Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

---

Nope. What you saw today was one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. An autonomous car is way down that list.

Ask Elon if he's had more issues with regulators blocking the launch of his rockets or the deployment of updates to his driver assistance software. You don't have to actually ask, because you can determine what his answer would be based upon the frequency that he complains about government intervention in each business.

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

---

Nope. What you saw today was one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. An autonomous car is way down that list.

---

Apples and hand grenades.

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

---

Nope. What you saw today was one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. An autonomous car is way down that list.

---

Apples and hand grenades.

---

Keep your head in the sand while the rest of the world moves forward.

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

---

Nope. What you saw today was one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. An autonomous car is way down that list.

---

Apples and hand grenades.

---

Keep your head in the sand while the rest of the world moves forward.

---

We've been here before, once again AI can't deliver on its promise. The hype will create huge losses for investors and AI will become a dirty word once again. Rinse repeat.

hph6203 said:

---

Just described a whole lot of things that are relevant or analogous to autonomous road vehicle issues without addressing the argument I made back at you. If anything what you're doing is showing that the perceived complexity difference between automating rail and road automation is not nearly as large as a person might initially assume.

---

You don't understand the technical aspects but keep reading your Nat Geo and keep up the dream.

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

---

Nope. What you saw today was one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. An autonomous car is way down that list.

---

Apples and hand grenades.

---

Keep your head in the sand while the rest of the world moves forward.

---

We've been here before, once again AI can't deliver on its promise. The hype will create huge losses for investors and AI will become a dirty word once again. Rinse repeat.

---

Ai vision only in FSD is new, they scrapped old programming and started from scratch.

Your unwillingness to elaborate on it isn't really confidence inspiring that you actually know what you're talking about and are just playing the same game as TechnoAg. Willing to spout off, but not willing to actually discuss. Reddit behavior.

hph6203 said:

---

Your unwillingness to elaborate on it isn't really confidence inspiring that you actually know what you're talking about and are just playing the same game as TechnoAg. Willing to spout off, but not willing to actually discuss. Reddit behavior.

---

Really, this optimism is unhinged. "Just you wait. It's coming!"

True full blown AI driven completely hands free no human involvement driving for everyone everywhere is a long ways off. That's what we are saying but you guys are just going "Lalalalala!"

Pollywannacracka?

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ntxVol said:

---

Teslag said:

---

We just saw a massive rocket literally land itself back on the same tower it launched from and people on this thread are outright dismissing the ability of a car to drive itself down a road.

And the rocket and car are being built by the same guy no less.

---

According to Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Falcon 9 first-stage boosters landed successfully in 353 of 365 attempts (96.7%)

---

No humans on board so no major risk of human life but would you ride in an airplane with that kind of landing success?

---

Apples and hand grenades

---

Exactly my point. Safety standards for vehicles carrying human passengers driving on roads with other human drivers and pedestrians are several orders of magnitude more difficult to meet.

---

Nope. What you saw today was one of the greatest engineering feats in human history. An autonomous car is way down that list.

---

Apples and hand grenades.

---

Keep your head in the sand while the rest of the world moves forward.

---

We've been here before, once again AI can't deliver on its promise. The hype will create huge losses for investors and AI will become a dirty word once again. Rinse repeat.

---

Is this that whole AI winter bit again?

hph6203 said:

---

Your unwillingness to elaborate on it isn't really confidence inspiring that you actually know what you're talking about and are just playing the same game as TechnoAg. Willing to spout off, but not willing to actually discuss. Reddit behavior.

---

I am not willing to spend my valuable time attempting to explain anything to somebody that has no concept of the technical issues. It's as though your understanding eclipses a child's euphoria about FSD. Keep dreaming. Please do some research. I have given you enough information to begin answering your questions.

And worth repeating to you:

Quote:

---

You asked if conductors, the guys who manage schedules and people, are the the roadblock to automation. Clearly you are out of your league.

You would not understand the complexities. Railroads are easy to automate in a closed system. Obtaining a closed system is near impossible. Hint: Airport people movers are generally the closest to automated vehicle systems because these APM systems are closed loops and there is sufficient redundancy. When there are breakdowns the task to retrieve vehicles is not automated.

But for a starter, here you go. Think about it. Don't expect me to train you.
Weather.
Nature.
Grade crossings.
Pedestrians.
Animals.
Accidents.
Maintenance.
Equipment failure.
Roadbed slump and other failures.
Bridge failures.
Derailments.
Trains.

