Hacker News Reader

which, of course, is bullshit. "self-driving" excludes the intervention of a person. The state of a person during "self-driving" should be meaningless.

If it is meaningful, then it's not "self-driving"

View on HN

“It’s also important to be precise about what this is and isn’t. This was not an autonomous driving crash. Tesla does not offer Full Self-Driving on the Semi — it’s still test-fleet hardware, spotted validating sensors in California just days earlier — so the driver was likely in full manual control. A driver falling asleep is a human-fatigue failure, not a software one, and anyone folding this into the FSD debate is confusing the story.”

There are software systems that deal with the consequences of driver incapacity that are not "full self driving".

And talking about that is proper, but the gp is going on about self-driving, which is exactly the sort “confusing the story” that the quote is talking about.

The software systems that deal with driver incapacity are precisely “puts the focus on the truck’s safety systems” that the gp said was a bullshit claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com