crca

Very true. Tesla has done a lot to try and make it clear to drivers that they must remain vigilant - in this particular case it sounds like the driver ignored several auditory tactile warnings to resume control of the vehicle, in addition to the standard warnings when Autopilot is activated. Short of changing the name I think they’ve done everything they can to manage expectations for Autopilot once you’re in the car, but humans don’t always work like that.

Tesla publishes their safety numbers in terms of accidents per x millions of miles driven. If you believe their numbers then Autopilot in its current configuration is clearly safer than a purely human operated vehicle. Having driven on Autopilot for about 85% of the total time I’ve spent in a Tesla, its been a life changer. But obviously YMMV.

It really sucks that this specific interchange has cost so many lives - and it’s apparent that there’s some frailty of the code that makes autopilot vehicles more susceptible.

In general when it comes to crashes on Autopilot, it’s important to keep perspective. If you take your hands off the wheel and look at your phone for 6 seconds in any other car you’re going to have a bad time. On Autopilot, it took a confluence of bad road design, poor road maintenance, and an unlikely software fault to initiate a crash.

New job, likely back to AZ since my industry is booming there too, and cost of living is much lower. Also considering WA because family.

I moved to SoCal from Arizona about 1.5 years ago for a job, and I plan to leave within the next 6 months. The most striking aspect of living here is the incongruity between taxes/state spending and the general despair of the average Californian. Lots of natural beauty here but I can get better quality of life and keep more of my money somewhere else.

Demand for software folks is so incredible (anecdotal), it’s hard to see salaries falling anytime soon. As a mechanical guy, I envy the job selection. Software jobs outnumber mechanical 10:1

As an ugly person I have a higher chance of scoring a date with someone attractive using this photoless site than I would have otherwise. Seems like a win.

I’ve never owned a truck before, mainly for economic/environmental reasons, but I am extremely interested in an electric truck. I’ve decided to order the Cybertruck over the Rivian, primarily for 2 reasons:

1) Tesla has a massive charging network that is expanding rapidly

2) The Rivian starts $30k+ higher than the Cybertruck

It’s in the same weight class as the F250 but it’s roughly the same dimensionally as an F150. Batteries are heavy.

What’s the incentive for attractive people? Why would you voluntarily give up a competitive advantage in a highly competitive market? If you’re ugly like me this is great.

It’s fascinating that “breathability” appears to increase as mean humidity increases.

In the end, the numbers are great until you accidentally wash your coat with detergent!

No reason to be concerned as long as local laws are being followed, which it sounds like is the case. Below 400ft above ground is fair game for everyone, as normal air traffic does not fly that low, making it perfectly safe.

Sad but true. The Goodyear blimp is a regular target of some trigger happy folks. If it flies it probably gets shot at least occasionally

A 6ft fixed wing drone could fairly easily achieve what’s described in the article if it was really a loiter, not a hover. A multirotor would be an engineering feat.

Right? At that point you’re trading off between useful payload and batteries. I’m wondering if maybe they’re witnessing a loiter pattern, and misrepresenting is as a hover. These likely aren’t aerospace Engineers giving quotes here.

Whatever they’re doing out there, it sounds like a lot of fun. Considering that they seem to be following the letter of the law, I’m fairly certain this is some sort of commercial operation. I can see a defense contractor using a large multirotor craft to test some new payloads, like night vision optical or IR sensors. If the 30 minute hover is to be believed, they must be a multirotor of some sort.

You’re manufacturing a car either way aren’t you?

77% of semi truck routes are 250 miles or less, a distance easily covered by today’s EV technology.

Here’s a comprehensive study from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl...

That’s pure fiction. Even large batteries (100+ KWh) pay for their manufacturing emissions within a few years.

You recapture CO2 at the expense of increased fossil fuel consumption due to lower payload capacity. Is this really better than just going straight to electric transports?

Edit: Assuming you can fuel the trucks with the product of the CO2 to fuel conversion, is it still better than electric?

Airships don’t make sense for commercial travel. But they make a lot of sense for transporting cargo, specifically to regions that are difficult to serve by road or rail. LM has had a scalable, deployable system for years but no one has pulled the trigger on actually buying it yet.

I work for a non-FAANG Fortune 100 company that just implemented a 4/10 schedule after being 9/80 for a number of years. These are the perfect kinds of symbiotic moves where everyone benefits - employees get more time for their lives, employers save operating costs, and the environment saves a day of commuting from thousands of people.