Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Electrek)   Edgelord Elon, desperate to shore up Tesla's falling stock price, announces full self-drive next year. This is a repeat of pretty much every year since 2014   (electrek.co) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Elon Musk, Artificial intelligence, Automobile, Tesla Motors, difficult thing, features of a self-driving system, Tesla's full self, Transport  
•       •       •

398 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 May 2022 at 3:04 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



104 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-05-23 12:50:47 AM  
Will they be fusion powered too?
 
2022-05-23 1:15:44 AM  
He's not going to Mars either.
 
2022-05-23 1:29:14 AM  
If I recall, most of the vehicles don't have the complement of hardware generally deemed necessary for safe full-self-drive.  That of course won't stop him from endangering everyone, but *shrug*.
 
2022-05-23 1:41:20 AM  
Full size semi trucks can self drive in selected routes with numerous more sensors and computing power and it is not going to be car size tech next year.
 
2022-05-23 2:22:05 AM  

eurotrader: Full size semi trucks can self drive in selected routes with numerous more sensors and computing power and it is not going to be car size tech next year.


Yeah, I mean the driver assist stuff in my ID.4 is pretty damn cool, I find it most useful in stop and go traffic because it pays more attention to the car in front of me than I generally can. But it's far from perfect.

I see driver assist tech improving incrementally as tech builds on tech over time. Musk can't know whether Tesla will be there in a year, or 2 years, or 10 years, or ever. He doesn't have a crystal ball.
 
2022-05-23 2:27:03 AM  
Embedding the "Musk is just a fraud" video...

Chef's kiss.
 
2022-05-23 2:51:45 AM  
Until all cars communicate their presence, size, vectors, and use the same algorithm, automated driving is still individual cars making localized decisions as to how to drive, no different than what humans do now.
 
2022-05-23 4:03:05 AM  
So more Tesla owners can ignore the not-so-small text and stand trial for vehicular manslaughter?
 
2022-05-23 4:24:03 AM  
A good test environment would be setting up a small city (arcology?) to simulate a Mars colony.  Have a set of roads whose only purpose is to have the Tesla-equivalents driving on them, with the people traveling from one building to another via Skyways, or underground mall-type areas.

The auto-cars would drive in a controlled environment to make sure their driving software works properly, and people would be able to go around the car-only paths.  Think of it as a smaller light rail or bus network to move people around, with the advantage that electric vehicles don't produce exhaust fumes.

As a side effect, it would allow testing of various personality and job mixes in a 'colony' to see what would be necessary for a Mars colony to survive.  If the colony starts to fail on Earth then it can be adjusted relatively easily.  If the colony on Mars starts to fail, then emergency correction will be needed or everyone dies.

(Marshall Brain had a thought experiment on what a Mars colony would need)
 
2022-05-23 4:51:21 AM  
He only needs one more thing to make his system work:

Someone to invent a solution, that he can take all the credit for.
 
2022-05-23 5:29:13 AM  
c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-23 6:41:50 AM  

foo monkey: Until all cars communicate their presence, size, vectors, and use the same algorithm, automated driving is still individual cars making localized decisions as to how to drive, no different than what humans do now.


While there are huge safety advantages to this kind of technology, it's being marketed as Minority Report, but we're getting Logan.
 
2022-05-23 6:55:54 AM  
For all his eccentricities, Elon, through Tesla, has done the world a great service by putting us on the road to electrifying our cars more than anyone else.  But now that we are well on our way, he can FOAD.
 
2022-05-23 7:04:25 AM  
It's coming.
It won't be ready next year. And probably not the year after that, but it's coming.
The progress is there, and it's significant compared to a year ago, but you can only spot it if you look at the performance of their system over time.
It will never be perfect, but perfection isn't the benchmark here - we're trying to replace human drivers who fail in a lot of situations.

bloobeary: He only needs one more thing to make his system work:

Someone to invent a solution, that he can take all the credit for.


Technically he's already doing that. The Tesla FSD isn't Musk's brainchild, it's Andrej Karpathy's and his team.
To the extent that it does become a deployable system, Musk's only credit would be merely that he didn't stand in the way of Karpathy's idea of using vision only instead of adding LiDAR to the mix.
 
2022-05-23 7:12:36 AM  

make me some tea: He's not going to Mars either.


I'm not sure humanity deserves to be that lucky.
 
2022-05-23 7:15:17 AM  

neaorin: using vision only instead of adding LiDAR to the mix


They only did that to cut costs.  It's not visionary, it's dangerous.  Ask any dead Tesla driver.
 
2022-05-23 7:25:34 AM  
Tesla has been removing one of the control chips from Model 3's and Model Y's necessary for full self driving because of the chip shortage. So we can assume Tesla is going to recall the tens of thousands of vehicles affected and install the missing chip before next year?


https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-chip-shortage-steering-ecu-fsd/
 
2022-05-23 7:27:06 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: neaorin: using vision only instead of adding LiDAR to the mix

They only did that to cut costs.


Not really. This has been debated ad nauseaum, but their "vision only" argument is that LiDAR (and HD maps) are a crutch to achieving FSD, because the system learns to rely on them too much, and thus becomes useless when LiDAR or HD maps become unreliable - which they do, fairly often in fact.

Essentially, the presence of LiDAR and HD maps cause the neural networks to treat the vision input differently than when the input is not present, and not learn as much from it as it should for FSD.

