evidence. Your little secret might come out just in the course of the investigation.
I'm sure there are men who couldn't give a damn who knows they pay for sex, the Charlie Sheens of this world. The majority would.
You're making the classic mistake of only considering averages.
You're making the classic mistake of ignoring reality. Cars already exist to serve this market. I specifically mentioned the Twizy but there are others and more in development.
Another myth.
Not a myth. These vehicles sell because they avoid congestion charges or other fees. Maybe this doesn't happen in sprawling America but it happens a lot in Europe and I daresay other places. And yes buses, bicycles, taxis and even Uber exist in such places. It doesn't mean that it suits every one.
It's also noteworthy how you snipped out where I said that most people would prefer a car that went further. I am not in any way denying that range is important to people. But neither is range (or speed for that matter) a big deal for certain people and it reflects in options that are commercially available.
Wow, a whole 50 miles. That's... damn near useless.
That depends on how much a person needs to drive doesn't it? Lots of people in urban settings might only drive 10 or 20 miles in a day and it would suit them fine for a vehicle which only does 50 miles. I'm not referring to this specific car but the sort of market that commercial vehicles like the Twizy already serve. Urban dwellers who want a car for short commutes, one that avoids the costs and whatever congestion charges, road taxes or other fees that another vehicle might attract. Obviously range anxiety means most people would prefer a car that goes further, but not everyone.
Yes but think of all the "original content" you're getting now! Of course most of it is dross and I suspect most people would have preferred that if the choice were between splashing out 10 million on some shitty animated "original content" (e.g. Veggie Tales) and buying couple of seasons of good content that they'd go with the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
The car requires you to manually confirm that you understand that you're responsible for being alert and ready to take over from Autopilot, every single time you enable it.
So it puts up some boring and routine messages. It might cover Tesla's ass (if not their conscience) in the event of a collision. It doesn't enforce attentiveness though. As for the plane comparison, I expect most people have no idea what the autopilot does in a plane and probably assume it does everything including land if necessary.
To put it in perspective, look at the numbers. Tesla is 1 fatality for 130m miles driven, or 0.7 per 100m miles. The US average is 1.2 fatalities per 100m miles driven. So while you can't prove anything with small sample sizes (wait for 1B miles driven with Autopilot), it certainly indicates that Autopilot is relatively safe.
I am not saying that automated driving is unsafe per se, just that one that is a) flawed and b) doesn't enforce driver attention absolutely isn't safe. When those two conditions come together you get a crash. If a car enforces driver attention then at least if it screws up there is a backup who can hit the brakes. If it rectified both conditions it should be safer than a driver ever was on their own.
But Tesla isn't there yet and no autonomous solution is. In fact inattention is going to be a serious problem going forward. Unless the autonomous car does EVERYTHING, then the emerging behaviour for motorists will be to zone out, become distracted, play with their phones, drive while drunk and all the rest. This is completely forseeable. So the car has to enforce attentiveness or do everything. No inbetweens. If it doesn't then more people will die and not necessarily the driver either.
Good design is bureaucracy and delay? Interesting.
And yes perhaps someone could tamper with the screws (safety barriers use tamper proof screws btw), or circumvent a safety system in a factory but that doesn't mean factories shouldn't bother at all.
Some people appear more willing to make excuses for Tesla than accept they may have screwed up here.
If only there was some kind of moral about buying vapourware.
Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to film his death scene. That or suddenly the plot for call for Kylo Ren to drop a hydraulic door on his father.
I'm not American. Any more ad hominems you want to throw out there?
A car is a dangerous machine and risk should be measured in a similar way and minimized. If you are going to put an "autopilot" into a vehicle then you must first a) ensure it works as intended, and b) ensures / forces driver attentiveness just in case you're wrong about a). If both these conditions are met then the car should be safer than a driver by themselves and the risk is minimized. If a) doesn't work as intended and b) the human is away with the fairies then you get a fatal road collision.
This is a forseeable consequence of a bad design and Tesla have enjoyed the bad press that goes with it. And yes "autopilot" is a misleading term that only compounds the risk.
My opinion is Valve never expected SteamOS to take off. It's just a way to hustle devs to port their apps so if they launch a cloud / streaming service they'll have a lot of games that can be hosted without paying Microsoft a license to do it.
And so on.
The only "experience" is the consumer's self-delusion that the added price amounts to anything. It doesn't.
But Apple doesn't undercut its competitors. The only time I've ever seen them "cheaper" than anyone else is if they're first to market with some chipset and there is nothing else to make a direct comparison with. Once there is a competitor they are cheaper and usually by a substantial margin.
