Tesla's self-driving code may ignore stop signs, act unsafe. Patch coming ... soon The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has sent Tesla a letter in which it acknowledges Tesla will conduct a recall of the Full Self Driving Beta (FSD Beta) software in up to 362,758 cars, as the software is unsafe. The issue [PDF] affects the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y vehicles, some dating …
The existing software is to be removed, replaced, recalled - that Telsa is choosing to simply promise an (as yet) undefined new version that will magically solve what Musk has been failing to deliver for ten years now does not change the fact that the current software must be taken off the cars as it appears to be unsafe. That is a recall by any other name.
It'll be interesting to see what the response is if Musk simply releases a new version of the same software that (like every previous release) merely makes incremental changes rather than fundamentally solving the problems that 'Full' self driving actually has.
As a defense "no-one has died" seems to be a depressingly low bar.
Disgree. In the industry and among the customer base:
Recall = we've found something unsafe in the product and we need to fix it quickly.
Update = we're making some improvements to functionality and it ought to be fixed when convenient.
Updates are done on the hoof, often without the customer knowing or as part of a service. I recently took my car to the garage to have the boot catch fixed and they asked me to empty the door pockets because they were going to change some door wiring as part of an upgrade. It needed doing, but it wasn't dangerous and didn't merit a recall or even a letter to ask me to bring it in at my convenience. It would have been done at the next service if I hadn't brough it in for the boot.
Musk might be correct pedantically, but I bet he's more concerned about customers' (correct) interpretation of the word "recall".
Absolutely this - while 'recall' has historically meant physically bringing things back to the supplier, the real core of the issue is that the product was defective and had to be fixed or replaced. If the software has to be fixed or replaced because of safety reasons, it's a recall even if the cars don't need to be physically returned.
An update is merely functional
It's quite likely also that "recall" may have some legal (IANAL!!) ramifications too in that it's a (now) known manufacturing defect which has safety implications and therefore MUST be attended to within some time limits set out in the certification of the vehicle.
And as the other poster said, it's also about customer perception, something Musk is well aware of with his use of "Full Self Driving" and "Autopilot" that was and is clearly aimed at setting a certain level of perception that "Driver assist" or "Advanced Cruise Control" might not.
Context is everything or, if not, at least substantially more important than dictionary definition.
A vehicle that, for some reason, could not handle an OTA update would *have* to be returned. Similarly, a "recalled" vehicle could conceivably be remedied by a visit from a mobile mechanic.
It is for the relevant governmental organization which mandates "recalls" to decide whether something is a "recall" or not, not any given manufacturer or vendor.
The discussion of the terminology is Musk's way of distracting the dim witted.
The bottom line is the Tesla software screws up, and is being replaced for safety reasons.
No different than for example, brake failure.
If the brakes fail due to a design or manufacturing defect but are replaced by someone coming to your house to replace them in your driveway, debating whether to call that a "recall" is a fools game.
The bottom line would be that the car's manufacturer allowed defective cars to be placed in customers possession. The car's manufacturer trying to evade responsibility with semantic games just underscores that the car manufacture does not think much of their customers.
"No one has died"
___
Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Woman on Plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
Woman on Plane: Which car company do you work for?
Narrator: A major one.
"travelling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution. [...] the system may respond insufficiently to changes in posted speed limits"
These being utterly elementary examples of hopelessly lousy driving, how can anyone assert that "autonomous" vehicles are safer than human-driven ones (even at the low level of "autonomy" currently implemented)? A software update ain't going to fix the fundamental problem -- that the automaton doesn't understand anything: it's purely reactive to stimuli that actually mean nothing to it. That's the antithesis of what Chesley Sullenberger described as the situational awareness essential for safe piloting in the much less crowded sky.
Self driving cars (could) be safer than humans because they don't get distracted texting, are never tired, and are never drunk.
However I'm not sure if the Tesla FSD system is safer than the average driver, because Tesla are very coy about the data they do release. The standard lane hold autopilot system *does* seem to be safer when comparing highway only driving to highway only AP.
If it's "safer than a human driver", then why does it quickly need to hand over control to a human when things get dicey (i.e. just before things go to sh*t)?
Oh, wait, I know that one: so when an accident happens it's not FSD that gets the blame, even though it may have caused the situation in the first place.
