Hacker News Reader

Comment by Etheryte | Hacker News Reader

> The machine also automatically outputs a report that details any deviations during printing, removing the need for postfabrication qualification.

Anyone who's previously worked with 3D printing knows that this simply does not pass any kind of a sniff test. Both preventing and detecting internal defects is one of the, if not the hardest problem in 3D printing. There are many large companies trying to find ways to reliably solve just this problem alone. Saying that this method doesn't require any checks after production is simply false.

View on HN

To steelman the argument, maybe they meant "the monitoring system is good enough at catching defects that if none are reported, the engine will probably pass an all-up hotfire test of the engine".

Of course you could do a water or air-pressure leak test on the plumbing pretty easily, and you would likely do that on the first 30 engines...

But if you have confidence in your build process, maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze on (say) a direct contact ultrasound void check on every square millimeter of the part.

It's all about "how expensive is it to run the test" vs "what is the likelihood the test catches an issue" vs "what's the cost of failing while everyone is watching?"

Same reason SpaceX went from dry-dress-rehersals to wet-dress-rehearsals to separate-static-fire-before-launch to hold-down-for-three-seconds-before-launch... The hold-down -before-launch is an integration test that covers everything the previous tests do, so eventually you can start removing redundant tests.

>> maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze

In rockets/aerospace, where the failure of any one of a thousand different parts means instant disintegration, checks are always worth the squeeze. Everyone talks about building rockets on the cheap and accepting a slightly-higher failure rate, but in reality that doesn't work. Even a tiny increase in component fault rates translates to total mission failure once multiplied across thousands of vital parts. The answer isn't to not check but to find ways to more efficiently and more thoroughly check each part. This is only more true if one considers reusable rockets where components will be expected to participate in multiple launches.

> In rockets/aerospace, where the failure of any one of a thousand different parts means instant disintegration

To make matters worse the failure modes don't only affect the launch vehicle itself. A failure of a rocket likely means a total loss of the payload. It also runs the risk of damage/loss of the launch pad, support structures, and hapless down range victims.

Rockets contain a significant amount of stored chemical energy, enough to get the payload mass into a stable orbit of the Earth. If you release all of that energy at once as an explosion it will cause a significant amount of damage. Rockets aren't something to goof around with and make assumptions about safety.

Well, if you build it robust enough, you can test less. Not saying testing is worthless, but sometimes a one-piece that used to be 45 pieces held together by rivets is just, much much more resilient.

It’s a bit of chicken and egg to know if you built it robust enough without meticulous testing of your robustness

Robust enough to not need testing == too heavy to be cost-effective.

this might be 20th-century thinking. if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper

Who pays when the payload disintegrates?

> if you can build enough copies of a rocket cheap enough, maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper

The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure, which can take months (or years if you're Blue Origin). Also, your insurance rates tend to go up a lot when your rockets blow up regularly, which tends to push customers away.

In practice it doesn't work.

Notes: Astra said they were going to pursue this strategy. It was not well received by potential customers and they basically had to walk it back.

Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.

> Doesn't work? It seems to be working great for the industry leader.

What are you talking about? SpaceX's Falcon 9 is arguably the most reliable rocket ever made. They've launched hundreds of times in a row without failure.

If your point is that they're blowing up Starship prototypes, well... they're in the middle of a development program and they're not flying customer payloads.

They blow up a few of the early Falcons, and the explosions got a lot of news coverage.

Now they are launching an landing[1] safetly, but it's boring and the news show a cute puppy instead.

So for most people the rate of explosions vs launching is skewed.

[1] It's crazy that landing rockets is boring now.

>The problem with that idea is that you won't be legally allowed to launch again until you root cause and fix the failure,

Only if you want to launch from US. I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.

> I guess with a 160 countries there will some with the right area for a launch pad with way laxer requirements.

Good luck with that.

Exploding rockets are a very serious public safety risk since they're >90% propellant. Even Russia grounded Soyuz until they root caused its launch failure. From what I can gather China has the same policy, although they're very quiet about any launch failures that happen, so it harder to tell.

from the rocket perspective, sure, but not so much from the perspective of your cargo.

In many cases the cargo is more precious than the rocket so you need reliable rockets.

this works for munitions, but not for payloads that anyone cares about.

Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition to the rocket itself, which is plenty dangerous).

Unless this was something like a cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.

I'm sure even in this case, risking the air-frame of the bomber or friendlies on the ground below is not ideal. Bear in mind cruise missiles are usually launched from friendly territory.

Also, failures might reduce the accuracy of the missile, leading to potential civilian causalities.

>> cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.

If failure isn't a big deal, then the weapon should no have been used. An ALCM costs millions. The destruction it causes is part of a larger battle plan. Should it not work properly then friendly forces may die. Should it work properly then enemy forces may die. The effectiveness of such a weapon is never not a big deal.

If it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile.

If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.

What's the price on weapons technology falling into enemy hands? A dud is a gold mine of data for an enemy's reverse-engineers.

The issue isn’t the rocket: it’s what you have affixed to it (the payload).

The rocket itself is purely a delivery system for a payload after all.

>> maybe disintegrating a bunch of them isn't a showstopper

But it isn't about destroying a bunch of them. Cut corners on checks and you very quickly blow up all of them. Any slight increase in the failure rate of individual parts, saving a few pennies, multiplies exponentially across the entire rocket into total system failure. So the money-saving approach is actually to test test and retest, to cram down the failure rates so low that the cumulative rate become acceptable (about 1%).

Right, because as one of your rocket customers, I'm totally fine with you disintegrating my one-of-a-kind payload

what about payload?

ready to build many Webb telescopes?

So what you're saying is instead of inspecting the parts, you just try to launch the rockets and try again when they explode. Production is your testing ground. Statistically speaking, if a specific design succeeds a few hundred times in a row, it's probably sound? If it crashes, you just push a patch?

Day 1 patches for space travel?

Thanks, I hate it.

> checks are always worth the squeeze

This is simply inaccurate. You can spend months and hundreds of millions of dollars running scanning electron microscopes over all of your parts - no one does this, because it's not "worth the squeeze". The question is where to draw the line, and I have no idea what your opinion is there.

My dad works in aerospace. In no field or world does anyone actually check every little part.

You create a process, you test that process so that you understand its limits, and then you make sure to follow that process.

Now I don't know if 3D printing rocket parts actually works and I have my doubts but this startup is currently testing the process and they will figure out its limits. That's the whole point of R&D.

For context, 3D printing rocket parts is incredibly common, even student teams often use printed nozzles and such. The linked article is about printing a whole engine as a single piece, which is a different beast.

Titan submersible sound detection system vibes.

Exactly what I thought.

I'm not sure how many people know about their 'sound detection system'.

Carbon fiber is a fickle beast and is prone to such failures so that alone worried me, but it was incredible for me to learn that they expected some sort of early warning from cracking.

Do you have a link? Google just gives results about the US Navy detection of the implosion…

https://www.businessinsider.com/oceangate-2020-boasted-incre...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcGrLnzYuU

As I remember he talks about the sound detection thing.

https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid...

Recent one-year-lookback story by Wired.

Well there were probably some early warning signs

The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster

If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.

Tesla autopilot is not supposed to be unmonitored, so any accidents under its control are entirely the fault of the driver. If a driver disengaged 0.1s before impact, they were derelict in their driving.

OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure.

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...

Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control.

This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.

Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding

They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you."

The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment.

Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you.

"Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.

What the name implies if interpreted without any context pales in comparison to the repeated and explicit instructions and warnings given to the driver that clarify that the driver should always be in control

There's a reason "it does what it says on the tin" is generally seen as a positive aspect of a product.

When a product's naming and branding is well aligned with its actual utility, it builds trust with the customer. The customer doesn't feel like the seller is trying to pull a fast one on them.

Tesla chose their branding direction and Elon chooses to make his "optimistic" predictions that have made it sound like true self driving is right around the corner for years. That people take this impression away is no fault of anyone but those that put the impression out there in the first place.

This is simply a mischaracterization of the situation. No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving.

The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be attentive while using the driver assist features.

First, Tesla is not legally required to put the driver in control - they are free to indemnify the driver completely and shoulder all of the liability themselves.

Second, who do you think was ultimately the one at fault for the excessive radiation doses caused by the Therac-25 machines: the machine technician operating the machine or the machine manufacturer? If it isn't the technician then I don't understand your argument because you can just find/replace every instance of driver in your post with technician.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Therac-25 is more like a stuck accelerator pedal. The operator did not command the machine to deliver too much radiation, that happened outside their control.

And you think that a driver commands their Tesla to run into an object when they enable autopilot or FSD?

One is a failure to act as an agent - to control the car and make decisions. Another is a failure to even be a reliable tool - to do what the operator commands. Very different.

Creating Agents is a lot harder.

Coming up with new words and terms in order to escape the comparison smacks of This Time It’s Different. Therac-25 was an Agent for performing radiation therapy - it controlled the radiation machine and made decisions. Autopilot/FSD is supposed to be a tool for the driver and it fails to be a reliable tool by driving into things.

