Notice how they're mad at the video and not the car, manufacturer, or the CEO. It's a huge safety issue yet they'd rather defend a brand that obviously doesn't even care about their safety. Like, nobody is gonna give you a medal for being loyal to a brand.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
8 points (90.0% liked)
Not The Onion
18491 readers
3140 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
These people haven't found any individual self identity.
An attack on the brand is an attack on them. Reminds me of the people who made Stars Wars their meaning and crumbled when a certain trilogy didn't hold up.
I wondered how the hell it managed to fool LIDAR, well...
The stunt was meant to demonstrate the shortcomings of relying entirely on cameras — rather than the LIDAR and radar systems used by brands and autonomous vehicle makers other than Tesla.
If I could pass one law, requiring multiple redundant scanning tech on anything autonomous large enough to hurt me might be it.
I occasionally go to our warehouses which have robotic arms, autonomous fork lifts, etc. All of those have far more saftey features than a self driving Tesla, and they aren't in public.
The tl;dr here is that Elon said that humans have eyes and they work, and eyes are like cameras, so use cameras instead of expensive LIDAR. Dick fully inside car door for the slam.
I thlamed my penith in the car door
As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.
This has been known.
They do it so they can evade liability for the crash.
My 500$ robot vacuum has LiDAR, meanwhile these 50k pieces of shit don't 😂
Holy shit, I knew I'd heard this word before. My Chinese robot vacuum cleaner has more technology than a tesla hahahahaha
Vacuum doesn't run outdoors and accidentally running into a wall doesn't generate lawsuits.
But, yes, any self-driving cars should absolutely be required to have lidar. I don't think you could find any professional in the field that would argue that lidar is the proper tool for this.
...what is your point here, exactly? The stakes might be lower for a vacuum cleaner, sure, but lidar - or a similar time-of-flight system - is the only consistent way of mapping environmental geometry. It doesn't matter if that's a dining room full of tables and chairs, or a pedestrian crossing full of children.
load more comments
(20 replies)
Tesla cars are stupid tech. As the cars that use lidar demonstrated, this is a solved problem. There don’t have to be self driving cars that run over kids. They just refuse to integrate the solution for no discernible reason, which I’m assuming is really just “Elon said so.”
It's even worse than that. Not only is it a solved problem, but Tesla had it solved (or closer to solved, anyway) and then intentionally regressed on the technology as a cost cutting measure. All the while making a limp-wristed attempt to spin the removal of key sensor hardware -- first the radar and later the ultrasonic proximity sensors -- as a "safety" initiative.
There isn't a shovel anywhere in the world big enough for that pile of bullshit.
If you get any strong emotions on material shit when someone makes a video...you have 0 of my respect. Period.
I hope some of you actually skimmed the article and got to the "disengaging" part.
As Electrek points out, Autopilot has a well-documented tendency to disengage right before a crash. Regulators have previously found that the advanced driver assistance software shuts off a fraction of a second before making impact.
It's a highly questionable approach that has raised concerns over Tesla trying to evade guilt by automatically turning off any possibly incriminating driver assistance features before a crash.
Does anyone else get the heebies with Mark Rober? There's something a little off about his smile and overall presence.
I bet the reason why he does not want the LiDAR in the car really cause it looks ugly aestheticly.
It costs too much. It's also why you have to worry about panels falling off the swastitruck if you park next to them. They also apparently lack any sort of rollover frame.
He doesn't want to pay for anything, including NHTSB crash tests.
It's literally what Drumpf would have created if he owned a car company. Cut all costs, disregard all regulations, and make the public the alpha testers.
Beep beep
It was super annoying how scared he acted when he knew it was styrofoam and it wasn't even going to leave a scratch on the car. I would have like it much better if the car crashed into and actual wall and burst into flames.
Instinctively, human brains generally don't like large objects coming to them unbidden at high speed. That isn't going to help things, even if you're consciously aware that the wall is relatively harmless.
"Dipshit Nazis mad at facts bursting their bubble is unreality" is another way of reading this headline.
I believe the outrage is that the video showed that autopilot was off when they crashed into the wall. That's what the red circle in the thumbnail is highlighting. The whole thing apparently being a setup for views like Top Gear faking the Model S breaking down.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why would a car that expensive not have a LiDAR sensor?
Read about this somewhere. Iirc, Elon felt cameras were better than LiDAR at a time when that was kinda true, but the technology improved considerably in the interim and he pridefully refuses to admit he needs to adapt. [Edit: I had hastily read the referenced article and am incorrect here; link to accurate statements is linked in a reply below.]
I don't even understand that logic. Use both. Even if one is significantly better than the other, they each have different weaknesses and can mitigate for each other.
It was always just to save money and pad the profit margins
A LiDAR sensor couldn't add more than a few hundred to a car, surely
They ditched radar at a time when radar only added probably about $50 a car according to some estimates.
It may technically get a smidge more profitable, but it almost seems like it's more about hubris around tech shouldn't need more than a human to do as well. Which even if it were true, is a stupid stance to take when in that scenario you could have better than human senses.
view more: next ›