Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvnx | Hacker News Reader

Tesla FSD wont be authorized in Europe, this will be one direct consequence of all of that.

In addition, tariffs will be put on cars coming from the US.

Plus, US is now recognized as a very unreliable partner in terms of defense, that Europe regrets buying their systems.

I have a Tesla with so-called FSD in Europe, and it still feels like it’s ten years away from being road-safe. It can’t even recognize speed limit signs correctly.

I bought this car six years ago paying for the FSD feature upfront, and since then Tesla and their CEO have been constantly lying about it. I’ll never buy another car from this company just for this reason.

I think Musk probably sees the writing on the wall. Tesla’s brand is destroyed in Europe and they can’t ship these promised advanced features in this market. But he doesn’t mind giving up the European market because he’s got a sweet deal at home where his businesses are now part of a 1930s-style union between corporations and authoritarian government. The gains from that arrangement far outweigh the headaches of trying to sell cars globally.

Counterpoint, I helped my father buy a model Y and it helps him do the 2 hour drive to visit his grandchildren. The FSD marketing has been a bit over the top but it’s still the best system by far.

In Europe?

I believe it works better in the US. Elsewhere in the world it’s still practically useless, yet they’ve been selling it for years on the pretense that it’s just around the corner.

Cruise control on a Volkswagen is smarter than “FSD” on a Tesla. It’s just sad for a 7,500 euro feature.

They probably should not have offered it in Europe until they figured it out in their home country. Too many different things to handle in all the different countries.

Yeah but they did, and now the Europeans hate them. They ripped people off and people are pissed.

Don forget that while Musk talks trash about defending freedom, the US government, and astronauts he says nothing about China with whom he has very unique business arrangements (not as strict as most US companies there).

There's already 10% tariff on cars from US imported into Europe. But somehow I have feeling that even if it would be reduced to 0%, it wouldn't make a big difference Cars of US brands are generally terrible, not sure how they fulfill EU emission standards, have poor MPG which with EU gas prices are very expensive in maintenance. Maybe Japanese, Korean or EU brands manufactured US could do better.

They probably fulfill EU emission standards the same way Volkswagen diesels did. (Joking)

Fords are very popular in the UK and my Mondeo hasn’t missed a beat in years. the European models aren’t made in US which speaks volumes

> the European models aren’t made in US which speaks volumes

No wonder; the US tanks could just roll over one of the reasonably-sized european cars...

not to be a contrarian but I'm assuming that's European made Fords? Because, in America, Ford right now leads in total recall expenditures of all manufacturers. It's been an issue of theirs for two or three years now.

Yeah, I meant cars made for US market from US brands. True, that Ford is US brand with strong European presence, but I think the model line is quite different. Jeeps getting more popular in EU, since it's part of Stellantis now (company headquartered in EU), but has engines for European market etc.

Tesla FSD should never have been authorized in the US tbh. The safety record is horrifying. The whole reason Google didn't buy Tesla out early on is because they found out how much of their autonomous driving tech claims were all just marketing. Mercedes-Benz and many other vehicles are way ahead of Tesla on this front but Tesla still goes the most in on marketing this feature

Given the constant promises and slow rate of improvement, there's a high chance Tesla's FSD was never going to be authorised in Europe even absent this.

I think this is true. Given the regulatory environment, it's hard to imagine FSD ever getting approved -- even if it actually does get truly safer than the average driver! Europe does not want innovation. And it will not take the (admittedly non trivial) risks required to have it.

BlueCruise and BMW's systems are both approved. The truth is Tesla is simply behind on self-driving tech. In part due to Musk's insistence on relying solely on cameras without use of radars

Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?”

The US is already effectively saying that.

Yeah when you unilaterally give up your largest bargaining chip, you stop getting any say in what happens.

Which ironically means the US also loses it's leverage. They're already threatening to functionally (if not actually) withdraw from NATO and economically split off via tariffs. The next step is actual invasion, which while sorta-kinda has been talked about with Greenland, probably won't happen.

I can see Trump putting hostile troops in Greenland. Tiny population despite the size, and I think Trump (at least) does not believe Europe would respond seriously.

I don't even know how Europe would respond to that, and I live in Berlin.

Canada… not so much. For all the talk, he'd be absolutely screwed if he tried. If you think Fentanyl is a problem now, wait until it's supplied for free by drones sent by Canadian civilians paying for it out of pocket because they've never heard of the Geneva Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(Harder done than said, of course; if it was that easy to mess with populations, western Russia would be high as a kite right now).

Europe will respond with drastic economic sanctions that will act quickly. Tariffs are slow to make a difference, but EU have prepared what they call an economic “bazooka”, that will very quickly hit US economy if force is used against a member state.

Sanctions, even well targeted ones, as the only consequence for an invasion, seems to me to likely be a risk Trump is willing to take.

Even if the sanctions would include, e.g. all Trump assets (like the Scottish golf course) being seized.