This Time It’s Not Different At All

Autopilot is NOT advertised as being able to drive perfectly on its own, and your disingenuous analogies won't change that.

Agent - Something that makes decisions and actions that are not pre-programmed or predictable. Humans are definitely agents. LLM (eg Chat-GPT) are not quite there yet (they don't take action on their own).

Tool - Pretty much everything humanity has made to date. It does a preprogrammed thing or provides mechanical advantage. But it does not act on novel decisions it is making.

The terms come from an AI safety expert that Lex Friedman interviewed recently. [1]

Tesla FSD is almost an agent, though it asks a human to be ready to take over at any time.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNr6gPelJ3E

Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. They do not have permission to sell a self-driving vehicle for use on public roads.

Secondly, it is already established and disclosed that the driver assist cannot self-drive. This would be comparable to a Therac-25 machine being sold as being incapable of limiting radiation output, and then not limiting radiation output.

There is absolutely no other company in the world where a predictable and disclosed shortcoming of the driver assist combined with the failure of the driver to fulfill their responsibility to be in control, would be blamed on the driver assist program.

Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions.

If a driver is using any driver assistance feature they need to be paying attention all the time. Not only is it stated in all vehicle manuals, it is the intelligent way to use the features given that automated driving is still far from perfect.

Your analogy makes no sense given that the risk is always on the driver whether there are driver assistance features or not.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to remain vigilant when the automated system seems to be doing a great job. Eventually you will become distracted.

Even in accident cases, remember that the Teslas involved are not new - they have had dozens or hundreds of successful drives before the accident.

This is true, but it also falsifies Tesla's naming, promotion, abd advertising of the capability as "Full Self-Driving".

("Self-Driving" alone could be reasonable in certain contexts, but insisting on "Full Self-Driving" is a flat-out lie in plain language. Saying " Alan is fully capable of driving the car." means that he requires zero monitoring and/or intervention; same for the "Fully..." phrase.)

Yup.

It's "we'll take the profits from selling it as something that it is not.".

While simultaneously they take every step to ensure that when things go wrong when it inevitably turns out to NOT be what they claimed, the entire burden and responsibility is not on them, but on you.

More conspiracy theories. The driver assist disengaging had nothing to do with a ploy by Tesla to shift responsibility. A driver taking control of the car 0.1s before impact is a result of inattentive driving.

Like I said in the other comment:

Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions

>>conspiracy theories ... agenda-driven and a result of emotions

No, not even close, dead wrong spurious insults. For many years, I held Musk in very high regard, and you can find I've even posted extensive defenses of him here on HN. My changed views are a direct result of observed behavior.

No, the fact that the driver assist disengages is NOT what I am pointing to as the attempt to shift responsibility.

Tesla is selling and loudly insisting that they can use the term "Full Self-Driving". Tesla advertises and charges(ed?) 5-figure-USD amounts for fully autonomous self-driving capabilities that would allow the cars to be used in competition with Uber/Lift but without drivers. This money was charged for features that were supposed to be available in the previous decade. Yet now, in the middle of the 2020s, there are no such features available.

Moreover, they are so far from delivering such features that your argument is that any accident is fully the fault of driver attention being less than 100%. So, clearly, the features related to "Full Self Driving" or "FSD" do not exist.

Moreover, everything about the actual implementation, including instructions to be always vigilant, UI warnings about no hands on the steering wheel/yoke, alerts to re-engage, auto-disconnect, live data collection so Tesla can prove what mode was engaged, what level of control, etc., etc., etc. all point to the requirement for the DRIVER TO BE FULLY ENGAGED. They also ensure that the situation is such that if the driver fails to be fully engaged, it is the driver's fault/responsibility.

When the driver MUST BE fully engaged

(as you argue and I just documented),

the car is NOT "Fully Self-Driving".

The two conditions are by definition mutually exclusive.

The fact that Tesla is trying to have it both ways is exactly as I said:

They want the profits from the false advertising that it is "Fully Self-Driving", but ensure that when it turns out to be false, all consequences are on the customer.

There's nothing emotional about that fact pattern. I've even said above, that I think it'd be perfectly OK for Tesla to say "Self-Driving" as that does not directly imply that you can fully disengage because the FAD is "Fully" engaged.

I'm not the only one who thinks that language means something, even though Musk does not, and you think that calling out a blatant lie and possible fraud must be emotional.

