But it's not finished. Have you asked Cruise testers how many interventions they have had to do in equivalent drives as Tesla FSD Beta?
It's strange to me that Tesla who are building this in the open are criticised for being dishonest. Meanwhile ALL the competitors are closed door private development and some how we should trust them more? In an industry that is known for deceitful behaviour.
I'm not sure what you consider open about Tesla's approach. The fact that you can run updates without a license or any clue about what's changed or how it will perform in your area is exactly the issue! Tesla goes out of their way to avoid publishing actual metrics for safety, even useless ones like the annual DMV reports. Waymo, cruise etc aren't much better in public, but maybe it's a small comfort to know there are advocates internally (myself included) at all of these to publish that data?
Qualitatively, there's no comparison between them. Waymo and cruise are today more than capable of autonomy without a driver in certain circumstances. Tesla still has trouble staying in the lane and doesn't define an ODD or even claim L4 for fair comparison.
For background, I've been in waymo and cruise' vehicles, and ridden with AP. I've only seen FSD in video form.
Tesla publish autopilot data every year. Crashes per mile with AP, without AP, and with Safety assistance features, and show consistent improvement of AP. What do the competitors publish?
You are comparing AP (a traffic aware lane keeping cruise control system) to Waymo (a driverless taxi)? How about FSD Beta vs Waymo how has your experience been there?
By "in public" I mean I can go on YouTube and look up "FSD beta version 8", and "FSD version 10" and see hundreds of videos comparing both unplanned and repeated routes and see improvements and regressions. If I'm in the US I can even get the software myself and try it out (after hurdles)... how much more public could they do it?
I would consider a reasonable definition of 'open' to include publication of all relevant safety metrics through the appropriate channels. As the other reply mentions, one channel would be the DMV report in CA which Tesla famously eschews. They also don't publish FSD data, and their AP numbers are essentially useless for determining actual safety. They also don't have professional testers like cruise, waymo, etc do validating releases. Those other companies can do better here with publication, but they track safety data very closely internally, even down to specific scenarios and streets/areas. I haven't seen evidence that those sorts of numbers exist at Tesla or are consulted before releasing updates to the public, but feel free to correct me.
If your metric is simply public access and videos, waymo and cruise both have public demos available. jjricks has quite a few videos on the former. The latter is too new and small a program to have much content yet.
I'm sorry I don't consider a "curated CSV for California only" to be at all equivalent to 60,000 members across the US of the public who are free to post videos and setup failure cases, and report whatever they like.
> They also don't have professional testers like cruise, waymo, etc do validating releases.
Source? From my understanding they rollout releases to employees first (I assume a subset of those are professional testers). Then to beta testers. There have been a couple of releases that have been halted that lend credence to that.
> They also don't publish FSD data, and their AP numbers are essentially useless for determining actual safety
So is this because you can't see detailed data of their in-progress beta software? Could you show me the beta stats of Waymo/Cruise? Where are they published? Tesla aren't operating any robotaxis - so it's clearly not a finished piece of software is it?
On the AP front, why is the AP data useless? Which data do you need that is missing?
I would love to see disengagement reports for autopilot and FSD. I can't go more than 50 miles without having to takeover for autopilot. Like hitting the gas when it phantom brakes. You can't even use autopilot at night any more due phantom braking issues. I don't even use Navigate on autopilot because it literally tried to kill me on multiple occasions by trying to change lanes into a concrete barrier. Want to see funny. Use smart summon. I wish i could use smart summon and my phones video at the same time.
> In the 4th quarter, we recorded one crash for every 4.31 million miles driven in
> which drivers were using Autopilot technology (Autosteer and active safety
> features). For drivers who were not using Autopilot technology (no Autosteer and
> active safety features), we recorded one crash for every 1.59 million miles driven.
That's 1 quarter and the numbers dwarf the combined total of all the competition. It's also a safety report they put out every quarter rather than an adhoc tweet.
