This is a very mixed and wrong analysis. It means a broader range of situations. The costs of human driving accidents are higher. That is not in that statement. The frequency of human accidents is higher.
There isn’t a Level 5 system out there that has a lower rate of accidents than human drivers, because (again) no system is being operated as a Level 5 system. There are lots of Level 2 systems that have fewer accidents in the situations where the system is activated than humans do over all situations - but that’s not the same thing. A Tesla isn’t safe for you to just turn on the current version of Autopilot/FSD and climb into the backseat on a consistent and regular basis no matter where you were driving to. That would be incredibly dangerous for you to do. All of the Level 2 systems can handle many driving situations without driver intervention - but none of them are safe to consistently operate with zero driver monitoring.
3 Likes
Others may correct me, but I believe the time period was measured in months, not years. My memory is that they comped most regular posters at the beginning, and handed out “free months” every time you wrote a “Post of the Day” back when they still did that, and may have comped others along the way, but overall there was a noticeable decline in participation during that period. Of course that has been true for other periods too, so there’s that…
The lunatic fringe. I do not trust most drivers either. What do we have close to half a million deaths on the roads per decade. And you are saying fewer accidents but not safe?
The instinctual goal for the machine is perfection…your level 5…but level 2 is safer than the rest of us.
adding do not let levels 3 and 4 confuse you. Level 5 is no human drivers. Long before we get to level 5 we have excellent machines as in now.
No, it’s not. If you’ve got a Level 2 machine, it is not safe to let it drive the car by itself for your entire trip. There may be many portions of your trip where the machine can drive as well or better than a human - but door to door, over a range of destinations, that car cannot drive itself safer than a human. It is dangerous to do so. The levels don’t refer to how good or bad a car is at driving overall, but whether it is capable of driving itself in all situations, or only some situations. There are still situations that a Level 2 car cannot safely drive itself, and those situations can arise at any time - and if you’re not behind the wheel, someone can get seriously hurt.
1 Like
Soldat! Yes, it’s been quite a while since last we met on the boards!
I remember it the same way as Goofy - it didn’t last long. In some ways, they climbed off immediately - they let many (most) of the regular posters have a “free” enrollment, rather than charging their main board content creators for the privilege of creating content for them. Unfortunately, search over at Boards 1.0 hasn’t worked for decades either - so no real way to go back and see how long before they backed off.
Unlike TMF, Twitter’s got lots of A-list celebrities and corporate accounts who will almost certainly pay a nominal amount to keep their check mark: the official account for Burger King or Wells Fargo isn’t going to forego that communications channel for a few hundred bucks a year. So they might be able to collect some coin from this, but certainly lower-level TV personalities or journalists or professors or police department spokesmen or whomever might find that a harder choice.
Nice!
The turn around information transfer between a Tesla car and the Mothership is even faster than I’d imagined!
It appears that even more of the support infrastructure is being rolled out, so that later, L5-FSD will basically be the last piece needed.
Will the TeslaBot also be 24/7/365 connected?
“Faster and faster” indeed!
ralph
1 Like
Al,
Even you are not reading what you write. Even when you highlight it.
Slow down read what you write. Make more sense.
1 Like
I do read what I write. Perhaps if you explained what you think is problematic about my statement?
Remember - the difference between Level 2 and Level 5 systems is that Level 5 autonomy drives in all situations, where Level 2 can only drive itself in limited situations under active supervision. My point was that if you try to use a Level 2 system as if it were a Level 5 system, you will be increasing the danger. Which is why Level 2 isn’t safer than a human driver - it can’t do what a human driver can do.
1 Like
Hi Al
The only reason to keep the checkmark for an established user is to make it hard for people to spoof the account. So there may be 1000 or so companies that won’t care about the $25 a month (or whatever). So that’s $300,000 a year. That won’t move the needle.
Does Howardroark or RJ Mason still post here?
thanks
That’s a pretty awesome family history.
DB2
3 Likes
I expect it’s far more than that. Remember, it’s not just every company - it’s every brand, these days. So P&G doesn’t just have a corporate twitter account (for example) - they’ve got accounts for Crest and Tide and Gillette razors and what have you. Plus thousands and thousands of celebrities and other public figures who will keep that checkmark for the simple expediency of not having to call (or have their publicist call) the media to clarify that no, they didn’t make that awful tweet.