Some big auto makers have already reduced development in EVs or have decided to market them in only certain markets
Like who? As far as I can tell most manufacturers are ramping up, in some cases massively so. There appears to be a general recognition across manufacturers that the electric market is taking off fast and they all have plans to capitalize on it. I'm sure some will stumble on the way and some markets will be more receptive than others but that's the way of things.
As for Apple, I see no time now or in the future where they will make their own cars. They don't even make their own electronic devices and manufacturing a car is a vastly more complex endeavour. More likely they'll pay a 3rd party to build it for them or they'll buy out a manufacturer or gain a controlling interest. Even then developing a new vehicle from scratch is hard, particularly (since this is Apple) they would wish to build and own the infrastructure that goes with it.
I expect that's where most of these makers see profit - with a petrol vehicle their revenue stops with the sale of the car, but with electric they can lease batteries, bill for charging, subscription services etc. They see Tesla doing it and they want a piece of that action too. The dangerous bit is that unless governments mandate a common charging and billing infrastructure things could get horribly proprietary and fragmented very quickly.
He pops pills thinking it will make him immortal, he promotes ideas like the "singularity" where people will upload their minds into computers and other such nonsense. The hubris is so great he'll probably die by having a heart attack and his autopilot Tesla will plough straight into picture of a sunset.
I expect it'll continue but it sucks that Cyanogenmod is so screwed up.
The car might be working just fine at hitting the brakes when an obstacle appears in front of it and still seriously screwed up when asked to do lane tracking and overtaking. Secondly, if the car allows a human to become inattentive then there is no one to override its behaviour when it does screw up. Human inattention is a completely forseeable consequence of a mode which claims to be "autopilot" and therefore attention should be compelled in some fashion to counteract this.
The only way self driving will be safe in the forseeable future is if a) the car behaves in a sane and predictable fashion, and b) the human is attentive and alert at all times. Only if those two conditions hold true is car at least as safe than a human by themselves.
Bad enough to waste money on this, but the cinema system costs $35k and shows new movies (from some studios) at a mere $500 a pop in 1080p. A total waste of money.
I freeze milk and bread. Works out pretty handy to have some spare around although as you say it takes a while to defrost. About the only thing to be wary of is milk expands when frozen so best to defrost in a sink in case the container split.
Right...
Maybe knockoffs aren't big deal for clothes and fashion items. Things like counterfeit drugs or car parts could well kill you. Counterfeit makeup and other products could well be hazardous too.
Congratulations if you said e). Maybe prostitutes are by and large honest (despite operating outside the law). The potential for harm is still far worse. And the risk isn't even just blackmail or extortion. Maybe she's assaulted or gets raided by the cops and her client book or phone record gets taken in as evidence. Your little secret might come out just in the course of the investigation.
I'm sure there are men who couldn't give a damn who knows they pay for sex, the Charlie Sheens of this world. The majority would.
You're making the classic mistake of only considering averages.
You're making the classic mistake of ignoring reality. Cars already exist to serve this market. I specifically mentioned the Twizy but there are others and more in development.
Another myth.
Not a myth. These vehicles sell because they avoid congestion charges or other fees. Maybe this doesn't happen in sprawling America but it happens a lot in Europe and I daresay other places. And yes buses, bicycles, taxis and even Uber exist in such places. It doesn't mean that it suits every one.
It's also noteworthy how you snipped out where I said that most people would prefer a car that went further. I am not in any way denying that range is important to people. But neither is range (or speed for that matter) a big deal for certain people and it reflects in options that are commercially available.
Wow, a whole 50 miles. That's... damn near useless.
That depends on how much a person needs to drive doesn't it? Lots of people in urban settings might only drive 10 or 20 miles in a day and it would suit them fine for a vehicle which only does 50 miles. I'm not referring to this specific car but the sort of market that commercial vehicles like the Twizy already serve. Urban dwellers who want a car for short commutes, one that avoids the costs and whatever congestion charges, road taxes or other fees that another vehicle might attract. Obviously range anxiety means most people would prefer a car that goes further, but not everyone.
Yes but think of all the "original content" you're getting now! Of course most of it is dross and I suspect most people would have preferred that if the choice were between splashing out 10 million on some shitty animated "original content" (e.g. Veggie Tales) and buying couple of seasons of good content that they'd go with the latter.
Amazon's selection is garbage. Netflix's selection is merely poor.