As for releasing statistics and data, what I would *really* want to see is the 15 seconds of data and video before and after an accident. I suspect we won't get that because it would show just how brutally those statistics that Musk is so fond quoting were massaged.
What determines "too late" is the level of situal awareness the driver can build up before the situation goes critical. That's why people seen sleeping in their car on FSD or otherwise not having their eyes on the road should be stopped and given the choice between losing FSD or their driving license - in bad cases they ought to lose both.
This isn't the case. AP disengages when the airbags go off, or for a few things like an AEB emergency stop, but that's still considered an AP crash.
AP on highway is still a fully supervised system, but with the advantage that if the driver does fall asleep or has a medical event that their car won't crash immediately. If users abuse the supervision by being distracted while driving then that's on them, not on the autopilot.
>AP on highway is still a fully supervised system, but with the advantage that if the driver does fall asleep or has a medical event that their car won't crash immediately.
So it fails to ensure it is actually being fully supervised and respond accordingly... thus not intrinsically safe nor fail-safe...
It is perhaps noteworthy that people dislike getting on mass transit systems where there is no driver, even though such systems are designed to be fail-safe, yet are willingly paying for the privilege to travel in a car that doesn't even come close...
To be fair, enforcement of drunk-driving laws is difficult. A great deal of the US is rural and there aren't nearly enough police and other law-enforcement personnel to cover more than a tiny fraction of the roads at any time. Sobriety checkpoints are sometimes useful when there's a high probability of catching some offenders, but they can't screen many drivers – they just don't scale, so you can't have them on busy roads, and on less-traveled roads there are obviously fewer drivers to check.1
Checking for other forms of chemical impairment is worse, because we don't have easy field tests for them and subjective evaluation is horribly inaccurate, a moral hazard for law enforcement, and inevitably widespread violations of civil rights.
And not only can enforcers not easily check for driving while tired – which studies have shown can be as impairing as alcohol – but it's likely to be masked by the adrenaline rush of being confronted by the police in the first place. Driving while tired becomes dangerous when nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
1What about breath-analyzer interlocks? Well, obviously that's another of those hated "tech" solutions. Moreover they don't seem to be hugely effective. New Mexico has had an ignition interlock requirement for anyone convicted of DWI since 2005. Yet there are still plenty of repeat offenses, and some of the drop shown in that report is likely due to COVID-19 shutdowns on drinking establishments.
When you compare human drivers across ALL driving against automated driving in the limited situations it is able to handle and its owner is willing to allow it to handle, of course human driving looks worse. If you were able to separate all the miles of human driving in conditions and situations the autonomous software isn't subject to it that argument wouldn't fly.
And as another person said, the fact autonomous software doesn't get drunk, sleepy, or distracted is a big plus in its favor, but that doesn't tell you how it compares to people who are sober, awake and paying attention. That's why I always say that until autonomous software can be shown to be 10x safer than human driving statistics across ALL driving conditions it won't be accepted by the general public. Because people want software that can do better than they do when they are paying attention, and since everyone overrates their driving ability it can't just be better than the "average" driver paying attention, it has to be better than a really good driver paying attention.
Beat a 95th percentile driver's accident rate (I'm assuming drivers ranking that high never or almost never drive drunk, sleepy or distracted in order to rank that high) when the autonomous software is measured across ALL conditions and situations, then it is ready.
>That's why I always say that until autonomous software can be shown to be 10x safer than human driving statistics across ALL driving conditions
Expect some manipulation and massaging of the data. Watching some dashcam footage recently, it is clear that whilst autonomous software should avoid some of the accidents humans have, there are many it won't avoid and it will introduce its own new group of accident causes...
it will introduce its own new group of accident causes
That's the biggest issue people will have with it. People are much more likely to 'forgive' an accident when they can understand how it can happen. If you're following too closely and the person ahead of you slams on their brakes and you crash into them you (hopefully) know you were following too closely and others can understand how that can happen. A computer might have been able to avoid that due to a combination of quicker reaction times and maintaining a proper following distance. But a computer might simply run into a car that's stopped in your lane due to a software bug while a human would never do that. People won't be very forgiving of things like that, they'll assume "if it is that stupid and can't avoid such an obvious hazard, I won't trust it to avoid more complex issues" even if it actually would avoid a lot of more complex issues that would result in a human getting into an accident.