That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.].

Also, france has a first-strike policy.

So even without US troops, europe will be fine.

A sizable part of the population has wanted the US out of especially germany for a looong time now, so those movements have become pretty popular again. I haven't heard "ami go home" in a long time, but right now it's common.

>>france has a first-strike policy.

It's served us well having a member of NATO saying they'll go full-on nuts. One of the best deterrents ever. Thanks France, with love, USA.

> Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment.

Can you provide a source for this? It would be big if true, in particular the Germany claim. I've not heard it and couldn't find things with a quick google search.

Germany is currently already doing nuclear weapons sharing with the US, i.e. they have access to US nuclear weapons though of course with some restrictions.

What you wrote sounds like Germany would be working towards having new nuclear weapons to be produced in Europe without US involvement and shared without US restrictions.

Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1].

The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political framework. My apologies in that case.

[1] https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/nuklearwa...

Thanks, that's helpful! To break it down for others: Germany is considering making a similar deal for sharing with France as it currently has with the US. So it wouldn't really be a (re)armament, more an increase in resilience by not just relying on US for sharing but adding France.

I think that's quite an important difference from your original wording.

It is a significant step away from relying on the US and becoming a self sufficient EU.

> Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment.

Edit: seen your other comment, that clarifies: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/merz-consider... -- this is already a surprise to me, even though it is well short of self-made nukes.

France (and the UK) having an independent nuclear deterrent is because they (/we) didn't want to risk someone like Trump when the USSR was still around:

“The General himself had asked whether we would be ready to trade New York for Paris.” - https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14...

I don't know, I think lately there's a massive flaw in first-strike and MAD policies. Does it ever really make sense to destroy the world and yourself because an ally(Baltic states for example) or even your own state is being invaded? It's certainly not going to improve your situation even if the alternative is invasion by a foreign power.

A powerful conventional army capable of proportional response is the only realistic deterrent.

The purpose of MAD is to never have to launch a nuke.

The entire point of the doctrine is that any sane person in charge of a country('s military) would never risk getting their own country nuked just to attack another country, so having nukes on your side means that no one else will attack you.

This...does somewhat break down when we end up with people in charge of nuclear countries who are not sane.

Does it ever really make sense to destroy the world and yourself because an ally(Baltic states for example) or even your own state is being invaded?

Certainly something for the invader to think about, isn't it.

The US has basically said that. It doesn't matter though, because at the end of the day, dramatic foreign policy shifts and realignments only make the U.S. even less attractive as an ally and a partner. Decades of relationships are being strained in the attempt of mending ties with a state that never really did much to advance America's interests in the modern era. And it could all be completely undone in four years. The whip lash of back and forth, radical shifts in policy, are as damaging as the acts that directly alienate America's global partners.

Bidens aid undoubtedly moved the needle, but that’s over and from what I’ve heard weapon deliveries have already stopped.

So I guess my question is aren’t Europe already by themselves?

Trump can still make things worse, e.g. explicitly saying "If Putin invaded Estonia, US would stay out of it" or things like this. He hasn't said that (I hope) so there's still some strategic ambiguity - i.e. it's not clear for Putin if Trump is just uttering empty words re letting Europe go or whether he would in the end do defend.

That's not a problem, US is doing that, effectively marginalizing the importance they will have in the future.

This is already the expectation from our leaders. It is the belief of a good % of EU leaders that, if Russia were to push into Poland and the Baltic states, and Article 5 was invoked, the US would not respond. Or at least not without some Versailles Treaty-level extortion, as they're trying to do with Ukraine.

> Will this really happen? Or will the US prevent Europe from doing that by saying “then defend from Russia all by yourself?”

If push came to shove, the only ally Ukraine needs to equal Russia (as it is today) is Poland.

They'd rather not have to as it would be expensive, but Poland could match 100% of current outside assistance for Ukraine[0] for a smaller fraction of their GDP than Ukraine itself is currently spending on the war[1].

The USA and Russia agreeing with each other to carve up Ukraine would be a much harder battle.

Well, it would be harder unless DOGE actually does make good on the claim of $2T cuts, because the only way of reaching $2T without touching the "mandatory" budget (mandatory = social security etc.) is to delete the entire armed forces and the CIA (and basically everything else) and just under half the interest payments on the loans, which in turn means they'd have no power to carve anything up.

[0] $380bn over the first 2 years according to Wikipedia, so lets say $190bn/year

[1] Ukraine plans to spend ~$53.7 billion in 2025, about 26% GDP

Poland's GDP is $915, 26% of that would be $237.9 billion / year.

Oh, we're already looking at the likelihood of Trump arming Russia and joining the war on the side of Putin. But for some people, although probably a minority, that just increases the resolve. They simply will never be part of something like this: https://bsky.app/profile/doctoroxford.bsky.social/post/3liqw...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com