Thank you for reaffirming what I wrote: "it was unrelated to heat. It appeared to be related to how much normal brake usage there was between emergency stops."
While the cause was not clarified (beyond being related to ABS calibration issues), it was unrelated to heat. It appeared to be related to how much normal brake usage there was between emergency stops.
1) Tesla creates an update. 2) The update is tested internally on their own fleet for a period of time. If any problems occur, it goes back to development. 3) Tesla starts rolling out the update in small batches. Everybody does not receive the update at the same time. If any reports of any problems come in, the rollout is cancelled. 4) When a user gets an update, it does not just "autoinstall". The user can choose to install immediately, or schedule it for later. Your notion that you're driving along and suddenly your brake behavior changes is just not how it works.
Installing an OTA update is no different than getting a software update at the dealership except that it's a lot more convenient. And there's a much closer integration with the user. A user can literally activate voice commands, say "Bug report", and file a bug report about any aspect in the vehicle, which goes directly to Tesla's devel team. Along with the user's description, Tesla gets screenshots, vehicle logs, etc. You can also use the bug report feature to make feature requests.
Wondering what you think about the quality of reader-supported news businesses versus advertising ones? Do paying readers in effect judge quality/reputation based on their willingness to pay?
Musk responded:
Generally higher quality reporting, especially if not under pressure to publish fast. Consumer Reports is great (and often critical of Tesla). Heard good things about The Information too.
But of course, expect the news to try and make a giant scandal out of Tesla doing nothing more than pointing out the results of their own braking test while investigating CR's results.
Indeed. Literally Musk's first tweet on the subject (and he's not famous for keeping his opinions to himself) was:
Very strange. Model 3 is designed to have super good stopping distance & others reviewers have confirmed this. If there is vehicle variability, we will figure it out & address. May just be a question of firmware tuning, in which case can be solved by an OTA software update.
The team remotely diagnosed the problem and created a fix in less than a day. Name another automaker that has ever done anything remotely like that.
And yes, yes, I know, summon the chants of "other automakers wouldn't have had a problem", because we apparently have jumped into another dimension where the key difference is that in this dimension, major automakers haven't had a continuous stream of recalls over the years.
They regularly have made defects that have actually had fatal consequences, which they often tried to cover up. The most recent GM one (aka Chevy) being the ignition switch scandal that was settled in 2014, which killed at least 124 people over the 10 years that GM knew about the problem but hid it. In addition to compensating the families they were fined nearly a billion dollars for that stunt.
I'm more concerned that a) they released the car with crap brakes and didn't notice until Consumer Reports told them about it and b) an over-the-air software update developed in about a week can apparently affect the operation of a critical safety system.
The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?
A number of reviewers had reviewed the Model 3's brakes previously. Some noticed no issues at all. A couple noticed "inconsistency" in their repeated hard braking tests, but nonetheless rated them well. It was only Consumer Reports that managed to show that it was an actual problem.
I'm glad Tesla took it seriously. Going from a bad braking review to a fix for all vehicles in a week is really amazing. Compare and contrast to the GM ignition switch scandal, where they played the denial game for over a decade.
Of course, Slashdot is going to be full of people pretending that recalls only affect Tesla, just because media coverage focuses so heavily on Tesla. Literally, within days of the CR brake finding - affecting only repeat emergency braking events, and only to the point of braking like a pickup - Fiat issued a recall for around 5 million vehicles due to a problem where the cruise control could get stuck on and the engine unable to be shut off, leading to the terrifying situation of the driver having to fight the vehicle to a stop with the brakes. But it got almost no coverage versus the Tesla issue.
The first one (the giant banana) isn't (at least the fruits aren't; you can use the plant the same way you use regular bananas, e.g. leaves, flowers, etc). It's just a monster (reports of up to 30 meters tall!). The second one ("Red Fruit") is edible, and is one of the few worthwhile pandanus species (the only other one really worthwhile for cullinary purposes is fragrant pandan). Red fruit produces an *extremely* carotinoid / vitamin A rich oil (to the point that it's dark red) that you can use in cooking or other products, and is considered very healthy (although tasteless).