Sorry for the length, if I'd had more time, I'd have written a shorter post

Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did, when he started challenging the establishment on critical points, like their support for rampant censorship of Twitter and other social media sites (e.g. removing the Hunter Biden story before the election and permanently banning users if they used certain gender pronoun conventions).

No one who drives a Tesla thinks that the driver assist features are intended to or capable of autonomous driving. The naming, whatever you may think of it, is massively overrided by the strongly worded warnings and instructions that are abundantly and repeatedly displayed to the driver, that effectively and unambiguously convey to the driver that they must be engaged while using the driver assist features.

If you want to criticize the naming for being inaccurate even if they argue it's intended to be a forwarding looking statement of aspirations, I would accept that criticism as arguably justified.

But that the driver is fully aware of their responsibilities is beyond any doubt.

Blaming Tesla for its autopilot disengaging 0.1s before impact in a number of accidents is therefore unjustified.

>>Your views on Musk changed precisely when everyone else's did

NO they did not. If I was like you, I'd over-generalize and say that "you are just like every other right-wing nutter who only believes a limited view of the world and must slam any other view, regardless of how disconneced from the facts..."

But I won't. I'll explain that my view changed when Musk went from delivering as much or more than he claimed, as was the case with early SpaceX and Tesla. to massively over-promising and under-delivering, e.g., now nearly a decade late on his FSD, so late on Starship that his first cricumlunar customer already bailed, making inflated promises about AI, lying about OpenAI, delivering Cybertruck a half-decade late and with crappy quality, etc., etc., etc. One particular turning point was when he argued about software engineering in public with one of Twitter's lead engineers, and it was obvious to me (with some background in commercial software) that Musk was nothing but bluster and bullshit; it became clear he is not a master engineer, he's a master manipulator. I have far less respect for the latter.

As you can see, it has absolutely zero to do with whatever 'anti-establishment' carp you are ranting on about. But you seem to enjoy your fact-free life more, so carry on.

Musk has always over-promised. The entirely left-wing establishment news media turned on him when he started criticizing the sacred cows of and growing support for censorship by the political left, which mainstream journalists, unionized as they all are, try to show solidarity with.

All his faults came into laser focus, and a disproportionate share of coverage became negative in its slant.

Nothing in his entrepreneurial strategy changed since 2018. Ordinary people just don't appreciate how ideologically biased mainstream news media is, so are taken in by the change in how they choose to portray him.

> Musk has always over-promised.

Yes he has, we're in agreement.

> The entirely left-wing establishment news media

You opened your mind too far here and your brain may have fallen out.

Have you heard of Fox News and the Murdoch empire? Could you explain how either Murdoch isn't part of the US establishment news media or how it is that he's "left-wing" ?

News Corp and its subsidiaries own well under 10% of newspapers and TV networks in the US, and being outliers as they are, they are incessantly attacked.

Where do you think the media and political power concentrates in the US? The Republican party or the Democratic Party?

89% of cities with a population > 100,000 in the US have a Democrat mayor. All of the public sector unions support the Democrats. All of the news guilds, and most of their members, support the Democrats.

Almost all of academia supports the Democrats. Law firms donate five times more to the Democrats than to Republicans. The political class is intimately linked to the legal profession.

Judge Kathaleen McCormick, who rescinded Elon Musk's $55 billion Tesla compensation package, against the will of the company's board and 80% of its shareholders, worked at Young Conaway before her Delaware Chancery Court Judge appointment.

In 2016, Hunter Biden organized a gubernatorial campaign event for Congressman John Carney, featuring then-Vice President Joe Biden as the guest speaker. The event was held at the Law Offices of Young Conaway in Wilmington, Delaware.

The lawyers who won the lawsuit against Musk thanks to McCormick's ruling are now asking for $5.5 billion in Tesla stock, for their legal fees. Giving to Democrat-allied lawyers and taking from technologists.

>Yes he has, we're in agreement.

I'm not surprised you agree with me on the one negative thing I've said about him. Entirely predictable.

>> Musk has always over-promised.

Arguing that your 'champion' has ALWAYS been a liar — that argument does not mean what you think it means

>>don't appreciate how ideologically biased mainstream news media is,

"The liberal media" is the biggest lie ever. It may once have been the case, and while some still wear liberal clothes, 90% of the news media, including 'local' media, is owned and run by only SIX corporations. While some operations have unions, they are virtually powerless to even slow down massive newsroom layoffs, and the corporations that aren't flat-out right-wing yellow sheets (e.g., Fox, [0]), are nevertheless all-in on pro-'conservative' politics as both the corporations and their owners & leaders dislike being taxed at higher rates.

