OT: Electric vehicles
- Thread starter BellyFullOfWhiteDogCrap
- Start date
I have repeatedly written here that all self-driving systems that require a human to be alert should be banned. Your false assertion that I am picking on Tesla is another example of you not paying attention.
You continue to defend an indefensible position despite even Tesla saying their software can cause crashes. Read the article.
You're clueless.
Waymo and Cruise are fully autonomous within geofence. You didn't know that? Or, you're ok with them because they don't require a driver. Or, you just don't know shit about this topic? Which one?
Where's "all the evidence posted"? Waiting...
More bad news for Tesla. #Tanking
www.cnbc.com
Charlie Munger says BYD is so far ahead of Tesla in China 'it's almost ridiculous'
Charlie Munger said Wednesday that Tesla pales in comparison to BYD in China, calling the Chinese electric vehicle maker his favorite stock ever.
Lol. Hahahahahahahahahaha! You're a f'ing idiot.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Since when did you turn into a FUD peddler? It's ok. I think you're a good guy despite never answering my Jeep Wrangler question.More bad news for Tesla. #Tanking
Charlie Munger says BYD is so far ahead of Tesla in China 'it's almost ridiculous'
Charlie Munger said Wednesday that Tesla pales in comparison to BYD in China, calling the Chinese electric vehicle maker his favorite stock ever.
BYD sells ICE, hybrids, and EVs. Only profitable with ICE and hybrids. CCP has been giving handouts to domestic EV makers for years. Not sure of the current status with that. With an ASP <$20k, they're not in direct competition with Tesla. They're a great company though. Highly vertically integrated, growing fast, and they make their own batteries (BYD blade). When you look at ASP in China and the volume of vehicles BYD produces, Charlie's not wrong with his investment thesis. He may change his mind after March 1. We'll see.
Last edited:
Show me where I said anything about Waymo or Cruise. You brought them up, irrelevantly, not me.
The evidence of FSD and perhaps other Tesla software issues has been posted by multiple people all throughout this thread. You’ve ignored or dismissed it all.
You seem to be engaged in some weird game of gotcha in which you’re the only one playing. And you’re still losing. Being excessively combative doesn’t cover up the shallowness of your understanding about any of this stuff.
Um, woof woof. Translation = you are embarrassing yourself here. Do more reading next time.
I have no idea what a FUD peddler is. I answered you above. I still think you are unduly harsh on PHEVs and that "study" or hit piece on them was unduly biased, using improper driving techniques to smear PHEVs.
Elon does not see seem to have media on his side and he seems awfully distracted by his work on Twitter. Case in point:
Exactly, you've said zero about Waymo and Cruise despite your crusade against current autonomous vehicle regulations. Why not?
And by evidence, do you mean news stories where the media, and you, jump to conclusions about the cause of accidents involving Teslas? That's not evidence. Show me where supervised FSD beta or Autopilot is less safe than the average human driver.
Should the Jeep Wrangler hybrid 19mpg city/24hwy be classified as a "green" vehicle and get the full $7500 tax credit?
Absolutely, as much as any other green vehicle should. If I was to buy one, I'd be 90% on battery.
I haven't paid any attention to Waymo or Cruise. They aren't really relevant to what Tesla and other auto manufacturers are attempting with partially automated systems that rely upon constant human oversight (a deeply flawed approach given inherent human limitations when it comes to paying attention).
Waymo and Cruise both use a ton of exterior sensors to try to make up for the lack of V2X, right? Aren't both also strictly limited to operating on specific streets and under specific conditions? In which case, that's not really the same as auto manufacturers who build normal cars where aerodynamics is prioritized over sensors and where they do not operate with the same strict geographic limits of use.
And yes, the accidents that have been reported with Teslas are absolutely evidence. As is the fact that Tesla itself has admitted there is a problem. They've stated that their cars might cause accidents. Read the article that was just posted.
And finally, when a human causes an accident, it's a one-off error by the human. It's forgivable. When buggy software working with insufficient sensors and the lack of V2X cause accidents, it's a systemic problem. The systemic problem can and should be debugged before it's allowed to operate on public roads. Not getting it right before pushing it out onto public roads is an unforgivable problem.
I agree.
Perhaps a better way of incentivizing rebates on PHEVs would be more palatable to an EV purist. If the PHEV owner logs a certain number or percentage of miles in the EV mode, they could get tax credits in the first year of ownership. It could be a sliding scale.
And vehicles that use an insane number of batteries and are wasteful, such as the Hummer, should perhaps be penalized for unnecessarily consuming too many battery resources. Or something like that.
But to apply a strict rule against PHEVs when a lot of people use them a lot in the EV mode seems counter to the EV mores some are striving towards.
I have beaten up on Musk recently (with good reason). But it may be that he has done some good with his money recently. If so, if the article's information is correct, then it's only fair that I highlight that good behavior:
www.autoblog.com
Elon Musk donated nearly $2 billion worth of Tesla stock to a charity last year, report says - Autoblog
The $1.95 billion worth of Tesla stock donations were made from August to December 2022, at a time when the EV maker's stock significantly suffered.
www.autoblog.com
I have beaten up on Musk recently (with good reason). But it may be that he has done some good with his money recently. If so, if the article's information is correct, then it's only fair that I highlight that good behavior:
Elon Musk donated nearly $2 billion worth of Tesla stock to a charity last year, report says - Autoblog
The $1.95 billion worth of Tesla stock donations were made from August to December 2022, at a time when the EV maker's stock significantly suffered.
The other way to look at it, potentially, is that donating 2B worth of stock after it's been devalued in the market will create upward pressure on the stock price and so act as an indirect value add to existing TSLA shareholders - including, of course, Elmo.
It's a win/win, two birds with one stone sort of thing.