Hey, while we've got someone on the line from PNG, do you perchance know of anyone who collects / exports seeds of local plants (or would be interested in doing so)? I know some people who might be interested.:)
He acknowledged that there are risks around how the technology might be misused, but he said they're outweighed by the benefits:"The example I would offer is, would you not invent the telephone because of the possible misuse of the telephone by evil people? No, you would build the telephone and you would try to find a way to police the misuse of the telephone."
That's pretty much the exact same thing Musk argues, so I'm confused by how this is a disagreement. Is someone interpreting Musk as trying to hinder the development of AI? Is that why he employs a huge team of neural net developers at Tesla? Why he founded OpenAI? And Neuralink?
It was neither "leaked" nor "rumours and innuendo". It was, and I quote, "the settlement agreement that was sent to class representatives, who will now submit their thoughts on the agreement to the court, which will decide whether or not to approve the proposal... The agreement still needs to be approved by the court, but if it is approved as is, the payments will be issued based on when the owners bought or leased their vehicles"
The court approved what we've known for weeks that both sides had already agreed to. Front page news! Hire a skywriter! Pay a bunch of Victorian-era urchins to run around in the streets shouting "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Welcome to the internet, where people just pick a random post to write whatever the heck it is that they want, rather than responding to what's actually written in that post.
It looks like you're trying to reply to Jeremi, but instead decided, "Meh, one person's as good as another". My posts were about the fact that they're still pretending that this is "news" after 3 1/2 weeks, because Tesla.
And the shorts' continued recycling of old news could provide the raw materials. Literally, this settlement was first reported three and a half weeks ago and it's still making headlines. It's getting ridiculous.
! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward) error: failed to push some refs to 'basic-freaking-safety-features-that-youd-be-criminally-negiligent-to-disable' To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected Merge the remote changes before pushing again. See the 'Note about fast-forwards' section of 'git push --help' for details.
What did you expect from a company like Uber, exactly? Their entire business model was built around the concept of "laws don't apply to us, because, internet." This is the same company that beyond running an unregistered taxi service (cheaply disguised as "ride sharing", as if people just happened to be going in the same direction), was tracking critical journalists with "God Mode" and hiring private investigators against them to find things to blackmail them with, ran an active campaign to track law enforcement officers in order to evade them, ran a campaign against competitors like Lyft involving the massive use of fake ride requests, and literally dozens and dozens more types of general scumbaggery.
Anyone shocked that this same company shut off all pedestrian safety controls in order to get their "self driving cars" on the market sooner? Bueller?
He's talking about the seismic activity at their nuclear test site suggestive of a collapse of the site. But there's a massive difference between that and "f'ed their nuclear program". Losing a test site is not the same thing as losing your nuclear programme.
Oh, and for the record: despite all the media hype breathlessly speculating about it without any evidence whatsoever... AP was (obviously) not on in the recent pond crash. "Obviously" because the vehicle was clearly doing far more than 40 in a 35 zone, yet the virtual impossibility of AP being on didn't - as always - stop press speculation. Most of these "Tesla crash" stories turn out to not have involved AP, but while the crashes and insinuation makes the news, the "boring" actuality doesn't; they just stop further coverage of the ones that turn out to be "uninteresting".
Again, I think this is a bad move from Musk on many fronts. But he is right to feel that the press is being irresponsible. Relentless over-coverage of Tesla accidents creates a false impression (that Teslas are dangerous) which runs counter to the actual statistics (that you're 1/4th as likely per unit distance driven to die in a Tesla than in an average car on the road). The media is supposed to create an informed public, not mislead them.
Hope you got your short positions in. If not, why are you turning down easy money? I mean, even if you had to put everything on your credit cards, the interest you'd pay on that is nothing compared to literally doubling your money on Tesla going bankrupt. Or do you not believe your own rhetoric?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for reaffirming what I wrote: "it was unrelated to heat. It appeared to be related to how much normal brake usage there was between emergency stops."