The real test will come when we have the first few cases of an autonomous car killing an innocent bystander in something like this, either killing occupants of another car who would have never been in an accident if it was a human driving that car, or worse a pedestrian (especially if it is a child) There will be calls to ban autonomous cars from the road when that happens, which will grow loud if we see more than one in a short timespan. It will be very easy for politicians to give in and reason "we should make automakers test that stuff in other countries and only bring it here when it is working".
Wouldn't that be Tesla's approach to what they call Autopilot/FSD? It's pretty obvious it's already got a huge amount of technical debt, they're having great difficulty adding more options, and they're trying to make up for it with manual mapping (employees look at images taken by the car and tell the software what each sign is). And Musk is still too stubborn to go back to Lidar and Mobileye because he prefers to promise the moon when it comes to self-driving.
It's not just Teslas that can't read roadsigns correctly. I've hired both VW & Volvo cars that claimed to read speed limit signs and they both made mistakes. (The VW cruise control decided to brake for misread speed signs. Just glad the roads were quiet when that happened)
"It's not just Teslas that can't read road signs correctly"
Boss has a full-EV Kia of some description, which apparently also reads speed limit signs. His commute starts in an area with several and frequent speed limit changes, with the 'slowdowns' to 30MPH. Boss also transits a couple of long-ish road segments where there are 'repeater' signs* reminding you the limit here is 40 or 50 MPH as the case may be.
If I wasn't such an honest mug, I would have been out-and-about with some paint, changing the '30's to '80's** and each 'repeater' sign to '10' then '90' alternately. Would produce an interesting commute, and be a good test of the machine vision...
* Standard/common here in the UK.
** If you know what the pejorative term 'SAWF' is, then you probably know who I am.
"Doesn't even know the speed limit for a significant proportion of the time."
Really? That's pretty piss poor. My unconnected but regularly updated satNav rarely shows an incorrect speed limit on the display. Usually, it's because the map update lags the real world changes, as you'd expect, but this attentive and human driver can read the road signs. But a car with cameras AND a built-in, internet connected SatNav should have the most recent mapping data AND be able to detect and read speed limit signs. The only excuse ought to be where there are changed speed limits AND the signs are missing or obscured.
"entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop"
As a European, I have never understood this 'come to a complete stop' malarkey. We have stop signs of course but usually linked to traffic lights, while most junctions use 'give way', not 'Stop'. Arriving at a 'give way' junction requires a driver to slow down to a speed slow enough that they can safely come to a complete stop if they have to give way to another vehicle at the junction. If there is no other vehicle at the junction and the driver can safely proceed, it is a waste of both time and energy* to come to a complete stop and then immediately accelerate away.
My (to be fair quite limited) experience of intersections in US roads is that there are vast open spaces around and it's quite easy to see oncoming traffic, so the widespread use of stop instead of give way (and the almost complete lack of roundabouts) makes US roads weird. What I would 'import' to Europe is allowing right (left n the UK) turns on red.
*It might seem trivial as a couple of seconds and a few grams worth of fuel, but multiply that by the number of stop signs on a journey and the number of vehicles and it builds up to a significant amount.
"What I would 'import' to Europe is allowing right (left n the UK) turns on red."
I wouldn't. It's already dangerous enough trying to cross roads in this country even at crossings. There's already enough bad driving habits around red lights, and allowing drivers to go through on a red when pedestrians are supposed to be crossing is a fundamentally bad idea.
(Completely agree on the rest of it, though. I never got the hang of 4-way stops...)
Agreed, free right turns on red are extremely dangerous to pedestrians and only make sense in the notoriously pedestrian hating US. Anywhere civilized it's a (usually) terrible idea. The exceptional cases where it makes sense, most countries have signs or lights to indicated right turns on red light are allowed or a slip lane is put in.
Americans just overuse stop signs. They came about in the 20's when cars had poor brakes and tyres so the thought was that it would never be okay to 'roll' at a low speed through a stop sign because it could mean you couldn't stop in time for that jaywalking pedestrian. And in typical American exceptionalism they refuse to change with the times. Roundabouts and give-way junctions are far better solutions to low traffic crossings, but these are rare in the US (more common nowadays, but still much rarer than the n-way stop).
it could mean you couldn't stop in time for that jaywalking pedestrian
And here it would be remiss not to point out that making crossing the road a crime was done in the US after lobbying from the automobile industry in the 1920s. 100 years later it's still illegal which is good value for money.