Enjoy your dreaming about autonomous cars.

---

Then take it one step further and don't bother wasting any of your time commenting at all. If the extent of your contribution is going to be calling other people stupid you might as well go to Reddit where that kind of posting is normalized and appreciated.

hph6203 said:

---

Then take it one step further and don't bother wasting any of your time commenting at all. If the extent of your contribution is going to be calling other people stupid you might as well go to Reddit where that kind of posting is normalized and appreciated.

---

Then quit complaining and asking me to explain very basic concepts.

Plus, you did not acknowledge that the list of issues I provided. And not only ignored the value of the partial list of concerns, but went on a rant because you want to be spoon fed something that is easily researched.

Don't have time for silly people. If you took the time to research and not claim the conductor was the cog I would take you seriously.

Also, never called you stupid.

I did say you are a dreamer and out of your league.

Quote:

---

You would not understand the complexities.

---

You did. You may not have explicitly stated it, but you definitely made the implication.

And I did address your list of issues. What you listed is a shortened list of the issues and hazards that an autonomous system would have to perceive and avoid. That is not unique to trains, it exists in autonomous vehicles on the road too. I am not unaware. That is absolutely basic understanding of the problem.

You have a person on this thread that works in autonomous vehicles saying that the technical challenges are trivial (I disagree), you have basically contributed "there are complicated problems to solve" to which I also agree.

That is not an argument against trying, or believing it is possible and if you actually follow the development of the autonomous systems you would recognize significant advancement in their development and also realize that there are driverless vehicles on the road right now performing in excess of 200,000 paid rides weekly (Waymo >100,000, Baidu >80,000). The extent of my posts on the subject are that it is a difficult problem, people are working on it, and it will be solved to the point that a person can readily order an autonomous vehicle faster than "decades" and you call that childlike optimism.


For a guy that doesn't have time to explain, you definitely have ample time to explain you don't have time.

Quote:

---

For a guy that doesn't have time to explain, you definitely have ample time to explain you don't have time.

---

Thanks for the wordy Popular Mechanics overview.

Also, did some research for you. No need for me to retype a long wordy complaint.

https://www.hitachirail.com/blog/2023/driverless-trains-past-present-and-future/

Let's play this out. Let's grant you that I am child like. That my optimism about the technology progression is sourced from a deep lack of understanding. What utility are your posts providing on this thread other than your own self gratification that you have a chance at destroying someone else's optimism, or an increase in your own self perception of your intelligence, or the approval of people that may or may not have any knowledge on the subject at all and are merely agreeing with you by their default nature of thinking things will go poorly rather than well (great crowd you're cultivating)?

You're not going to change anyone's mind by saying "you're naive" while providing no or shallow justification for the claim, seems like a colossal waste of time. At best you gain some narcissistic satisfaction from it, at worst you ruin someone else's enjoyment of the topic while at minimum conveying knowledge in the process. You may not have time to explain, and you may actually understand what you're talking about, but without the explanation you're doing worse than wasting your time.

Worth considering:

That article is largely about passenger trains. Not freight.

It says they have already achieved automation without engineers.

It says the primary barrier to the implementation of the technology is consumer acceptance and money, not technology.


In other words it agrees with me that the impetus for automation is not there, because the benefit derived from it does not match the money it costs to implement/develop it. Why? Because a train has two operators, and that represents a small fraction of the total cost of operation. The consumer saves no money, loses a sense of security as a result of the loss of human back up. In other words a net loss to the consumer.


Are you sure you understand trains?

hph6203 said:

---

That article is largely about passenger trains. Not freight.

It says they have already achieved automation without engineers.

It says the primary barrier to the implementation of the technology is consumer acceptance and money, not technology.


In other words it agrees with me that the impetus for automation is not there, because the benefit derived from it does not match the money it costs to implement/develop it. Why? Because a train has two operators, and that represents a small fraction of the total cost of operation. The consumer saves no money, loses a sense of security as a result of the loss of human back up. In other words a net loss to the consumer.


Are you sure you understand trains?

---

The technology is amazing. No doubt about that aspect.

But, a train is a train. Freight or passenger does not matter. These automated trains, freight and passenger, I believe they all operate on closed systems - they don't share the road. Think about that carefully.

And after all of this you finally are able to understand the engineer (driver of the train) and the conductor (a manager and steward on a train) is not the problem. It's not that difficult to understand.

And yes, the money required to implement the autonomous technology is the major obstacle.