Should we bother mentioning also that in the past Tesla has also increased acceleration and range over the air, too? ;)
While the cause was not clarified (beyond being related to ABS calibration issues), it was unrelated to heat. It appeared to be related to how much normal brake usage there was between emergency stops.
That's not how OTA updates work.
1) Tesla creates an update.
2) The update is tested internally on their own fleet for a period of time. If any problems occur, it goes back to development.
3) Tesla starts rolling out the update in small batches. Everybody does not receive the update at the same time. If any reports of any problems come in, the rollout is cancelled.
4) When a user gets an update, it does not just "autoinstall". The user can choose to install immediately, or schedule it for later. Your notion that you're driving along and suddenly your brake behavior changes is just not how it works.
Installing an OTA update is no different than getting a software update at the dealership except that it's a lot more convenient. And there's a much closer integration with the user. A user can literally activate voice commands, say "Bug report", and file a bug report about any aspect in the vehicle, which goes directly to Tesla's devel team. Along with the user's description, Tesla gets screenshots, vehicle logs, etc. You can also use the bug report feature to make feature requests.
Also, when asked:
Musk responded:
But of course, expect the news to try and make a giant scandal out of Tesla doing nothing more than pointing out the results of their own braking test while investigating CR's results.
Which is fine if it is a heat problem. It wasn't.
Indeed. Literally Musk's first tweet on the subject (and he's not famous for keeping his opinions to himself) was:
The team remotely diagnosed the problem and created a fix in less than a day. Name another automaker that has ever done anything remotely like that.
And yes, yes, I know, summon the chants of "other automakers wouldn't have had a problem", because we apparently have jumped into another dimension where the key difference is that in this dimension, major automakers haven't had a continuous stream of recalls over the years.
They regularly have made defects that have actually had fatal consequences, which they often tried to cover up. The most recent GM one (aka Chevy) being the ignition switch scandal that was settled in 2014, which killed at least 124 people over the 10 years that GM knew about the problem but hid it. In addition to compensating the families they were fined nearly a billion dollars for that stunt.
The problem only emerged when doing multiple emergency stops in a row. How often do you do that?
A number of reviewers had reviewed the Model 3's brakes previously. Some noticed no issues at all. A couple noticed "inconsistency" in their repeated hard braking tests, but nonetheless rated them well. It was only Consumer Reports that managed to show that it was an actual problem.
I'm glad Tesla took it seriously. Going from a bad braking review to a fix for all vehicles in a week is really amazing. Compare and contrast to the GM ignition switch scandal, where they played the denial game for over a decade.
Of course, Slashdot is going to be full of people pretending that recalls only affect Tesla, just because media coverage focuses so heavily on Tesla. Literally, within days of the CR brake finding - affecting only repeat emergency braking events, and only to the point of braking like a pickup - Fiat issued a recall for around 5 million vehicles due to a problem where the cruise control could get stuck on and the engine unable to be shut off, leading to the terrifying situation of the driver having to fight the vehicle to a stop with the brakes. But it got almost no coverage versus the Tesla issue.
Really, even seeds? Wow, that's amazingly strict; most places only restrict sale of live plants.
How's that even possible? I mean, if someone eats a wild fruit, they're not allowed to keep the seeds? Or are you not allowed to eat wild fruit?
The first one (the giant banana) isn't (at least the fruits aren't; you can use the plant the same way you use regular bananas, e.g. leaves, flowers, etc). It's just a monster (reports of up to 30 meters tall!). The second one ("Red Fruit") is edible, and is one of the few worthwhile pandanus species (the only other one really worthwhile for cullinary purposes is fragrant pandan). Red fruit produces an *extremely* carotinoid / vitamin A rich oil (to the point that it's dark red) that you can use in cooking or other products, and is considered very healthy (although tasteless).