>> so are taken in by the change in how they choose to portray him.

Right, so all people are mere sheep being "taken in" by the evil news media, except for you... As you rant on in every more circular ways, that becomes less and less convincing, and in fact look far more like you are the one taken in by RW populist rags who flood the zone with lies and opinion designed to flatter your biases.

The fact is that your hero, who we agree always lied, initially delivered some really great advances, and initially had the reputation of an engineering wizard, has in more recent years failed to deliver on decades-old 'promises', and has shown himself publicly to be less of a master engineer and more of a master manipulator. His focus has obviously changed from engineering to social media nonsense.

I can see that from his own writings. I did not need any news media whatsoever to observe this. Many other people also can view this. Except for you.

Consider taking your own advice, stop reading the media, and start going to the actual source data.

And yes, providing many arguments that saying two opposite and mutually contradictory things in marketing vs actual operations is somehow OK, actually convinces us that no, it is systematic lying and definitely not OK. The marketing is fraudulent and the operations are proof of that.

[0] Fox, which settled for $787 million for repeatedly lying about elections, and literally argues in court that no reasonable person would believe their announcers)

>>Arguing that your 'champion' has ALWAYS been a liar — that argument does not mean what you think it means

He's not my champion. I generally like him, but disagree with him on some issues. I defend anyone against clearly agenda-driven attacks, whether I support them or not.

>>90% of the news media, including 'local' media, is owned and run by only SIX corporations.

Is that why the media conspired to hide the Hunter Biden laptop story during the elections?

The corporations cannot override their unionized employees, because of labor laws and collective bargaining agreements.

And the corporations themselves are often dependent on the labyrinth of regulatory restrictions inhibiting competition, and government contracts, for their bottom line, so are by no means biased toward political parties that defend free market principles.

>>Right, so all people are mere sheep being "taken in" by the evil news media, except for you...

I think the people who have turned on Musk have been taken in, and I haven't. Naturally I think I'm right. Now what I think doesn't matter. What does is the evidence I provide, like the coincidence of public opinion and news media coverage turning against Musk precisely when he began vocally criticizing positions espoused by the political left, like advocating censorship of views critical of tbe Democratic party, and minority viewpoints on COVID and gender pronoun use, on the largest social media sites.

>>The fact is that your hero, who we agree always lied, initially delivered some really great advances, and initially had the reputation of an engineering wizard, has in more recent years failed to deliver on decades-old 'promises',

Tesla hit sales records precisely before and during the period when the mainstream/establishment turned on him. Tesla became the most successful US automaker in a generation, and for a time, was the most valuable automaker in the world. And all while building only fully electric vehicles.

SpaceX made enormous strides in reusable rockets, with record numbers of launches of Falcon 9, and significant advances on its fully reusable Starship space vehicle, in exactly the same period when you are claiming he was falling short.

Look at this graph of number of space launches per year:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-...

The massive increase in US launches was solely due to SpaceX. To put it another way: the US restoring its leadership in the pivotally important space industry was entirely due to Musk's company.

Sp no, your arguments don't stand to reason. His behavior and performance would not explain a significant portion of the population turning against him.

The establishment, which includes all the left wing news guilds which dominate news media, turning against him for his anti-establishment comments, would.

>>More conspiracy theories.

>>I defend anyone against clearly agenda-driven attacks

Well, you have clearly massively misidentified my comment, from the start to the last comment.

I have no conspiracy theory or agenda. I simply observed, over time, from Musk's and Tesla's OWN STATEMENTS that he and Tesla insist that "Full Self Driving" is a legitimate claim (despite failing to prove it in court and settling to avoid a verdict) and that this is in contrast to the requirement that the driver be '100% in control at all times'.

One of those is a plain language lie. It does not require a conspiracy theory or agenda to point this out.

Yet you are more clearly pursuing your own agenda and conspiracy theories.

I've many times defended Musk on here, but no longer do as I have more information.

In contrast, you just posted this conspiracy theory:

>>like the coincidence of public opinion ... Tesla hit sales records precisely before and during the period when the mainstream/establishment turned on him.

This is not evidence, it is a theory that there is a conspiracy against Musk. Your claim is that it is not real people, but some cabal of unionized journalists (btw, only about 17% of journalists are unionized) that conspired to print lies to turn people against Musk.

You overlook entirely the most likely explanation, which is that Musk's own statements, often designed to be outrageous, speak for themselves.

Musk obviously chose his side and insists on being extremely blatant about it. I've never seen a CEO tell everyone to "Go fuck yourselves" on a public stage, or most of the other blatantly attention-seeking comments Musk has made.