My point for bringing up the train autonomy is that it's an easy study on the technology.

I don't foresee driverless cars sharing the road easily with Joe sixpack on highways or city streets anytime soon. Sad to say this wet dream is all the technology writers have at the moment.



https://www.govtech.com/transportation/why-waymos-robotaxis-are-avoiding-freeways-airport

I am curious if you have been in a Tesla or other automakers latest driver assist systems? It is amazing how much the systems have improved in the last 3-4 years. For example, I thought it would take a long time to be able to handle driving in a residential area without lane lines or any other real markings yet it does better than almost every driver going through winding residential areas at staying in a lane.

That said, I also think getting the last 1-2% of driving a car to full autonomy is going to be a real challenge and it must be mastered to remove the driver/steering wheel. Little things like how to handle a drive thru, snow covered road, parking lots, getting to a keypad for a gate entrance, a crash area with cops directing traffic etc. If that can be done in the next 10 years, I will be surprised.

For the vast majority of driving situations, the current system, when properly overseen by a driver is way safer than the driver alone. The vehicle sees 360, doesn't get distracted by a nagging passenger, phone, etc but can be taken over quickly if the situation requires it. It also can react quicker than I or any human can to things like a car stopping suddenly in front of you.

As I have told people, the system is bad but it is better in almost all situation than the alternative, humans. We are arrogant to think that the average driver is safe because they aren't. We kill 43k per year in this country in vehicle accidents and almost all are driver error.

PS. This whole topic has nothing to do with EVs as all powertrains are having this systems added to them and almost all automakers are pursuing them for their entire fleet.

bobbranco said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

That article is largely about passenger trains. Not freight.

It says they have already achieved automation without engineers.

It says the primary barrier to the implementation of the technology is consumer acceptance and money, not technology.


In other words it agrees with me that the impetus for automation is not there, because the benefit derived from it does not match the money it costs to implement/develop it. Why? Because a train has two operators, and that represents a small fraction of the total cost of operation. The consumer saves no money, loses a sense of security as a result of the loss of human back up. In other words a net loss to the consumer.


Are you sure you understand trains?

---

The technology is amazing. No doubt about that aspect.

But, a train is a train. Freight or passenger does not matter. These automated trains, freight and passenger, I believe they all operate on closed systems - they don't share the road. Think about that carefully.

And after all of this you finally are able to understand the engineer (driver of the train) and the conductor (a manager and steward on a train) is not the problem. It's not that difficult to understand.

And yes, the money required to implement the autonomous technology is the major obstacle.

My point for bringing up the train autonomy is that it's an easy study on the technology.

I don't foresee driverless cars sharing the road easily with Joe sixpack on highways or city streets anytime soon. Sad to say this wet dream is all the technology writers have at the moment.



https://www.govtech.com/transportation/why-waymos-robotaxis-are-avoiding-freeways-airport

---

Respectfully, you are now saying it's primarily money, not technology, and focused on technology rather than money in your responses about why you think the technology has not been deployed. Especially egregious after you mocked me as not understanding the problem when I said the technological challenges exist, but for trains specifically the benefit from the technology is far eclipsed by the money to implement it relative to the perceived benefit from it (money or otherwise).

You are shifting back and forth between conflicting argument points, which suggests that you aren't actually all that familiar with the topic and are choosing to focus on trains, because it might actually give you an edge in the conversation.

Quote:

---

We have a closed transportation system of sorts. A railroad network. We can't seem to make those vehicles autonomous. I wonder why? The lack of advancement towards autonomy on our rail network is more than 'only' money.

---

Here you are saying it's not only about money, now you're saying it is primarily about money, you're saying that closed loop systems are not fully automated despite their relative simplicity, and yet they are.

I know very little about trains. I do not care about trains. The fact that I don't know the name of the individual driving the train off the top of my head does not mean that I don't have an understanding of the basics of what they do (voiding errors), the number of individuals performing that task, and the business and consumer benefit of automating their job. As outlined by the fact that I accurately stated the reason why they haven't been automated and you.... did not.



Back to the actual topic. If you had asked me prior to your rants about trains which company of the big 3 (Waymo, Cruise, Tesla) currently operating in the U.S. would have the worst chance of developing an actual fully autonomous vehicle (and not the ones that are in current operation) it would have easily been Cruise. The answer would have been Cruise even before they ran over a woman and dragged her 40 feet under the car, because they more than any company was the attention grabber of issues with their operation. You'll notice that in that 21 minute video you posted, maybe one minute of it was focused on Waymo's issues specifically and that every clip and commentary was referencing the issues that Cruise had experienced.