It’s also a tax arb to lower his tax bill.I have beaten up on Musk recently (with good reason). But it may be that he has done some good with his money recently. If so, if the article's information is correct, then it's only fair that I highlight that good behavior:
Elon Musk donated nearly $2 billion worth of Tesla stock to a charity last year, report says - Autoblog
The $1.95 billion worth of Tesla stock donations were made from August to December 2022, at a time when the EV maker's stock significantly suffered.
True. And perhaps there were tax considerations and all.
OTOH, he probably could've chosen other less charitable approaches to create upward pressure on the stock price as well as shield some income from taxes.
I like to think that most people, even those for whom it's not at all obvious, have a good heart when push comes to shove. I never make important decisions based on an expectation that it's always true, because it's clearly not. But I keep hoping it's true most of the time, mostly because it's depressing to consider that it might not be.
Not right away, in most cases. There's usually a "wait and see" period - especially so with TSLA, which had experienced a pretty dramatic hit.
You agree the Jeep hybrid should get the entire rebate, but then contradict yourself by suggesting a better system should be implemented. A Honda Accord ICE (30+ mpg) produces less emissions than the Jeep hybrid. See the problem?
I don't think we're too far off from each other. I have no problem with a tiered system based on electric range of the hybrid, but nothing is going to change my mind that a 20 mi electric range hybrid should get the same rebate as a 300+ mi BEV.
If we have to give rebates, then I don't disagree that the rebate ought to be tied to the degree of environmental goodness the vehicle exhibits in real-world testing. Although I think a formula for "environmental goodness" would be hard to define.
Even just considering emissions, we would have to factor in the emissions of producing the electricity to charge batteries. And would have to consider the emissions of pumping and shipping oil all over the world. It's complicated.
I'd prefer to focus on rebates for building out charging infrastructure and eliminate rebates for individual vehicle purchases.
Maybe you should widen your crusade because Waymo and Cruise vehicles have been in accidents, caused traffic jams and even a pedestrian death.
Still waiting on your evidence. A clickbait article of a suspected FSD or Autopilot accident isn't evidence. More times than not, Tesla is vindicated after an investigation.
Has the system caused accidents? Yes. But humans cause accidents every minute. You've yet to demonstrate that human supervised FSD or Autopilot is less safe than the average human. NHTSA has years of Tesla data. Apparently you know more. Please share.
please share what your understanding of agile vs sdlc is.
Once again you seem to think we're engaged in some sort of game of gotcha. And again, you seem to fail to understand you're the only one so engaged.
I explained why "less safe than the average human" is not a conceptually valid position to take. This is not some sort of statistical comparison. Buggy software pushed out onto public roads is systemically problematic. How do you know that the next buggy release won't cause huge numbers of fatalities? (The answer is, you can't possibly know.)
And for the third time, Tesla themselves are saying their cars may be causing accidents. Which is why Tesla is engaged in their voluntary recall. How much more evidence do you need than that?
Or is it your contention that you know better than Tesla and they should never have issued the recall? Because you read some stats pushed out to give you false confidence about FSD.
I did not really articulate my idea very well. Spitballing ideas on mental breaks in a tough day at work where my brain has turned to mush.
What I was trying to say is that perhaps PHEV drivers could "earn" their rebates by demonstrating that they drove in the EV mode for a certain percentage of miles (let's say 75% or greater). Someone above said that they would use the Jeep Wrangler in the EV mode quite a bit. The computers (at least our Volvo S60) track the EV and non-EV miles/trips. Again, I see the PHEVs as a bridge to the country going full EV.
So because you can't come up with any data, you've concluded FSD vs human should not be a statistical comparison.
When Tesla releases an update, it's initially given to employees, then limited release, then wide release. It's not just haphazardly thrown out to everyone.
Tesla never stated their vehicles are "causing accidents". You slipped that in. "May cause" was the phrase used by NHTSA. No injuries or fatalities reported. Read the actual recall notice. The earlier releases were hyper cautious. Tesla has made the software more human like with rolling stops at vacant intersections, speed limit offset, and continuing on a route despite being in the wrong lane. All things that human drivers routinely do. NHTSA doesn't approve. Earlier builds toed the line on all safety rules.... Exact speed limit, slow acceleration, full stops and long pauses even at vacant intersections, overly cautious when turning. It wasn't functional, realistic, or convenient, and pissed off anyone stuck behind a beta tester. In a round about way, NHTSA has concluded humans are unsafe drivers, don't make your software humanlike. Despite the term voluntary recall, NHTSA is forcing Tesla's hand. A tug of war with the degree of aggressiveness of the software.
Not my wheelhouse. I do know there are more than 1 methodologies for software development.
Tesla Admits Full-Self Driving May Cause Crashes, Recalls 360,000 Cars
Tesla will recall 362,758 from model year vehicles ranging between 2016 and 2023 to fix its Full Self-Driving Beta software suite.
So... if it's not in your wheelhouse, how do you expect folks who are in that line of business to take your opinion on whether the FSD software was deployed in a responsible way or not, seriously?
If your Tesla on FSD roll stops through an intersection does Tesla get the moving violation or does it go to you?
3 years and millions of miles without any serious accidents, injuries or fatalities suggest it has been.
The folks who are in that line of business have yet to present any type of data suggesting otherwise. Insulting the CEO and software team doesn't count as evidence.
I've repeatedly asked our resident "experts" to view and critique Tesla's presentations on AI, autonomy, software and hardware development but they've refused. "Tesla bad! Elon bad! Insult, insult..." is the response I get. I've watched the presentations despite most of it being over my head because I wanted to learn something, anything. How can a so called expert refuse to want to take in information? Experts don't do that. That's what arrogant frauds do. So, it's difficult to take them seriously and I doubt their credibility and expertise.
Last edited:
