By the same logic you could say that airplanes shouldn't call their pilot assist system "Autopilot" either, because it requires monitoring and input from pilots who will need to disengage the system and intervene/fly manually in certain scenarios.
Autopilot is probably actually quite a good term for it if you actually compare it to a plane Autopilot - you don't expect pilots to be inattentive or away from the controls, and you expect them to intervene in certain scenarios and disengage autopilot if there is danger.
Not comparable at all. Airplanes are flown by trained professionals who know exactly what Autopilot can and cannot do. Regular consumers don't know these differences though and Tesla deliberately uses this ambiguity to deceive their own customers, who expect a "fully self driving" car.
And we don't expect drivers to be adequately trained and get a licence?
I disagree with calling the top level of Autopilot "FSD" by the way - I think that is misleading. But Autopilot - I think that's a fair term personally considering the context and historical use.
And we don't expect drivers to be adequately trained and get a licence?
In the US? No, we don't. Even ignoring that a driver's license is treated more as a right than a perk... Consumers are absolutely NOT trained on the nuances of any particular car's UI, systems, etc.
An airline pilot absolutely IS trained on those nuances and can ONLY operate planes in which they've trained. And they get periodic check-rides from FAA examiners. And, as we saw with the 737Max, failure to train on those nuances can have deadly consequences.
Well again, Autopilot probably is an accurate word then - because consumers should clearly know the limitations and nuances of Autopilot to safely operate it, and a failure to understand those limitations can clearly have deadly consequences.
Is the argument "You can't call it Autopilot because Autopilot refers to a complex system that requires a skilled operator and needs people to pay constant attention"?
I don't really care what it's named. I care about the implications of the system in the real world. Humans are notoriously bad at paying attention to boring tasks. This applies to pilots as well as ordinary drivers (thus the massive amount of training, redundant operators, and very details operators manuals/procedures that apply to ATPs). Tesla released a system that encourages people to operate their car with less than 100% focus. That's bad.
I'm not aware of similar reports of crashes/deaths with systems like Subaru's EyeSight or Honda's SensingSuite. Or, on the other end of the spectrum, Mercedes's Drive Pilot.
But what's the broader point here, is it that the word "Autopilot" implies you need care or training?
Because if so, it sounds like Autopilot would be a good word.
I think the term "Full Self Driving" is misleading, but comparing it to an Autopilot (i.e. a system which requires pilot input and care) seems correct.
They expect to not have to pay $12000 for something called Full Self Driving, and still get it?
Let's check the first paragraph of the Autopilot section in the manual:
Autopilot is a suite of advanced driver assistance features that are intended to make driving safer and less stressful. None of these features make Model 3 fully autonomous or replace you as the driver
And on the same page:
Warning
Basic Autopilot is a hands-on feature. Keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times and be mindful of road conditions, surrounding traffic, and other road users (such as pedestrians and cyclists). Always be prepared to take immediate action. Failure to follow these instructions could cause damage, serious injury, or death.
Which states are you referring to? Locally you need a certificate for motorized craft and it seems like almost every other state is in this situation.
You can get the certificate after taking training but I imagine there is some way to test out of it.
--
The training doesn't need to be months long though. Try renting a jet-ski; they'll give you a very quick training but it's still present. Although jet-skis are probably not long enough to qualify as motorized boats in a lot of states.
Thanks for the correction. My own state of Washington mandated boater education only about ten years ago, I assumed it was an early mover given how much navigable water we have.
Sweden and New Zealand doesn't require any licence to operate a boat which is great. But try leaving marina without any experience and your boat neighbour will stop ya or at least help you get your feet wet.
Different contexts: Pilots are a niche margin of highly trained, tested, and skilled, responsible people. The ~100 million car drivers in the u.s. have no actual training required, a 10 question multiple choice test, and a brief non-standard, subjective road test. Car drivers in the u.s. who want to surf the web, smoke weed, and watch porn all at the same time and don't want to take the bus are rampant. Others want to edit spreadsheets, film their blog, and apply makeup while driving. Many don't even have a high school degree or their perceptual and cognitive faculties intact. To them "autopilot" sounds like it will empower them and solve their problems. Consumer protection exists because government needs to protect the average nice, but non-expert people from the most egregious, predatory, irresponsible businesses.