After the news broke that they had hit the woman and lied about it and had their driverless operation pulled from the market it was reported that they were currently operating with two remote operators per vehicle and that those remote operators were called into a session to correct their cars' operation once ever 4-5 miles, I believe at the time Tesla was running at about once every 15 miles, currently they're at a non-safety critical intervention once every 50 miles (i.e. an instance where the car is too cautious and needs to be encouraged to act) based upon crowd sourced data, and a safety critical intervention once every 150 miles.


With respect to your article, Waymo is not operating at highway seeds or around SFO (which to the best of my knowledge generally requires driving at highway speeds to reach) not because of the complexity of operating on freeways (it is actually substantially less complex, hence consumer vehicles have been substantially automated on highways/freeways for a decade, but minimally automated on surface streets), but rather because the potential for significant negative headlines is far worse during operation on freeways.

In other words, a story about a Waymo getting into a 100 fender benders is going to pale in comparison to a single story about Waymo being involved in the death of a passenger or another driver even if the cause of the accident did not result from the Waymo vehicle's actions. The headline would read "Waymo vehicle involved in deadly crash" not "Driver causes deadly crash with Waymo vehicle" and the public would panic in the same way they are reacting to electric vehicle fires that on a data basis reflect a reduction in fire risk, but on a perception basis (because the fires are harder to put out) are perceived as an increase in fire risk.


If you would like to know more about the current state of autonomous cars I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have. I do have time. If you're sensing an air of arrogance in this post, it's intentional, not because I actually am arrogant, but because you began your interaction in a rude and superior way with the assumption that I have zero knowledge about and you were going to educate me without actually trying to. Nothing you've posted specifically about autonomous cars was unknown to me prior to you posting it. Even explaining to you that I'm trying to annoy you isn't going to lessen the chance that it succeeds. It's not a guarantee, but I am hopeful.

From a final state fully autonomous system it is not a technology specific to EVs, but it is a technology, generally, best implemented with an EV, because it mitigates the negatives of an EV for a substantial amount of driving (really all if it's desired). The drawbacks of an EV are removed through the network effect of having multiple vehicles available to perform a driving task while the remaining vehicles deal with maintenance/charging/cleaning etc. Driving demand comes in waves and the period between waves is longer than the time it takes to recharge a vehicle battery. With that drawback removed, you gain the benefit of reduced maintenance and reduced per mile cost.

A fully autonomous electric vehicle probably reaches down into the cost to produce and weight for an ICE vehicle (in other words you're not shifting cost burden from the vehicle operator to society at large/tire wear is comparable). The battery gets smaller, because you're targeting the norm trip rather than the edge case. 95% of trips are less than 30 miles in length. 99% of trips are less than 100 miles in length, meaning that a fully charged autonomous vehicle with 200 miles of range is capable of doing more than 99% of trips. For the remainder of trips you can build specialized long range EVs that get 500+ miles of range that would permit a rider to travel for 5+ hours without stopping with 20-30 minute stops to recharge if the trip exceeds the vehicle's range.

You could also envision a scenario in the long future where the majority of trucking and long distance travel is performed at night, allowing the vehicles to charge off solar power during the day and expend it over night. From a trucking perspective it would be a fairly large reduction in cost. From a passenger vehicle perspective, who really wants to waste a substantial portion of their day sitting in a car awake?

Thank you for coming to my lecture series, if you'd like a copy of the program can be e-mailed to you.

In

Nice!

Debating buying a Cybertruck, buying a Model Y now and taking the 0% FSD deal, rd continuing to hold out to see if the Model Y refresh back fills some of the technology/features of the Cybertruck (steer by wire, 800v, PowerShare). Hard to be patient.

Democrats abandon EV ship:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Democratic politicians are distancing themselves from the Biden administration's electric-vehicle push to prevent the unpopular slate of subsidies and environmental regulations from tipping Michigan to their Republican opponents.

Addressing rally-goers in Flint, Mich., earlier this month, Kamala Harris insisted that the Trump campaign is misrepresenting her record on electric-vehicle mandates.

"Michigan, let us be clear: Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive," Harris said, reversing her past support for banning gas-powered vehicles.