There are junctions with very limited visibility, so you have to stop, listen and then slowly proceed to gain more visuals and then go if it is clear.
There are junctions where you think you can see clearly and there is no point to stop, but this may be an optical illusion.
Stop signs are not placed because someone had a bad day at planning centre. It's because many people had a bad day at the junction.
4-way stop sign intersections are the default in the US in my experience. Whether or not there is good visibility, anywhere there's a 4-way intersection that doesn't have traffic lights it's nearly always a 4-way stop-signed intersection. Because screw having to actually do any traffic planning. Just make it all 4 way stops and it's good.
That happens on mini roundabouts too. There used to be a three way one on my route. It got to the point where so many people were being timid about "who goes first" that I almost always went first. Never had a bump or caused a bump there and, of course, once I went over, the guy to the right of me could also go 'cos the guy on the left now had to give way to me so we all got moving again :-)
(It was basically a T junction, my direction being straight over the "cross bar" of the T and the majority of the traffic coming the other way over the T crossbar was also going straight over, so careful watching of indicators and drivers faces at all times :-))
However, with roundabouts (mini or large), once people have performed their natural CSMA / CA and the first person has moved, it is then obvious as to who is the next driver to move etc. and thus traffic flows. With the 4-way stop, one car "going first" doesn't really help any other vehicle to move and thus enable traffic to flow.
"There are junctions with very limited visibility, so you have to stop, listen and then slowly proceed to gain more visuals and then go if it is clear"
Exactly the sort of situation that the automaton can't handle. It can't infer the possibility of traffic it can't see. For example I know a UK site where a mini roundabout on a fast local through route is entered by a residential side road. People park on the sidewalk on the near side of the through route, so you can't see whether a vehicle is approaching from the right on the through route until it's within a few yards of entering the roundabout (usually at high speed with entire disregard for the junction because it has "right of way"). Safe use of this junction from the side road depends entirely on subtle cues that can't be readily identified -- it's intuitive based on accumulated familiarity with it. There's no obvious way to codify this unless you not only map but behaviourally analyse every junction in the country (including the most minor ones) and keep the behavioural analysis constantly up to date. The database would be enormous and the error rate probably high.
usually at high speed with entire disregard for the junction because it has "right of way"
A nice and proper use of quotes there to highlight some peoples (mis)understanding of but not realty of roundabout usage :-)
Surprisingly few people understand that "right of way" on a roundabout is given to those already ON the roundabout, not just to those coming from the right.
@John Brown
No, it's a complete misunderstanding of "right of way". What people are talking about here is priority. The roundabout and roads surrounding it are "rights of way", in the UK, regardless of the presence, absence, postiion, speed or heading of vehicles.
IANAL I have no idea what "right of way" may mean in other countries where English is an official language.
"Stop signs are not placed because someone had a bad day at planning centre. It's because many people had a bad day at the junction."
Generally speaking, probably yes but I suppose it still depends on the planning centre or lack thereof (eg it's been a 4-way stop forever and we see no reason to change)
The 4-Way Stop junction is a common thing in the USA.
The cops love them. They give them the perfect opportunity to issue tickets galore. Not quite coming to a complete stop and bingo, you get his with a $100 fine or even their equivalent of points on your license.
I got one at 2am and with zero traffic about. But... there was a cop waiting for someone to do what I did. Nearly come to a stop but not quite.
> What I would 'import' to Europe is allowing right (left n the UK) turns on red.
Years back I was taking a bunch of colleagues from the office in California out for lunch when one of them pointed out I could go through a red light to turn right
GREAT I thought
At the next junction I spotted a gap in the traffic and neatly slotted into it
Giving all the passengers kittens in the process.
The US view of turn on red is stop, check pull out. Treat it like a stop sign
The European view would be "yeah I can safely fit into the that gap - go for it" Treat in like a give way ... if you really have to ... sign.