The fact is that Tesla's primary customers are environmentally-conscious, which goes with more left-leaning politics, yet Muck choose the right-wing side, who typically deny climate change issues and hate electric cars.

He can have his opinions, but as he's not a politician, it was an extremely stupid business move to broadcast them so strongly. Or, maybe it's brilliant and he'll sell more Cybertrucks the more truck-driving RW customers than he'd ever sell Model-Xs to LW customers. But it does not look like it's working out that way.

But zero of this requires a conspiracy of the 1/6 of journalists who are unionized.

And it's laughable to accuse me of being media-agenda driven when I haven't lived in a household with a cable subscription for 2+ decades, and I treat all news media with great suspicion and work hard to find more accurate sources. While I've defended Musk on HN for his innovations at SpaceX, I also noticed that his executives have said that they have a team dedicated to handling Musk, creating a bubble around him to insulate the organization from his toxicly disruptive influence. There are thousands of other examples.

As the famous quote goes: "When the facts change, I change my mind; what do you do?"

>I have no conspiracy theory or agenda. I simply observed, over time, from Musk's and Tesla's OWN STATEMENTS that he and Tesla insist that "Full Self Driving" is a legitimate claim (despite failing to prove it in court and settling to avoid a verdict) and that this is in contrast to the requirement that the driver be '100% in control at all times'.

If the misimpression created by the marketing term is corrected by the explicit and repeated warnings and instructions given to Tesla drivers, then the marketing term cannot be blamed for inattentive driving.

>This is not evidence, it is a theory that there is a conspiracy against Musk.

The coincidence is the evidence here.

>The fact is that Tesla's primary customers are environmentally-conscious, which goes with more left-leaning politics, yet Muck choose the right-wing side, who typically deny climate change issues and hate electric cars.

So you are, in fact, supporting my point, which is that the attacks on him intensified due to the political views he expressed.

Like I said:

"Both Musk and Tesla are far from perfect, but the lengths that people go to to attack them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions"

Trying to blame Autopilot accidents on Tesla instead of inattentive drivers is example of that.

>btw, only about 17% of journalists are unionized

Which major newspapers and TV networks in the US are not unionized?

>He can have his opinions, but as he's not a politician

In a democracy, everyone is supposed to express their political opinions.

the lengths that people go to to defend them is obviously agenda-driven and a result of emotions

I only go to great lengths because I can see that the attacks are driven by an agenda that is not impartial.

And I've articulated why I think that in this case.

You don’t just get a pass, especially not when you actively are promoting it as soon™ being able to drive you without any input whatsoever. Robotaxis and the like have been promised for years now, it’s not like Tesla isn’t actively claiming the technology is basically around the corner.

In short, saying it’s “Full Self Driving (Supervised)” is not really enough.

You get a pass because nobody who drives a Tesla can reasonably believe the vehicle can drive itself. That it can't fully drive itself is fully and adequately disclosed.

So, what is the difference between your argument and this more concise version?

The falsehood of the "Full Self-Driving" claims are generally known to existing customers, therefore it is ok to lie to new customers.

I'm challenging the original comment, which blames Tesla for accidents caused by drivers being inattentive.

The name of the driver assist program even if inaccurate, did not mislead any of those drivers, as any driver who uses these features is amply informed/warned that the features do not provide autonomous driving and don't obviate the requirement of the driver to remain fully engaged at all time.

Since your core point is that Tesla requires drivers to be fully engaged 100% or the time, it is an odd way to challenge someone blaming Tesla by responding to me pointing out that Tesla's advertising is fundamentally dishonest.

Tesla are trying to have it both ways. They ADVERTISE and promote that it is "FULL Self-Driving" and "FSD", while simultaneously doing everything post-sale to ensure the driver is responsible for failures of FSD.

I wasn't originally in that camp, but your arguments are convincing me that Tesla does in fact bear some responsibility for the crashes, despite the facts you point out that Tesla post-sale promotes driver attention.

Despite all Tesla's efforts towards driver attention, Tesla ALSO broadcasts conflicting messages which do give the impression that FSD is more capable and safe than it is. What percent responsible? I don't know, but I think it's above 5%, especially for new drivers, who have been more exposed to the sales pitch and less to the documentation.

Either the advertising misleads the driver or it does not. Whether the advertising might mislead some buyers, investors and unconnected members of the general public, is orthogonal to whether drivers are being misled, and thus whether accidents caused by their unattentiveness should be blamed on Tesla.