An airplane autopilot is fully capable of flying the plane from point A to B, including landing (but not takeoffs) while the pilots sleep or eat or read or do something other than paying attention. For most international flights, autopilot is flying the plane once the plane reaches cruising altitude up until final approach.
Airplane autopilots are usually disengaged for landing because the failure mechanism is to return control to the human pilots, but in the event of a failure during landing there is usually insufficient time for that.
Tesla "Autopilot" is basically the landing portion of a flight, all the time. It has the same failure window: seconds, or less, for the human to take over and prevent an accident. And Tesla's AP is uniquely bad compared to comparable advanced cruise control systems: Tesla has more than 17x as many crashes than the next crashiest automaker, and more than 60x as many crashes as the safest major automaker. Given that Tesla has far fewer cars on the road, scaled up for fleet size, Tesla's AP system is the most dangerous advanced cruise control system in the world. (And the fatalities bear that out; FSD alone has more fatalities than the combined fatality count of every other automaker in the world combined.)
Are you aware of how much pilots do once autopilot is engaged? They do some checklists, then they sit on their arse, eat food, watch something. While being responsible for 100's of peoples lives. They only intervene in start, landing and if something really goes south.
Calling something an autopilot implies you can do essentially whatever you want while the machine operates itself.
Yes, I think if we want to be clear about whether you can legally fall asleep, or not be present at all, while driving, we need to be more explicit about the FSD level.
Does Nissan’s CEO have a history of grossly overstating what their system is capable of doing? Tesla has been aggressive about claiming their system can do a lot more, to the point that they charged people for features which never shipped over the time many people owned their vehicles.
If you were a prospective buyer in the past, the autopilot link would take you to a page which very prominently says this:
> Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars. All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
Way down the page, you get this:
> Enhanced Autopilot adds these new capabilities to the Tesla Autopilot driving experience. Your Tesla will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes without requiring driver input, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway when your destination is near, self-park when near a parking spot and be summoned to and from your garage.
Finally, you get a bit more realistic warning after a bit of misdirection intended to make you think the product was ready but government red tape was delaying availability:
> Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time.
Contrast with Nissan’s page which is very clear that it assists you in hands-on driving. There’s nothing on there which sounds like the vehicle can drive itself (e.g. who reads the smart summons description and thinks it can’t reliably stop or identify pedestrians?)
It wasn't originally their product. It came with the Sun Microsystems acquisition. Sun themselves acquired Virtualbox close to selling to Oracle. Sun never monetized their products well, hence their demise.
I recall SGI were eaten more by Windows NT + off the shelf OpenGL graphics card than Linux. (But Linux also, of course. All non display output which was ran on SGI/Irix could be ran cheaper on Linux.)
Same still last year, except now the unit cost nearly doubled. We pay for a handful of VMware licenses instead now, which is 10x cheaper (more expensive per license, but you don't need a literal hundred of them). I'm convinced that the only reason for this is so that Oracle can send invoices to companies using the evaluation license for this ridiculous minimum amount without it seeming worth a challenge in court when one only has four machines and doesn't need a hundred licenses.
I hated Sharepoint while I had to use it, but learned to love after switching jobs where I now have to use alternatives. Sharepoint is extremely complex but also super powerful if you know how to use it. And it integrates really well into other Office products.
I'm not sure if it's possible to create a software with that much complexity made for business requirements of thousands of companies all over the world, while keeping it simple. I must say I really like the Office suite and it's integrations despite all their faults.
Not saying that about teams though, luckily never had to use it.
There was a Show HN project last year that did something similar. I'd be keen to try that out before this one. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the link.
> Elsewhere in the world, Truvada might cost $40. In Australia, Truvada costs $8 for a 30 day supply[1].
AUD 6.60 in Australia is the cost for those eligible for the concession PBS rate (those that are on welfare, pension etc.). It's AUD 41.30 for everyone else.
This is all thanks to our government negotiating a good rate with the manufacturer and then subsidizing the costs. This is not what all governments do, unfortunately.