---

As Senator, Harris cosponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019. It would have required half of all new vehicles sold in the United States to be 100% emission free only six years from now hitting a goal of 100% by 2040. She featured that plan during her failed 2020 presidential campaign, perhaps adding to her almost legendary lack of success in that effort. Tied to that plan was her endorsement of the Green New Deal. So what could have changed between then and now?

That's not much of a mystery either. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are virtually tied in Michigan, a state where the=y auto workers unions have refused to offer their support to Trump, a staunch advocate against the Green New Deal Another Democrat in the state, Representative Elissa Slotkin, has pulled into a slight lead over Mike Rogers, likely based on her vocal opposition to the Green New Deal and the emission-free auto mandate. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent opposed government incentives to encourage electric vehicle purchases in Michigan.

---

If we could only believe her, it would be a great change of position by Dems at the national level. Of course, this is another example of how to tell when a politician is lying.

Two Dem states have already opted out of the mandates that CA introduced and likely more will follow.

Yes, the technology increases cost not only for the conduit but also for the vehicle.

I am no arguing any real position other than this autonomous vehicle dream will remain a dream for a while and will be technologically difficult and expensive.

A closed system is ideal for autonomous vehicles. Trains operating in closed system and within systems that only have autonomous trains are the safest. Safety is the goal. Breakdowns, failures, nature such as animals and weather with the resulting accidents will continue within this closed system. This idea that cars can share the road with pedestrians, other non-autonomous vehicles, animals, weather, wind, grandma drivers, idiots, etc is a dream.

The technology is great and unfortunately is deceptive with many characters as honest as Elizabeth Holmes.

Quote:

---

ran over a woman and dragged her 40 feet under the car

---

Quote:

---

After the news broke that they had hit the woman and lied about it and had their driverless operation pulled from the market it was reported that they were currently operating with two remote operators per vehicle

---

And contrary to your contention transportation experts state that the freeway operation of autonomous vehicles will be more difficult and indeed is more complex because of increased speeds. Even with the assistance of LOL remote operators.

Quote:

---

If you would like to know more about the current state of autonomous cars I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

---

I've been reading for years about the technology revolution taking over and changing the world. Technology advances are great but get accustomed to the let downs I've seen. All of this hype is cool science fiction. Bladerunner was a great movie by the way. That setting was 5 years ago.

And I remember all of the $30,000 millionaires puffing out their chests bragging about putting deposits on Teslas and assembling their small fleet of self-driving Ubers. How's that working out for them? LOL.

And thanks, I don't need to read any more fan boy Popular Mechanics from you. I was burnt out on that crap years ago.

Quote:

---

1. I am curious if you have been in a Tesla or other automakers latest driver assist systems?

2. That said, I also think getting the last 1-2% of driving a car to full autonomy is going to be a real challenge and it must be mastered to remove the driver/steering wheel.

3. The vehicle sees 360, doesn't get distracted by a nagging passenger, phone, etc but can be taken over quickly if the situation requires it. It also can react quicker than I or any human can to things like a car stopping suddenly in front of you.

4. We kill 43k per year in this country in vehicle accidents and almost all are driver error.

---

1. I have considered renting a Tesla for a week and trying one. I've been in plenty of Uber and Lyft Teslas but never one that was operated in autonomous mode. And with that I've had the opportunity to quiz the drivers about there experience with FSD. Never had a driver have glowing schoolgirl like stories about their FSD.

2. The fact that the experimental taxis continue to have monitoring by humans (I may be mistaken) is dishonest and not autonomous.

3. Yep. I hate my 'adaptive cruise control'. It works great if jackasses don't cut in front of you or something enters the highway.

4. Agreed autonomous vehicles will reduce accidents. It's not happening anytime soon.

There is always a solution🙂 pic.twitter.com/Gu6DaZebdE

— Tansu Yegen (@TansuYegen) October 15, 2024

Good idea!

Premium said:

---

In

---

Nice,

I have a reservation and will be getting another Tesla next year. For our family, it is the best car bar none and its not even close. My 16 yo started driving and got her a used Bolt because I know she will crash it. She loves an EV too because she just drives it fully charged and never worries about gas.

I am considering an X vs Cybertruck. I will definitely wrap the Cyber truck if I get one.

BTW, the cybertruck is now the best selling EV truck outselling Rivian/Ford

Premium said:

---

In

---

Although that's not my cup of tea, I always have respect for someone who takes pride in what they have.

Also, nice house. Bonus points for the basketball hoop.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/1bnfc9s/tesla_adds_six_new_cybertruck_wrap_colors_forest/

This is what I would prob wrap mine in