How many crashes have occurred on FSD Beta? 0. [1]
Most people don’t make enough to retire until they are in their 60s or 70s. It sounds like we are paying these guys too much if we have to compete for attention with their massive fortune.
It awards people for being something that they cannot possibly be: worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year in compensation. Human excellence hasn't reached the point where this is the case.
They were not awarded hundreds of millions of dollars. They were awarded a number of shares or options, which may be worth hundreds of millions of dollars when and if they sell or excercise.
Either way, two entities came to a voluntary agreement on an exchange of services and compensation. I have not heard of a better model yet.
If the issue is income/wealth gaps in society, then that is better solved by implementing huge marginal income/wealth taxes such that the can be rewarded hundreds of millions of dollars, but they will only end up with a small portion of it.
So why do the owners of Apple decide to pay Tim Cook so much? Do they just not realize that they could come out ahead by only hiring CEOs willing to pay much less?
I hope this is a joke. It's a failing or at best a quirk of our economic system that Tim Cook's time can be so highly valued when any number of different piles of well educated people could do 10x more useful work for less money. It's not meritocracy. He's winning the game, but he's replaceable.
It all comes down to how you define "useful work" and value. A big part Tim Cooks value is simply being a known factor. You might not like that this is valued more than 1,000 engineers, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
If Tim Cook was really worth 100 million a year or more and had achieved a state of intelligence and skill unknown to humanity before, don't you think scientists would be scrambling to study his genetics?
He's just not that unique. The employees should be paid more and Tim should be paid less.
I think you entirely missed the point of my comment. Tim Cook is worth 100 million because he is the same person that ran the company last year and is a known quantity, not because he is 1000x smarter.
His value is being Tim Cook: Apple CEO since 2011. This is something that nobody else on the planet has and 1,000 engineers can't build.
Building out hugely profitable services as the lifecycle of technology refresh slows has been a huge part of Apple’s recent success.
Also making huge gambles on things like M1 / Apple Silicon show that Apple is still innovating and leading the way - even in spaces that were starting to be stagnant.
Let’s also not forget hugely profitable hardware lines under Tim such as Apple becoming the number 1 biggest watch retailer by revenue, and dominating the wireless earphones market (which it pretty much established itself too).
I think the bigger challenge in this case would be finding someone credible. There's lots of people who could do as good a job or better than Tim Cook but how do you know? And not just a fear of the risk but also the difficulty of putting in someone with the credibility to make decisive decisions
i think that was more the function of the macro market. much of the foundation for microsoft’s second coming was laid by balmer. basically, i think he gets somewhat of an unfair rap ;-)
No one who worked at Microsoft under Ballmer & Satya believes this. I’m curious as to why people believe that Ballmer who missed every major tech trend, threw good money after chasing competitors and had zero idea how to build build good products “laid the foundation” versus acknowledging Satya’s significant success?
I interned at Microsoft when he was CEO and he gave us a lunch q&a.
The man is the most charismatic person I've ever seen speak in person. Given just how badly he ran Microsoft, I really think his ability to convince people of stuff is some kind of superpower.
i never said satya wasn’t an incredible leader. i’ve heard as much from friends who work at microsoft.
i just don’t think it’s fair to look at the stock price of microsoft during ballers tenure at microsoft without applying the lens of the broader market.
Apple's biggest problem is that there is probably no one at Apple today who can replace Tim. The only person with the skillset to replace Tim is Elon, but Elon's temperament is a poor fit for Apple's shareholders.
> Turkey has stated continuously in last few days that it will follow the Montreux Convention, under which they cannot restrict vessels going back to their home base, including Russian ones.
Your comment is misleading:
"Turkey called Russia's invasion of Ukraine a "war" on Sunday in a rhetorical shift that could pave the way for the NATO member nation to enact an international pact limiting Russian naval passage to the Black Sea."
"Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, Turkey has control over the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits that connect the Mediterranean and Black seas and can limit the passage of warships during wartime or if threatened."
> "Clearly they are reconsidering what they said."
I don't think that is the case. The short answer is, here's a link to a more detailed version of the article above - their recent change is calling it a "war", which allows them to trigger Montreux:
"Yet Cavusoglu (Turkey Foreign Minister) reiterated that Turkey cannot block all Russian warships accessing the Black Sea due to a clause in the pact exempting those returning to their registered base."
The long answer is, if you have been following European and Turkish politics in the last few years, you would see that Turkey is getting closer and closer to Russia (the F-35 debacle, getting S400 missile batteries, Turkstream etc). Turkey is also smart enough to play both sides. So, this move (to do nothing) is expected.
Although the country did not illuminate any iconic building in the Ukrainian flags colours, they have been providing Ukraine with cutting edge armed drones and diplomatic support against Russia for a while now.
The official Ukrainian media accounts have been praising the Turkish support since the start of the war.
I wouldn't worry too much about Turkey's place in the history books.
> But Germany is in arrears for many years of not meeting their NATO obligations.
No, they aren't. Spending targets aren't obligations, and there are no “arrears” from them. I know Trump popularized this line as part of his anti-NATO propaganda, but it isn't how things work.
While it is true that the "2% rule" was informal until recently, it is a fact that Europe has decreased its defense spending significantly over the years, from an average of 2% of GDP in the 90s to 1.5% in 2014 when the agreement to go back up to 2% by 2024 was made. In that time, US defense spending rose from 3.1 to 3.4% of GDP. NATO spending targets aren't "obligations" like you say, but don't be surprised when Americans don't want to support Europe's defense so that Europeans, who constantly hate on the US for being "world police", can afford to spend more on social programs. It's kind of sad that the only thing that got the major European countries to start taking their own defense seriously is a neighboring country being invaded.
Ukraine would not exist today and/or if it would exist would not have anything to fight back if it wasn't given to them by the rest of the world.
AKA there would be no war. Would that mean they "lost" yes obviously, that is the reality. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. This is not propaganda I dont pick sides. If you think a pointless war is better, well fine you are doing the propaganda for the warmongers out there then.
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is a free democrat country all people participating in this war are either brainwashed or forced to fight and die for people (dictators) who do not represent western values and have no respect for human lives.
By western standards they are both pretty similar and far from what we would call a democracy. They (both) support terrorist put journalist in jail or let them disappear. If you wanna pick a side fine I dont care but no matter which side you pick its not the moral high ground you probably think it is.
No I dont. And you are deflecting and make up things I didn't say.
Also if you want to fight for a cause go there do it I'd respect that.
What I dont respect is people giving money for something thy absolutely would not fight for.
> No I dont. And you are deflecting and make up things I didn't say.
I'm not deflecting at all. You are posting lie after lie.
> Also if you want to fight for a cause go there do it I'd respect that. What I dont respect is people giving money for something thy absolutely would not fight for.
You don't respect people that fight for their lands but you respect uninvolved parties joining in? Why don't you go there yourself and convince them you are right instead of posting on HN?
I just watches a bit and dont see what point from me this even targets.
I never said anything about who has the right to own which land or anything the like. The woman is correct but how do you help her by donating for war? You dont.
The more money people put into this war the more endangered this woman is.
As I said above this is not about picking sides its about stopping to financially support wars.
The vast majority of the people in Russian and Ukraine are against this war.
Ukraine made some shifty and tenuous alliances with Neo-Nazi militias to expand their ranks. Obviously they're not needed anymore since the entire population is conscripting themselves, so their influence is greatly reduced. I think the deal was made to protect the eastern border but either it didn't work or the Nazis gave up quickly in defense of Ukraine.
It hasn't worked before with Putin but people still believe that if the pressure is strong enough he will change. He clearly doesn't care and no one is going to take power from him.
Edit: It seems like he has responded to other comments but not this one.