Hey, while we've got someone on the line from PNG, do you perchance know of anyone who collects / exports seeds of local plants (or would be interested in doing so)? I know some people who might be interested. :)
But they have neat plants.
That's pretty much the exact same thing Musk argues, so I'm confused by how this is a disagreement. Is someone interpreting Musk as trying to hinder the development of AI? Is that why he employs a huge team of neural net developers at Tesla? Why he founded OpenAI? And Neuralink?
It seems pretty clear (at least to me) that they felt that odds were poor that they'd win, and this was the best they were going to get.
It was neither "leaked" nor "rumours and innuendo". It was, and I quote, "the settlement agreement that was sent to class representatives, who will now submit their thoughts on the agreement to the court, which will decide whether or not to approve the proposal ... The agreement still needs to be approved by the court, but if it is approved as is, the payments will be issued based on when the owners bought or leased their vehicles"
The court approved what we've known for weeks that both sides had already agreed to. Front page news! Hire a skywriter! Pay a bunch of Victorian-era urchins to run around in the streets shouting "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Welcome to the internet, where people just pick a random post to write whatever the heck it is that they want, rather than responding to what's actually written in that post.
It looks like you're trying to reply to Jeremi, but instead decided, "Meh, one person's as good as another". My posts were about the fact that they're still pretending that this is "news" after 3 1/2 weeks, because Tesla.
What about pointing out that this news is 3 1/2 weeks old and still making headlines is "spin"?
Are you defending that 3 1/2 week old news with nothing having changed since then should still make headlines, because Tesla?
And the shorts' continued recycling of old news could provide the raw materials. Literally, this settlement was first reported three and a half weeks ago and it's still making headlines. It's getting ridiculous.
! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward)
error: failed to push some refs to 'basic-freaking-safety-features-that-youd-be-criminally-negiligent-to-disable'
To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected
Merge the remote changes before pushing again. See the 'Note about
fast-forwards' section of 'git push --help' for details.
What did you expect from a company like Uber, exactly? Their entire business model was built around the concept of "laws don't apply to us, because, internet." This is the same company that beyond running an unregistered taxi service (cheaply disguised as "ride sharing", as if people just happened to be going in the same direction), was tracking critical journalists with "God Mode" and hiring private investigators against them to find things to blackmail them with, ran an active campaign to track law enforcement officers in order to evade them, ran a campaign against competitors like Lyft involving the massive use of fake ride requests, and literally dozens and dozens more types of general scumbaggery.
Anyone shocked that this same company shut off all pedestrian safety controls in order to get their "self driving cars" on the market sooner? Bueller?
He's talking about the seismic activity at their nuclear test site suggestive of a collapse of the site. But there's a massive difference between that and "f'ed their nuclear program". Losing a test site is not the same thing as losing your nuclear programme.
Oh, and for the record: despite all the media hype breathlessly speculating about it without any evidence whatsoever... AP was (obviously) not on in the recent pond crash. "Obviously" because the vehicle was clearly doing far more than 40 in a 35 zone, yet the virtual impossibility of AP being on didn't - as always - stop press speculation. Most of these "Tesla crash" stories turn out to not have involved AP, but while the crashes and insinuation makes the news, the "boring" actuality doesn't; they just stop further coverage of the ones that turn out to be "uninteresting".
Again, I think this is a bad move from Musk on many fronts. But he is right to feel that the press is being irresponsible. Relentless over-coverage of Tesla accidents creates a false impression (that Teslas are dangerous) which runs counter to the actual statistics (that you're 1/4th as likely per unit distance driven to die in a Tesla than in an average car on the road). The media is supposed to create an informed public, not mislead them.
Hope you got your short positions in. If not, why are you turning down easy money? I mean, even if you had to put everything on your credit cards, the interest you'd pay on that is nothing compared to literally doubling your money on Tesla going bankrupt. Or do you not believe your own rhetoric?
They're talking about FH, not F9.