Hacker News Reader

> It's perfectly reasonable for regulators to adopt a "wait and see" approach to outlandish claims about safety and self-driving technology

No, it is not. If there are things that you do not "wait and see" with, it's safety out in the public. What's next, Boeing developing a new plane and rolling it out to the public without any sort of controls if it doesn't fall apart or try to crash itself because Boeing are negligently incompetent?

Crypto, sure, what's the worst that could happen? Medical tests? Sure, as long as they're double checked initially. Juice making machines? Sure.

Multi-ton vehicles that can easily maim or kill innocent bystanders? Hell no, why would you beta test that in public?

You allow testing in public because currently there are tens of thousands of people dying every year and reducing the time before everyone has safe self driving by even a single year will save ten thousand lives. So unless you think this policy will actually kill many thousands of people or think that banning public testing won't slow down self driving by at least a year then we should allow public testing.

It's absolutely so insane that regulators would allow a vehicle with more advanced cruise control be used on public roads when previously there were never any crashes or injuries. Weren't things so much better before Tesla came along and invented adaptive cruise?

A Tesla Model 3 with FSD isn't a greater hazard on the road than a regular Ford F150, and we allow those.

> regular Ford F150, and we allow those

And maybe you shouldn't, that thing has worse visibility than an actual tank.

> Tesla Model 3 with FSD isn't a greater hazard on the road

It's the same as with the Boeing MCAS really. Is the "F"SD capable of crashing the car into another car or pedestrians? What is its rate of failure? If the answer to the first question is yes, and the second isn't negligible, it has no place on public roads.

Wrong question to ask. The actual question is whether the FSD car crashes more than the average alternative. That is what determines whether it should be allowed on the road, holding Tesla to a higher standard than all other manufacturers because you have a bad association with the brand would be ridiculous and petty.

What here causes you to say that Autopilot doesn't behave as advertised? It does exactly what it says it will do, steer and brake the car while a human driver supervises and is responsible for the operation of the car.

https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-101D1BF...

> DMV accused Tesla of misleading automotive customers with claims about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving with numerous false statements. One example: “The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.”

"Designed to" is a fun weasel.

That is not a false statement. "No action required" is different from "no supervision required".

> "No action required" is different from "no supervision required".

Supervision is an act so if it is required then an action is required.

It’s literally called “Full Self Driving” but cannot operate without human supervision according to the fine print. If you don’t think that is false advertisement then I feel sorry for the people who have to work with you on a daily basis who need to parse every one of your statements with a lawyers attention to detail

Isn't it simply support for full self driving it claims to have? Not actual self driving as it currently stands.

It’s not full self driving if it requires supervision. There isn’t support for it by definition. Do you really think the name isn’t misleading?

But this is a false advertising claim. It's not reasonable for regulators to adopt a wait and see approach on false advertising. False advertising is not innovation and has no positive value.

Tesla has repeatedly claimed that the cars on the road today have all the necessary sensors for fully autonomous coast-to-coast self-driving, and that it will be made available via an over-the-air update before the end of the year (which year? all of them). Had Tesla delivered on FSD -- even a year or two late -- it wouldn't have been false advertising.

> Regulators waited to see if the crypto industry could deliver the promised value to society. If crypto is useful then it can be made to fit within the regulatory framework. If crypto is just a facilitator of fraud and ponzi schemes then harsh regulatory action is justified. Crypto largely has not delivered on its promises, and now the wheels of justice have started grinding.

the moment it was regulated like a security, it prevented anyone from using bitcoin/shitcoin as an actual currency.

People started using crypto like a security (or gambling token) first, then regulators followed. It was never used widely as a currency. It’s not a good one due to its slow transaction times and extreme volatility.

it was initially used as a currency, yes. Then gamblers and bankers thought they could make a buck on it. Then it got treated like a security, which locked it in. Don't need to hear a hoot about TX times since my ACH takes days to clear, thanks!

If it's taking days to clear that's an issue with your bank, change banks.

https://www.nacha.org/rules/expanding-same-day-ach

Note the following

> The precise timing of ACH file processing schedules, including this new third Same Day ACH processing window, are not set in the Rules, but instead are determined by each ACH Operator.

Note that your bank is acting as the ACH Operator.

funny thing with crypto is there's no bank needed! No wonder the Usurers wanted to shut it down

There's still a bank, it's just you.

You're now responsible for customer service, security, compliance, liability etc. that banks have entire departments for.

Which does suck for people that wanted it to take over the world as a medium of exchange but when everyone interacting with crypto behaves like it's a security it becomes one.

Things don't become securities just because people speculate on them.