Hacker News Reader

Comment by KaiserPro | Hacker News Reader

>seems less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue.

if the car is truly autonomous, then no, its failure of a life critical system

if the car is not autonomous, then calling it "Full Self Driving" is a wilful misrepresentation of it's capability. To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) full self drive, means that, it drives it's self, safely. You and I know that's not the case. However the vast majority of people out there don't know it.

Everyone is rightly chewing Boeing out for lax safety standards, but that door didn't kill anyone. If you are going to be annoyed at Boeing, then you need to be absolutely fucked off at tesla.

View on HN

> Everyone is rightly chewing Boeing out for lax safety standards, but that door didn't kill anyone.

The door was only part of the issue. 346 people died in a pair of crashes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302

You are indeed correct, I should have been more specific to exclude those disasters and scoped my comment to be about the recent near miss.

> To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history)

But in this case, which is what the previous comment is talking about, this doesn't apply.

No, it really does.

For example kinder eggs are illegal in the USA, because even though the small(ish) plastic parts are inside a plastic inedible case, too many kids ate the small plastic parts.

Now, the vast majority of people eating kinder eggs, don't eat the toy. However because its reasonable that an unsupervised child would eat the plastic, they were banned.

But.

The point of FSD is that it is safe. If its safe, a drunk person who is behind the wheel, shouldn't be able to cause it to crash, if the FSD is engaged. FSD should fail safe.

but it can't fail safe, it is not "full self drive" and should never have been marketed as such.

However, people's safety is supplemental to large corporation's feelings/profits/liability.

The driver in question worked for Tesla and would be aware to not trust the marketing name of the feature. That's why it doesn't apply.

What? Why? The driver is also a target of marketing, as evidenced by the fact that they owned a Tesla. They aren't personally responsible for, or privy to, the lies of marketing. Employment at a corporation also doesn't grant you intimate knowledge of all parts of the corporate machine, in fact it might indicate that you are more susceptible to the corporate messaging.

This quote definitely indicates to me he was overly susceptible to the corporate messaging: “It was jerky, but we were like, that comes with the territory of” new technology, Bass said. “We knew the technology had to learn, and we were willing to be part of that.”

He should have known better to trust his life to tesla? you betcha.

Doesn't make tesla any less culpable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com