There’s supposedly about 300K verified users. I suspect that a non-trivial number of them will pony up a few hundred bucks a year to keep them. So Twitter will certainly bring in a few million bucks in revenue - perhaps even a few tens of millions. But not enough to move the needle on $13 billion in debt, perhaps.
Nope - haven’t seen either for ages.
I agree totally with Al, every brand needs this. That runs into the 100s of thousands if not a million. But $25 million or $75 million wont move the needle.
Addition, I use LinkedIn, the setup is not the best for finding a job. It is the best for networking. This is where the conversation has me making an analogy. Twitter would get a makeover to be on LinkedIn’s turf. A networking of brands. These makeover on these stodgy older SM are getting into more brittle user interfaces.
While reading this thread, there were a number of points that were worthy of commenting but I think two stand out:
Insurance: Back when people rode on horses or took hansom cabs, there was no such thing as insurance for the rider or pedestrian. If you got hurt, I guess you could sue or lump it (sort of the way that data breaches at credit bureaus and major retailers are dealt with today). Along with the danger of a world full of cars, insurance became a mandatory part of our lives. I have a feeling that, once autonomous cars are proved safer than human drivers, there will be no one to blame and any insurance you wish to carry will be personal in nature rather than to benefit any other party.
Standardization: It is far easier to create autonomous vehicles designed to operate in standardized environments. Today, for example, all traffic lights have the red at the top and the green at the bottom, all cars drive on the same side of the road (select-able by nation) and so on. Standardization of symbols for parking regulations, location of driveways, fire hydrants, cross-walks, edge of the road and so on will be important. As will standard charging plug designs, ways of cars to communicate with each other (indicating planned routes as well as location and vector speed). Cars should carry items like radar reflectors to allow them to be more visable to other vehicles. Traffic systems could be coordinated to optimize traffic flow by timing of traffic lights on a real-time basis.
There are lots of ways to skin a cat (and some are messier than others), but at the end all the firms involved should end up with a skinned cat. I heard a joke once that Peugeot didn’t copy anyone else’s engineering - but more importantly, no one else copied Peugeot’s engineering. OTOH, an Audi driver would have no problem driving a Peugeot.
Just as in network equipment, while every manufacturer claims to have the advantage, the least common denominator works well in a mixed environment by providing better-than-adequate performance.
Jeff
1 Like
I went back and looked. The Fool tried to charge $30/year for message board access in late January 2002. There were around 56,000 posts on the Amazon board at that point (from 6/97). In the subsequent 20 years there were 3,300 more posts. So, they couldn’t get people to pony up for the message boards and they probably cut their advertising revenue in half. I don’t think Twitter will be any more successful.
4 Likes
Sure. That’s why there’s only one mini plug for phones, cameras, razors, dash cams, toothbrushes, counter lights, laptops, tablets, GPS, and all those other small electronics that are sold by the billions every year.
You know, it’s only been about 30 years those things have proliferated, so it’s great that all the manufacturers got together and “standardized” so we wouldn’t have to have 12 different kinds of cables all hanging all over the kitchen counter.
5 Likes
Thanks DB2 the awesome thing is being able to talk to people who actually grew with this country.
Andy
The effort to get “brands” to pony up may or may not be successful, but even if it is a home run it won’t move the needle. Twitter’s external debt is now about $1B a year, and that’s only if Musk doesn’t get paid a dime of interest, dividend, or salary for his equity interest.
The vision has to be multiple many times larger. He’s thinking “WeChat”, which is the universal app used in China for everything from messaging to, uh, twitter, to payments, to Facebook, to gaming, to video streaming.
It seems an unlikely jump from the Twitterverse (especially as populated by politicos and renegades) to a WeChat-ish presence, but apparently anything is possible these days.
1 Like
European Union lawmakers have reached an agreement on legislation that will force all future smartphones sold in the EU — including Apple’s iPhone — to be equipped with the universal USB-C port for wired charging by fall 2024. The rule will also apply to other electronic devices including tablets, digital cameras, headphones, handheld video game consoles, and e-readers. Laptops will have to comply with the rule at a later date.
Given enough time, effort and money these things are possible - and desirable.
Jeff
2 Likes