Auto pilot is pretty good at driving within the same lane. Just like a plane pilot needs to do the more complicated stuff like take off and landing, one can expect the same with autopilot (just changing lanes and stopping at lights or stop signs or turning).
Full self driving is the mislabeled one. Should be “90% self driving”.
Not when that lane is the HOV lane and traffic is going (speed limit + 15mph). You can always spot the white Tesla on 101 doing the speed limit in the HOV lane during rush hour with a mile of cars behind them and a mile of nothing in front.
The driver can set the auto pilot speed to whatever number they want. If they are going the speed limit, it’s because the driver chose to cruise at that max speed.
Full self driving, however, may be limited to the speed limit. I don’t know, since I don’t use it.
Modern planes can land themselves - not sure about taking off. They can land in zero visibility like this. In this case the pilot is expected to double, triple, quadruple check the automated systems constantly, not just sit back and relax. The plane and airport both need special equipment. And the whole thing is a controlled closed system unlike the roads.
Interesting. For marketing purposes, however, I would think almost all people still associate auto pilot with just cruising in the air, similar to cruising on a highway.
You the customer are only a minor part of the grift. In fact, you're an unwitting prop for the grift. The entire point of the grift is the stock price, not your $8,000 or monthly subscription.
What they want from you are comments like this. What they want to do with those comments is to preserve the consensus amongst Tesla bulls that they are on their way to selling robots and renting robot taxis by the ride.
ways of getting money dishonestly that involve tricking someone
So, they got money dishonestly by tricking someone into buying their cars based on the belief that they'd offer real full self driving now or very soon, then they didn't actually deliver that.
In eastern europe (COMECON) during the cold war days, the factories were famous for cranking out products that claimed to do something but did not deliver on the promise. Did they do that because they were run by capitalists?
I find it hard to believe any claim that they weren't capitalists. Almost nothing in the USSR was operated or managed by worker collectives. Nor in China. A handful of people managed the capital of these businesses and profited off them, and the people who own, operate, and profit off of capital investments are capitalists, even if they slap a PR sign up claiming they aren't.
That's why I specified the eastern european countries where many of the factories actually were controlled by the unions. They themselves acknowledged that they were fudging their numbers on a regular basis to get undeserved bonus money for workers.
Thank you for pointing out that this has nothing to do with capitalism.
Humans are dishonest, and implying that that doesn't manifest in other economic systems is willfully and maliciously false, a statement only used by propagandists.
Capitalis does no such thing, the market available to the company does. Every problem people blame on "capitalism" is solvable with appropriate regulation. That's literally the point of regulation, too. Dozens of other countries show you can have a vibrant economy that isn't beholden to a few billionaires.
I think it's obvious that this is incorrect. Part of regulation is to try and curtail grifting. It is not possible to prevent it and is the tendency of the system.
Not being able to eliminate it doesn't mean controlling it is impossible or that we shouldn't try. In any system there will be cheaters, it's how you deal with it that counts. A well regulated economy makes wealth spread around.
> Capitalis does no such thing, the market available to the company does. Every problem people blame on "capitalism" is solvable with appropriate regulation
Too bad that capital owners deeply hate regulation and do everything they can to deregulate everything.
Hell, it doesn't even need to be capital owners. Plenty of bootlickers here on HN that always cry about any kind of government regulation.
> Capitalism makes capitalism hard to appropriately regulate. Concentration of capital means concentration of power.
And yet many countries have a better handle on it than the USA. I just never, ever buy into the whole "it's to hard for America to do a thing that other countries do". I think the US is capable of anything we put our collective will towards, we just need leaders who want to lead the whole nation rather than personal profiteers.
The general trend has been towards deregulation, and capital concentration, almost everywhere for decades. US is just ahead.
The talk in EU is now that we have to ease regulation because we can't compete with countries with laxer regulation. The same race to the bottom has happened in e.g. taxes and labor protections ever since capital controls were lifted.
> I think the US is capable of anything we put our collective will towards, we just need leaders who want to lead the whole nation rather than personal profiteers.
I sure hope so but I can't really see it happening. The whole US political system seems to be FUBAR, largely because the concentrations of capital bought it.
>>> Grifters exist, but not everyone is a grifter.
>> Capitalism rewards dishonesty.
> It's a wonderful thing that no other economic systems reward dishonesty.
This is a whataboutism. To rephrase, "all economic systems reward dishonesty." - That's the point. Saying not every market participant is a grifter is a form of denial.
