HN user
I suspect this is the same hyper-vigilance a spouse gets when the other is driving. Somehow I can go 20 years without an accident but everytime the spouse is in the car it's not the same as 'their' driving so they constantly feel the need to backseat drive and press the imaginary break. Not saying Tesla driving is perfect but it's better than a lot of drivers I know.
He also said at the event that all Teslas would have the same robotaxi features.
Because most Uber rides are 1-2 person and a car designed to be smaller is cheaper.
Autonomy is solved. It will have hiccups/mistakes, but fewer than a human driver makes. The lack of steering wheel is solved by having support drivers who can work it remotely when the passenger presses a 'help' button or similar.
If you believe that is free speech, post your SSN, phone number, and address here right now, or would you be fine if i posted them for you?
You must realize this document doxxes JD Vance. Including birthdate, phone number, most of SSN, his home address, criminal history, etc. The dude will have to move now.
How is the vice presidential candidates social security number, phone number, and home address in the public interest?
Doxing someone is not free speech. Documents aren't just 'hacked documents' when they include private information.
I disagree that a'99%' level won't get good enough for legal liability. Let's say normal human drivers make an error once every 10 miles, but Tesla's FSD makes an error once every 100 miles. The obvious choice is Tesla FSD even though it is not 100% perfect, and in fact it is 10 times better than a human driver. They might even make it illegal to drive without FSD once it becomes widely available. In the end all the speculation about how good it is or can be means absolutely zero because the results will be created in the end by insurance companies or Tesla, which has it's own insurance company. If it actually is causing more crashes, insurance companies will start charging higher rates, less people will buy Tesla's etc. But we aren't seeing that, with FSD already out there, the insurance premiums for Teslas are not skyrocketing to cover all the accidents. I sort of glossed over this but Tesla also provides insurance which guarantees at least one market participant in FSD, if they cannot make money insuring their own cars FSD will fail, if they can make a profitable insurance company insuring them then FSD will succeed.
Because it was created by/for the movie studios. Everything else is just unintended consequences.
The title here is click bait. The article actually just says they changed the way FSD is worded, it is still offered.
How long have you been a landlord? If it's so easy, everyone would do it.
Excessive profits are actually the catalyst for competition. THe cycle of capitalism and free markets looks like this: earn excess profits -> people build more supply -> prices come down and excess profits dry up -> people stop building -> earn excess profits. When you fix the 'prices come down and excess profits dry up' all you get is people stop building.
Right, but we are relying on what the 'driver said.' Anyone who has been involved in an accident knows the other driver will lie through their teeth to avoid responsibility.
Mayba a dumb idea, but given we have regenerative braking on cars, why not harness the heat energy produced while landing to store and/or use the energy generated for whatever mechanism that might help counter the heat.
This article was 5 hours old at the time I'm viewing it and the bug is supposedly already fixed per the article itself. So yea, seems like this was probably fixed within 5 minutes of anyone noticing.
We have had pneumatic tubes as well since 1799 and they've been used by many companies in the past. The only thing novel about the idea was the scale and technology behind scaling it.
Might I add the other articles suggested by this author you call credible are titled "Elon Musk is a Racist" and "Elon Musk wants to relive his start-up days. He's repeating the same mistakes"
I am judging the author on this article alone and it is not credible. Maybe he just got emotionally charged for some reason or is looking to build an audience by getting the clicks that come with hating on a popular person. I think objectively it is glossing over the fact that Musk has nothing to do with the current Hyperloop project. Musk has done nothing but put free research into the world then this author makes a very grande assumption that he released free research out of some evil conspiracy that releasing free research would make governments stop building trains. Not only that but its been less than 10 years since that was idea was released and the author speaks as if its been tried and failed everywhere. I don't see how much less credible the author could be.
In this case he hasn't done anything except release an idea. As the saying goes, Buyer Beware. Musk gives out a free idea and people are mad at him for it? If anything they should be mad at themselves for investing in it when Musk literally said he won't invest in it himself.
Just a Musk hate porn article with zero substance behind it trying to get clicks by naming one of the richest and smartest people in the world. These are popping up more and more since he purchased Twitter. Somehow the $400M Hyperloop One project that Musk didn't fund, operate, or touch fails and he's being blamed for it. Don't blame the cities that make a simple train cost $10B, don't blame the investors who spent $400M on the problem, blame Musk, the guy who released a free open source design, how rude of him.
Other people being their watch dealers though. The people who have an agreement with them on things like how they can be sold and at what price.
I think Musk got it right when he posted on X that NPR's own 'about' page said "federal funding is essential"
The way to enforce it is with with monopoly or collusion rules. Google has 39% of all digital advertising worldwide according to a quick Google search. However, I think digital advertising is too broad to even be considered a single category - you should have digital advertising of images, text, video, sound, and so on. Television and radio are different categories, why would you not do the same online? They have the capability to be a monopoly or collude with enough companies to exert monopoly power that they can abuse in some of those categories. Combine this with the fact that they receive special legal protections from liability for user posted content. Their protections against user content should be less if they are editorializing or treating content differently the content. I don't think they should be liable for user posted content, but they should have a responsibility to treat content equally, subject to fines. If they are going to demonetize or ban Russell Brand for a unverified news story, then if their CEO or even the president of the US receive an unverified news story against them (as the president has), they should get the exact same treatment. This is because rules enforced unequally harm content creators and users. The harm comes by way of lying to people. If every person who likes the color blue is getting demonetized, without notifying users of the rule, but every person who likes the color red gets promoted up, a user would be tricked into thinking the whole world likes red. That harm is tangible enough when it comes to important or political topics to deserve fines. The harm coming from not explicitly saying your rules. We protect a consumer from tobacco by forcing them to tell the truth about the product. THe same goes for tech. I'm sure some will say well these kind of lies aren't that bad, but they are, these are peoples lives and for many their source of income and to get treated differently on a whim tricks the content creators (essentially employees) as well as the users.
Only in rare circumstances does a price increase kill something. More often will a company die because they don't increase prices when needed.
Bonds are perfectly safe investments when the normal consideration of safety is that you cannot lose money and you know your exact return through maturity. Can you miss out on better investments, ofcourse. The only issue is investing someone else's money into bonds - because they are the ones to decide when the cash is needed, not you. But I'd be shocked if at any given time at least 90% of cash is not invested in someway. You only want to keep what you need immediately out of investments.
Leaving the link open for more than 7 days requires PRO and if you want to password protect the link you also need PRO. Pretty stupid in my eyes that that doesn't come with it.
There is a huge huge hunger for a new platform without all of YouTube's issues. Even today floatplane was launched as a subscription service for each creator which has zero recommending algorithm. I think a lot of the failures of others to get a platform is their lack of commitment to making it a social platform. YouTube in the early days has all sorts of social aspects like a messaging system, create playlists from other people's videos, and rather than just a 'trending' or 'popular' and 'news' tab it had like 20 or more categories of popular where if that category had only small amount of views creators would try to make a video in that category . I'm pretty sure the videos were manually flagged but they worked. Now they still do it but their algorithm flags everything and it just sucks. I'm missing tons and tons of features that no longer exist but it feels like the social part is what made YouTube.
yep
yea thanks. Got my wires crossed there