"while most junctions use 'give way', not 'Stop'"
Yes, "most". I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in the UK there are both Give Way and Stop junctions, Give Way being in the majority. Broken "give way" lines + Give Way signs and solid "stop" lines with Stop signs.
You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a ‘Stop’ sign and a solid white line across the road. Wait for a safe gap in the traffic before you move off.
I too am European. I can't claim to be familiar with the rules in all European countries, but those which I know well (UK, France, Spain) all require a complete stop at a stop sign, and there are plenty of them about.
My very first encounter with a traffic cop, aged 16 and on a moped, was due to failure to literally stop at a stop sign. Fortunately the officer was himself on a motorcycle and took it as an opportunity to educate the youthful me rather than throw the book. Turns out he had been trailing me for a while and had plenty of constructive criticism to offer.
In my part of France the Mairie has liberally sprinkled Stop signs and ligns in all sorts of unusual places for the purpose of road-calming. Slightly annoying, but it works.
-A.
It all just smacks of arrogance on Elon Musk's part. He thinks that because he decrees it so, Tesla's self-driving cars will be the way forward. Doesn't anyone realise that by removing tasks from the driver to the point where he or she is merely a supervisor will mean that their driving skills will actually atrophy?
Let's not confuse the issue, which is all about the preposterous slander imposed by the word "recall".
That is what must be changed and Musk will die on that hill if necessary (aka send unlimited amounts of salesdrones to die in his place until the issue is snowed over by whatever important news is churned up next - look, squirrel !).
While this recall might be fixable with a "simple" OTA software patch, calling it an update is also flatly wrong. Under the recall order Tesla has certain obligations that go far beyond a normal software patch, such as explicitly making sure all it's customers get notified of the problem and of the way to fix it. Just because they don't have to physically get the car back to a stealership to perform physical work on it doesn't mean it's not a recall.
It's typical Musk and Tesla-rati PR weasel-wording not wanting to call it a recall "because mah image" and all that. They'd rather pretend it's not a big issue that they (knowingly) programmed their FSD to perform potentially dangerous and definitely illegal maneuvers.
Yup, the way I see it is that the software (or current version of it) is being removed from the cars, therefore the software is being recalled. Doesn't matter if it's going to be replaced with a new, shinier version. It's still being recalled.
Just do a google search for 'microsoft patch recall' and you'll see a tonne of articles about MS recalling patches or updates. The software is being recalled. It's a recall.
"Muskrat had really (IMHO) gone over to the dark side..."
An interview with Martin Eberhard...
"Ousted Tesla cofounder Martin Eberhard sounds off on Elon Musk, how the company has changed, and the EV wars"
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ousted-tesla-cofounder-martin-eberhard-113000650.html
""Elon is a different person now than he was then," Eberhard said."
The US scatters stop signs like confetti on its suburban streets, requiring each driver to come to a complete stop before proceeding over the intersection. Human drivers should do this even if the intersection appears clear partly, its not other vehicles so much as pedestrians and the occasional cop car that you're looking for. (Plus the occasional driver that just barrels through the intersection.) For many drivers, though, its customary to do what is known in California as a "rolling stop" -- you slow down to well below walking pace to check the intersection before driving through it. Since a Tesla has -- literally -- eyes in the back of its head it can check all directions of an intersection a lot quicker and more accurately than a human so its probably safe if not strictly speaking obeying the letter of the law.
There is the question of whether you should be using Autopilot on a residential street. Depending on the time of day you may have to use a lot of judgment about what's likely to happen. Fortunately a Tesla should at least keep to the speed limit so that should compensate for not having local knowledge of likely hazards.
I should mention that cyclists routinely ignore stop signs.
It doesn't matter if the stop signs are everywhere - the expectation is that an automated vehicle at a minimum can follow official traffic rules that are pretty much black and white (yes, binary), and it doesn't.
That leads to a simple question: if it neglects to do something that is basically trivial, what expectation can you have of it handling more complex situations well?
As it turns out, sod all. Hence the formal "recall", which is the formal term for "an instruction to fix whatever is wrong with a vehicle that can and may have already led to dangerous if not lethal consequences for the driver as well as other road users". That the execution approach for this recall is an OTA download is separet from the fact that a recall was issued - an event that is always preceeded by hard evidence that something is awry that is so dangerous that it MUST be addressed without delay.
