Hacker News Reader

Comment by staunch | Hacker News Reader

Not really. Even early on cars were quite fast and priced around the same as horses and a carriage, and without the hassle of dealing with horses. They did tend to break down a lot but were quite usable.

Tesla FSD is much, much worse than just driving oneself when taking into account the risk.

View on HN

How often did horses breakdown? Do you see why someone from 1890 may think it is crazy to drive a car that frequently has a breakdown vs a horse?

Similarly, 130 years from now people will ask "Why would you want to drive your self when there were self driving cars available? And someone else will have to explain that FSD required close supervision and needed interventions between 1 or 100 miles, depending on the driving situations."

Have you ever ridden a horse? They "breakdown" quite often. As soon as mass production of cars started, they were practically superior to horses in almost every way.

If you read the thread you would see that obviously we are not talking about mass production cars. Obviously those are superior to horses.

So you're comparing the very first prototype cars to the technology present in millions of Teslas? Seems like a very contorted analogy and makes no real sense.

Can you just read the thread?

We are specifically talking about people who signed up to be a beta tester.

Yes, beta testers for hardware and software that is in mass production and many years into development. By this stage in the development of cars they were an extremely rational choice over the alternatives.

FSD is not a rational choice over the alternative and its adoption in no way resembles the adoption of cars. The analogy is bunk. But I won't keep beating a dead horse here, I was just trying to explain why it doesn't IMO make sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com