Given the well-known problems with Tesla's Autopilot and (not even close) Full Self Driving, I wonder how many Tesla accidents occurred as a result of driver inattention.
Unfortunately, the study just counted accidents and did not look into what kinds of accidents occurred. It would be fantastic to be able to conduct further research.
Like with anything publicly traded, the price of a share is principally derived from belief. Much of this belief comes from a person projecting where the price will be in the future. With Tesla, many people and institutions projected that that price would increase in the future. Now many of them do not.
Belief in the direction of the price can come from examining the financial fundamentals of a company and the perceived value that it may increasingly generate ("fundamental analysis'). Or it can be speculative, where people believe other people will buy (or sell) more based on observed buying/selling activity ("technical analysis").
With Tesla, many investors were using their own version of technical analysis that far surpassed the valuation that a reasonable fundamental analysis would have derived and even derive today. There was and is a mania, much like there has been and there is for many forms of cryptocurrency.
The recently declining price is likely due to a collective perception that Tesla has been overpriced and, due to recent factors, that the fundamentals that justify the pricing for a share will diverge even further from its recent pricing. From a fundamental level, Tesla was unlikely to justify its recent pricing. An irony is that the earlier mania was so intense even today, after such a pronounced plunge from the start of the year, it likely remains seriously overvalued.
It's unlikely that the rate of improvement, however you estimate it, will continue at the same rate. This is a Pareto effect, with marginal gains ever more difficult to obtain.
And the edge cases FSD can handle will be impaired by the sensors they do (not) install. While they make a good point that sensor fusion can impair comprehension, the removal of radar makes it hard to avoid the edge cases most calamitous.
I actually expect a nice boost of progress as the occupancy network is improved and used more by other parts of the software stack.
And I expect a fairly significant improvement when they release the HW4 hardware upgrade. Better cameras, and more processing are such "free" (as in effort, not money of course lol) improvements to their error rates. I'm surprised they got this far with their current hardware. If you've ever done real time computer vision, you know how hard it is to maintain decent performance (fps and latency) even on fairly beefy GPUs.
Blackout curtains. I and I imagine, most people, are sensitive to light. Blackout curtains prevent light from reaching your eyes, resulting in your getting more sleep.
Eyemasks are also effective, but (1) you have to tolerate having something on your face and (2) they can get dislodged while you are sleeping, rendering them ineffective.
Riffing off of BugsJustFindMe's comment, what kind of privacy/security can you offer at this time? I would love to use a tool like Mozart, but I work with data that contains protected health information (PHI). PHI requires a greater degree of privacy. People working with proprietary financial information have similar concerns.
I have a lot of experience with this coming from a background in healthcare. We are not HIPAA compliant yet, so that might be a dealbreaker for some.
There are workarounds, eg for database connectors, and some other connectors, we let you specify which schemas/tables/columns to sync, so you can choose to not sync PII columns (or hash them), and still get a ton of value from the other data and/or aggregates.
And not for PHI, but some of our customers pull all their data into Mozart, write some data transformations within Mozart to redact sensitive data, then use role-based-access-control to give the rest of the company full access to redacted tables, and only certain people have access to the full data.
That said, the security of our customers' data is our top priority regardless of what type of data it is. We're currently in the process of being audited for SOC2 type2.
I suspect most people who read HN weren't around when this movie came out, but I was around then.
There was tremendous hype -- the excitement that this film generated led to lines of people waiting outside movie theaters just to get their chance to see it. People would watch it and then get back into line to watch it again. I remember hearing of people who watched it 15, 20, 25 times.
Star Wars substantially advanced special effects. If you want to get an idea of what the state of special effects were in that era, watch Star Trek (the original series).
"Star Wars" felt _real_. Lightsabers, the use of a "Force" where you could physically moves things from a distance, the glissando effect when a starship goes into hyperspace-- these were all incredibly credible and mind-blowing to people back then.
Star Wars didn't just live up to its hype-- it has exceeded it, becoming a fixture in American culture, and becoming a franchise that continues to generate interest and income today.
Please spare us from reports of studies with few subjects (n < 50), based on subjective self-report, and with results reported that were unintended by the study's design.
It's just p-hacking or random chance and a news outlet's way of generating clicks for itself. These findings are made public, and then almost always quietly disappear into the churn of other scientific ideas of dubious validity.
If only the follow-up, larger (n >> 50) study that later is conducted that reports negative results was as widely reported and disseminated.
Ah, the 1970s and 1980s. Imagine a world with no cell phones or Internet. How are you going to get your debugging help now? StackOverflow doesn't exist.
To add to this list:
- Manuals. Reading carefully through the documentation was necessary for mastery. Both hardware and software. These were often closely associated-- you couldn't always just concentrate on one and abstract away the other.
How are you going to get your debugging help now? StackOverflow doesn't exist.
Real Men and Real Women read core dumps. And they actually communicated with each other.
Plus, turnover was less, so you had institutional knowledge over long periods maintained by peers and clients alike.
In the mainframe environment in which I worked, we had a lot of company-specific and proprietary systems and tools that outsiders couldn't have helped with, anyway. And they beat the crap out of IBM's packages.
And no live Internet connection doesn't preclude dial-up.
And IBM tended to document the hell out of their stuff.
Unfortunately, the study just counted accidents and did not look into what kinds of accidents occurred. It would be fantastic to be able to conduct further research.