There is no credible case to be made that any Tesla driver is unaware of Tesla's stance, that the driver assist features cannot provide autonomous driving and that the driver must always remain engaged.

The warnings are absolutely clear and reiterated so they could not be missed. If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.

> If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.

I mean, you do realize that there is a class action against Tesla for misleading customers with the names of their products, right? This is actively being fought in the courts. That alone should prove that people feel misled by the marketing.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-must-face-vehicle-owner...

> There is no credible case to be made that any Tesla driver is unaware of Tesla's stance, that the driver assist features cannot provide autonomous driving and that the driver must always remain engaged.

You’re free to believe what you want, but this is far from the closed case you are portraying it to be. In short, that’s just like your opinion man.

Anyone can bring forth a class action lawsuit. Nothing has been ruled on that, so it doesn't support that claim.

But more to the point: being misled into purchasing it is entirely different than being misled while driving it, and blaming an accident on thinking the auto assist didn't need their attention as a result.

That is not what the lawsuit is alleging.

It stands to reason that if there was anything approaching a credible case that any driver thinks they don't need to be engaged while driving a Tesla, because of misleading naming of its driver assist features, some law firm somewhere would have organized a lawsuit on behalf of accident victims by now.

So the evidence supports my position.

Your argument was, and I quote,

> If you want to challenge that notion in court, be my guest.

I pointed out that it is, in fact, being challenged. Right now. And has already been several times before, with Tesla settling out of court specifically to prevent any repercussions from a guilty verdict.

If you wanted to talk about successful cases, then that should have been your argument. At this point, you’re just moving the goal posts.

The notion that no Tesla driver got into an accident because the name of the driver assistance program misled them into thinking they could be inattentive while driving has not been challenged in court. That lawsuit doesn't allege that, and if it did, I would wager money it would lose.

You're completely right, but unfortunately people place too much trust in it.

It reminds me of the data entry days. You can have someone type a million table rows into a form and catch all typos but if you give the same person the same data and the same time without having them type it they find non of them.

Is there data, that indicates Tesla did this, or something like this?

Kind of? Autopilot has a habit of disengaging right before crashes [1]; which may not be a bad thing, your seat belt also has a habit of not being adjustable in a crash (dunno if an ICE engine will turn off).

Mix that with Elon had a habit of commenting on crashes [2] to keep good marketing about FSD. And like who cares if it was "Auto lane control" vs "Autopilot" that let somebody drive the car from the passenger seat but Elon made sure to let everybody know "Autopilot" wasn't engaged.

[1]: https://www.motortrend.com/news/nhtsa-tesla-autopilot-invest...

[2]: https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/elon-musk-says-autopilo...

Your second link makes it clear that no version of self-driving was on anywhere near that particular crash, so that does not support the above comment at all.

If the only true part is that the system disengages at some point, then "kind of" is much too generous for that kind of rumor-mongering.

But if I ever see some real proof I'll spread it far and wide.

I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper.

The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric.

On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.

There were plenty of early warning signs. In a previous dive back in 2019 they had professional submersible designer Karl Stanley on board, who later wrote an email to OceanGate about the worrying cracking sounds he heard.

> "What we heard, in my opinion ... sounded like a flaw/defect in one area being acted on by the tremendous pressures and being crushed/damaged," Stanley wrote in the email, a copy of which has been obtained by CNN.

> "From the intensity of the sounds, the fact that they never totally stopped at depth, and the fact that there were sounds at about 300 feet that indicated a relaxing of stored energy /would indicate that there is an area of the hull that is breaking down/ getting spongy,"

It's more impressive that the sub continued to work while giving warning signs for 4 years.

https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oce...

They seem to have totally recreated the hull using a different manufacturing method in late 2020/early 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid...

They seem to have run fewer tests on the new hull, though. From the outside, it looks like one of the lessons they learned from earlier tests was that tests can create bad news, so if you're optimizing for the best reports back to investors you should stop running tests.

What does "vibes" mean here? Are you saying that this is a comparable level of negligence, or that it simply personally reminds you of the former case, and nothing else? There are better words available than "vibes".

I'm not vibing with your distaste for the vibes.

I too am doubtful. The market is littered with failed 3d printed products, all failed because the designers know nothing about real-life product design or because their deigns are too brittle or melt too easily in heat.

Just out of curiosity, is your 3D printing experience on the consumer side? Or the professional/commercial side?

There are various types of non-destructive testing that could be integrated into a larger scale 3D printer for post-production analysis, and it's a direction I'm surprised there hasn't been more movement in.