Which is the bit that Musk wants people to gloss over..
There's a good chance the automated driver learned to drive from watching the behavior of a lot of human drivers.
Like in the UK there's two basic ways to drive. One is for the driving test examiner, the other is how everyone actually drives. They're approximately the same but not exactly so -- its a trap that many older drivers fall into if they're required to retake a road test, they think "I've been driving for decades, I know how to drive" and promptly fail the test. Tesla is being obliged to drive strictly according to the DMV handbook ("Highway Code", to you). Nothing wrong with that but its not an "End of the World As We Know It" scenario.
Last time I renewed my license I randomly had to retake written tests for both car and motorcycle, scoring 100% on each. I know for a fact that if I followed the DMV's rules for motorcycles I'd be dead in fairly short order, they seemed to have been written in the 1940s for vintage Harley owners. But that's the test so you learn what's required, not necessarily what's good riding or driving practice.
There's a good chance the automated driver learned to drive from watching the behavior of a lot of human drivers.
Well, that means it failed at a pretty fundamental level. The rules are the rules are the rules. Whatever WE make of it doesn't change them, and an AI most certainly should not be allowed to re-interpret them - that should instantly disqualify it from ever being used on a public road.
To put this in context, you are in fact thus suggesting that the known Tesla FSD failure to stop for children crossing the road is also learned from people. As the actual child body count for non FSD drivers is still refreshingly low I don't think that suggestion holds water.
No, because then you would have a formally documented failure, something even Musk couldn't BS his way around (he may in reality not be a genius, but he's not stupid either).
So no chance - WAY too risky for Tesla. They prefer to let other road users suffer the potential lethal risk..
Am I the only person who thinks Over The Air updates of safety related software is a really dubious idea? Microsoft is a shining example of how hard it is to get updates right. Does any sensible person think Musk's quality control will be any better? If Tesla QC is so good how did software that doesn't stop for stop signs get shipped in the first place? At the very least, one suspects third party testing and certification of safety related changes including OTA patches probably should be required.
I see where you are coming from, but in this case they are updating to a precisely known platform, both in terms of hardware and soft/firmware with no additional user installed 3rd party apps or miscellaneous 3rd party hardware and drivers. Assuming they don't cock up and push an update intended for the wrong platform/software version :-)
Martin Eberhard's view...
"I think it's a mistake to think of a car as a software platform — you know, like an iPhone or something. It's not the same," he said.
"I have an iPhone, and every time I get a software update there's bugs in there," Eberhard added. "These bugs mean, for example, that occasionally my news-feed app crashes. That's not a big deal, because it's just an annoyance on iPhone. But that kind of a bug shows up in the software that controls, for example, my brakes or the steering, it can kill you."
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ousted-tesla-cofounder-martin-eberhard-113000650.html
The problem is two fold - the resilience of the OTA update - that can be mitigated to a great extent - but what of the actual software update itself - do these updates get as much testing as they should, as the ease with which updates can be rolled out means there would be a tendency to rush out a fix and any problems that manifest due to the update to be fixed forward
"The issue [PDF] affects the Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y vehicles, some dating back to 2016."
Just realised...
Model S, Model X, Model 3, and Model Y
S, X, 3, Y
rearrange
S, 3, X, Y
I guess there must be at least one Tesla owner out there who's got one each of these models and park them in that order
Probably Musk himself, not sure if anyone else would put up with four cars with Tesla's build quality or software.
Just looked at the Tesla website (for the first time!!!) https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/models - the models are listed in this order at the top.
So whilst there will not be a Tesla Model T, may be Musk is playing Tesla Scrabble
L, 3, O, N, M, U, S, K
M being the concept motor cycle.
The letter M is an ideal opportunity to remind ourselves of the names of the joint founders of Tesla in 2003 - Martin Eberhard & Marc Tarpenning.
"On February 14, Tesla identified 18 warranty claims that could be related to the software issue. The Elon Musk-led giant stated it was not aware of any injuries or deaths associated with FSD Beta."
Yes, because FIRST we wait for people to die, and THEN we look into it, if we must. That's how safety works, and how it should be done. [Sarc]
I said from day one not to trust the self driving software. "Go fast and break stuff" is not a model I'd like to trust with my or anyone elses lives.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
