|
United States41603 Posts
Asperger’s doesn’t exist anymore. If I recall the story correctly Dr Asperger was an Austrian doctor running a home for children with autism spectrum disorders and other issues. The Nazis took over Austria and demanded that he turn over all his patients for liquidation. He didn’t want all his kids to be murdered but he couldn’t stop them so after some quick thinking he came up with good autistic, which he called Asperger’s, and bad autistic. He talked them into thinking that good autistic was actually potentially valuable and wasn’t defective, just different, unlike bad autistic which had to be destroyed.
Problem was that he couldn’t tell them that all his patients were good autistic because they’d see through his bullshitting. But he didn’t want to be too conservative because every kid he didn’t claim had Asperger’s was going to be murdered. He had to find the sweet spot where the Nazis would believe in special autism. Must have been a tough spot to be in.
Anyway, Asperger’s is just Nazi friendly autism which actually lines up very nicely with Elon claiming to have it.
|
My favorite thing about Tesla, at least in my area, is how the media loves to report on crashes involving Teslas. Every day there are headlines like "one injured after Tesla hits guard rail" or "occupant dead after Tesla crashes into tree."
It humors me to no end because I just think about how I never see a headline like "Toyota Camry crash injures 3" or "Honda Civic drives into lake killing occupant" It's either a Tesla crash or a "car" crash.
My favorite is Tesla Cybertruck involved in Bay Area crash
The story is that a 17-year old lost control of his Toyota Corolla, crossed over double yellow lines to the other side of the road and struck a Tesla Cybertruck causing minor damage to it. Pulitzer journalism right there.
|
It‘s Elonito Muskolini to you, mere mortals
|
On November 20 2024 14:10 BlackJack wrote:My favorite thing about Tesla, at least in my area, is how the media loves to report on crashes involving Teslas. Every day there are headlines like "one injured after Tesla hits guard rail" or "occupant dead after Tesla crashes into tree." It humors me to no end because I just think about how I never see a headline like "Toyota Camry crash injures 3" or "Honda Civic drives into lake killing occupant" It's either a Tesla crash or a "car" crash. My favorite is Tesla Cybertruck involved in Bay Area crashThe story is that a 17-year old lost control of his Toyota Corolla, crossed over double yellow lines to the other side of the road and struck a Tesla Cybertruck causing minor damage to it. Pulitzer journalism right there.
I can't really comment on the quality of journalism over there in SF, and over here I don't see anything of the kind(honestly, single car drives into tree just seems below the level of interest of even the most local of local interest papers), but self-proclaimed self-driving cars crashing are obviously more interesting than humans crashing their cars. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...
|
On November 21 2024 06:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 14:10 BlackJack wrote:My favorite thing about Tesla, at least in my area, is how the media loves to report on crashes involving Teslas. Every day there are headlines like "one injured after Tesla hits guard rail" or "occupant dead after Tesla crashes into tree." It humors me to no end because I just think about how I never see a headline like "Toyota Camry crash injures 3" or "Honda Civic drives into lake killing occupant" It's either a Tesla crash or a "car" crash. My favorite is Tesla Cybertruck involved in Bay Area crashThe story is that a 17-year old lost control of his Toyota Corolla, crossed over double yellow lines to the other side of the road and struck a Tesla Cybertruck causing minor damage to it. Pulitzer journalism right there. I can't really comment on the quality of journalism over there in SF, and over here I don't see anything of the kind(honestly, single car drives into tree just seems below the level of interest of even the most local of local interest papers), but self-proclaimed self-driving cars crashing are obviously more interesting than humans crashing their cars. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...
Yeah that’s kind of the point, in my opinion. Tesla is known as the one brand really pushing autonomous driving so the idea is to fear monger about it by hinting that these Tesla’s crashing are because the AIs are sending you into trees. At the very bottom of every article is the comment “the vehicle was not operating in autonomous mode at the time.” Or “it’s unknown whether the vehicle was in autonomous mode.” If it were in fact in autonomous mode they for sure would include it in the headline.
|
Comparing Tesla to other autonomous cars reveals how lacking it is. Comparing it to regular cars is nonsensical.
|
Teslas are known to disable FSD right before they get into a crash in order for them to legally claim that the vehicle was not in autonomous mode at the moment of the accident.
|
|
|
Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia.
|
On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia.
Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9
|
On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9
Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories.
|
On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories.
All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally.
|
On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally.
*citation needed*
|
Northern Ireland23068 Posts
On November 21 2024 06:54 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 14:10 BlackJack wrote:My favorite thing about Tesla, at least in my area, is how the media loves to report on crashes involving Teslas. Every day there are headlines like "one injured after Tesla hits guard rail" or "occupant dead after Tesla crashes into tree." It humors me to no end because I just think about how I never see a headline like "Toyota Camry crash injures 3" or "Honda Civic drives into lake killing occupant" It's either a Tesla crash or a "car" crash. My favorite is Tesla Cybertruck involved in Bay Area crashThe story is that a 17-year old lost control of his Toyota Corolla, crossed over double yellow lines to the other side of the road and struck a Tesla Cybertruck causing minor damage to it. Pulitzer journalism right there. I can't really comment on the quality of journalism over there in SF, and over here I don't see anything of the kind(honestly, single car drives into tree just seems below the level of interest of even the most local of local interest papers), but self-proclaimed self-driving cars crashing are obviously more interesting than humans crashing their cars. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...
It’s almost like vehicles that one struggles to escape if something goes wrong, or self-driving attract more stories where these are pertinent factors.
I will agree with BJ that it’s stupid to run a story with ‘was in a Tesla’ in the absence of such a factor
|
On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed*
Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4
|
On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4
The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions
Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making.
So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite.
|
On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 Show nested quote +The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Show nested quote +Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite.
I'm not even going to make an effort to explain why your reasoning is wrong. We have history regarding scientific papers, you tend to heavily misread them and then never acknowledge your mistake. I'll just let it stand cause I'd be wasting my time.
|
On November 22 2024 09:18 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite. I'm not even going to make an effort to explain why your reasoning is wrong. We have history regarding scientific papers, you tend to heavily misread them and then never acknowledge your mistake. I'll just let it stand cause I'd be wasting my time.
your own paper doesn't even reference tesla having higher accident rate than other ADS.
And it even states:
On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs
How did you interpret this sentence?
|
On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 Show nested quote +The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Show nested quote +Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite.
Not making an actual point but "when turning" is kind of hilarious. It reminds me of sketchy advertising with increasingly small print on the conditions to the statement "Safer on average than your average car! car must be only going straight and/or stopped, found to be better on average in stopped conditions and only marginally worse going straight"
To be clear I don't expect this is what the study is saying, I just find that idea deeply amusing.
|
On November 22 2024 10:24 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 09:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite. I'm not even going to make an effort to explain why your reasoning is wrong. We have history regarding scientific papers, you tend to heavily misread them and then never acknowledge your mistake. I'll just let it stand cause I'd be wasting my time. your own paper doesn't even reference tesla having higher accident rate than other ADS. And it even states: On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs How did you interpret this sentence?
I refer to the other links I posted earlier. You can ignore reality if you like.
Btw I fully support autonomous cars, but the technology just isn't there yet. They may eventually be good enough to replace regular cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