I’m curious about why that is. Naively, it seems like printing layer by layer would allow for a lot of inspection. Maybe even photograph each layer as you go?

And then test and go back to see what kinds of defects were apparent in the photos.

It's just that it's very easy for deviations from what the sensors see to occur. In traditional 3d printing, this can be stuff like a sensor switch wearing out, maybe physically moving slightly, being temperature sensitive, maybe the frame has changed shape slightly due to heat, moving the sensor a little, maybe something in the microcontroller happened to cause a slight delay in reading the sensor, or looseness developing in the motion system, or something being slightly out of alignment, or some component in the extrusion system experiencing momentarily higher friction and so on.

The layers are really thin, so manually inspecting them would slow down the printing process drastically. Then, ultimately, what even can you do if there's a defect? The layer has been laid already. If material is missing somewhere, you could have the machine go back and add it, but if there's excess material somewhere, or it's in a form that the machine can't fix, there's not a lot to be done, particularly in applications like rocketry, where your structural strength tolerance are very tight.

I know for certain that defects in the powder layer can be fixed in binder jet by redoing the recoater. There has been talk in the research world about being able to fix errors in L-PBF but I’m not sure they’ve gone past the research stage. The big point is that you can know a part might be out of whatever your acceptance criteria might be.

>It's just that it's very easy for deviations from what the sensors see to occur.

right, but this is a problem in any modern precision machining, and it has been (mostly) conquered to a degree that we can produce very precise things in an almost entirely automated fashion.

>If material is missing somewhere, you could have the machine go back and add it

laser sintering is easier to audit than a normal fdm style print in a lot of ways if you care to take the time to do it. The process can be paused fairly easy with the right machine and right environment, the product can be weighed mid-process, it can have all sorts of vision and laser metrology done to the product midway through production; whatever -- and the mid print failure rate is astronomically lower than extrusion based methods.

it doesn't seem that unbelievable to me.

We aren't talking about deposition 3d printing for metal parts as it needs to get to the oven and precision is...not it's strong part

The most common form for metal precision production is powder bed fusion

You deposit a whole layer of powder and a laser melts the desired parts

Peregrine from Oak Ridge National Lab does exactly this. Lots of other research papers about it too.

You are correct, and with the current metal AM techniques (DED, SLM), you can also take thermal imaging of the melt pool throughout. From this you can a pretty accurate picture of the weld quality across the whole volume.

I'm not sure that's sufficient to eschew any other non destructive testing, but it is great information.

> Maybe even photograph each layer as you go?

Differential cooling is an issue, and is one that isn't apparent until the layers have already been printed.

If their process actually works, whatever they are doing isn't trivial.

If they’re not doing post fabrication validation, then the passengers are…

what's wrong with testing in prod? /s

Nothing. Always Be Testing.

But _only_ testing in prod is bad.

... test dummies.

If any system could measure its own signal to noise accurately, it wouldn't have any noise in the first place.

This is a "truthy" statement that sounds right but is, in fact, false. Radio systems have an easily measurable SNR, but the noise cannot be eliminated.

You can measure is from outside the system itself if you know the original signal. Of course its possible to measure the noise externally if you know what was transmitted.

AFAIK this is incorrect. There exist modulation schemes where the received signal power is evident. For Wifi the signal is usually > 10-100x the noise floor and it is modulated with phase-shift keying. So there is no technical problem with seeing a noise floor, then receiving a much larger signal with constant envelope and calculating an SNR.

ETA: Just to sharpen the point, this is clearest when considering digital noise and error correction. It is easier for error correction codes to indicate a corrupted message than it is to provide the correct message.

That only works if you have an ultra-high-resolution record of isolated noise.

An accurate measurement of signal-to-noise is just some power levels and basic knowledge of the shapes of the signals. It's easy to figure out and doesn't help you read back your data. It helps you configure appropriate transmission settings and doesn't do much else.

It might sound a little wild, but a huge amount of research has been put into getting metal AM parts to be “born qualified.” L-PBF is getting to be a fairly mature technology.

They may be skipping small portions of the post-print qual. Or more likely, they're just more confident that the pieces being created are of a certain level of quality. It's a hype-y statement but they're probably trying to highlight that they're doing some sort of software-defined quals.

Check out Roboze on this. (disclosure: investor). They do a fantastic job with this, and in fact their 3d printing machines are widely used in aerospace and defense.

Yes and innovation curve tends to go down in large companies because of barriers which a startup is not bounded by. This is how future big companies are created.

Very Indian approach. Print a report, and call it a day. :D

You may go further and say the rocket would be built on a proper rocky foundation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com