It's not visionary, it's dangerous.  Ask any dead Tesla driver.

It is both dangerous AND visionary. One does not exclude the other.
They also removed the forward-facing radar from all their models recently, which in theory makes the cars more dangerous. But did it? It all depends on whether the vision-based system has learned what it needed to accurately calculate distances to objects.
 
2022-05-23 7:33:22 AM  

Cthushi: A good test environment would be setting up a small city (arcology?) to simulate a Mars colony.  Have a set of roads whose only purpose is to have the Tesla-equivalents driving on them, with the people traveling from one building to another via Skyways, or underground mall-type areas.

The auto-cars would drive in a controlled environment to make sure their driving software works properly, and people would be able to go around the car-only paths.  Think of it as a smaller light rail or bus network to move people around, with the advantage that electric vehicles don't produce exhaust fumes.

As a side effect, it would allow testing of various personality and job mixes in a 'colony' to see what would be necessary for a Mars colony to survive.  If the colony starts to fail on Earth then it can be adjusted relatively easily.  If the colony on Mars starts to fail, then emergency correction will be needed or everyone dies.

(Marshall Brain had a thought experiment on what a Mars colony would need)


And get zero data on how to deal with unpredictable, mind-changing, dumbass humans in the way - which is always going to be the problem.  Sure we can self-drive in defined corridors that don't let anything but auto-driven shiat in - that's workable right now - companies do it in-house for automated transport lines around facilities.  Humans are the problem - and the real world driving situation contains humans - lots of them
 
2022-05-23 7:33:44 AM  

sleze: For all his eccentricities, Elon, through Tesla, has done the world a great service by putting us on the road to electrifying our cars more than anyone else.  But now that we are well on our way, he can FOAD.


After reading a bit on his history with the company, Elon not being there would have been an even greater service.
 
2022-05-23 7:38:14 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-23 7:40:39 AM  
The cars will have to drive themselves because no human will buy them?
 
2022-05-23 7:41:59 AM  

Chariset: The cars will have to drive themselves because no human will buy them?


These are the same humans that have put the world in the position it is currently, and you're figuring no one will buy them?  Err...
 
2022-05-23 7:58:37 AM  

neaorin: It's coming.
It won't be ready next year. And probably not the year after that, but it's coming.
The progress is there, and it's significant compared to a year ago, but you can only spot it if you look at the performance of their system over time.
It will never be perfect, but perfection isn't the benchmark here - we're trying to replace human drivers who fail in a lot of situations.

bloobeary: He only needs one more thing to make his system work:

Someone to invent a solution, that he can take all the credit for.

Technically he's already doing that. The Tesla FSD isn't Musk's brainchild, it's Andrej Karpathy's and his team.
To the extent that it does become a deployable system, Musk's only credit would be merely that he didn't stand in the way of Karpathy's idea of using vision only instead of adding LiDAR to the mix.


Aren't they copying other companies by dropping LiDAR?

I recall hearing a story on NPR a few years ago about how an Israeli company was developing self-driving/driver assistant at a fraction of the cost of Tesla because they were only using inexpensive cameras, and specifically, no LiDAR.
 
2022-05-23 8:02:25 AM  

neaorin: Marcus Aurelius: neaorin: using vision only instead of adding LiDAR to the mix

They only did that to cut costs.

Not really. This has been debated ad nauseaum, but their "vision only" argument is that LiDAR (and HD maps) are a crutch to achieving FSD, because the system learns to rely on them too much, and thus becomes useless when LiDAR or HD maps become unreliable - which they do, fairly often in fact.

Essentially, the presence of LiDAR and HD maps cause the neural networks to treat the vision input differently than when the input is not present, and not learn as much from it as it should for FSD.

It's not visionary, it's dangerous.  Ask any dead Tesla driver.

It is both dangerous AND visionary. One does not exclude the other.
They also removed the forward-facing radar from all their models recently, which in theory makes the cars more dangerous. But did it? It all depends on whether the vision-based system has learned what it needed to accurately calculate distances to objects.


You drank the Kool-Aid.  It'll wear off eventually if you lay off the stuff.
 
2022-05-23 8:14:57 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: neaorin: Marcus Aurelius: neaorin: using vision only instead of adding LiDAR to the mix

They only did that to cut costs.

Not really. This has been debated ad nauseaum, but their "vision only" argument is that LiDAR (and HD maps) are a crutch to achieving FSD, because the system learns to rely on them too much, and thus becomes useless when LiDAR or HD maps become unreliable - which they do, fairly often in fact.

Essentially, the presence of LiDAR and HD maps cause the neural networks to treat the vision input differently than when the input is not present, and not learn as much from it as it should for FSD.

It's not visionary, it's dangerous.  Ask any dead Tesla driver.

It is both dangerous AND visionary. One does not exclude the other.
They also removed the forward-facing radar from all their models recently, which in theory makes the cars more dangerous. But did it? It all depends on whether the vision-based system has learned what it needed to accurately calculate distances to objects.

You drank the Kool-Aid.  It'll wear off eventually if you lay off the stuff.


Actually I work in the same field (computer vision).
Their argument has merit. A Fark comments section is probably not the best place to debate why.
 
2022-05-23 8:16:15 AM  
How is this not materially misleading information that would be met with massive fines and delisting from the stock exchange?

On each and every occasion they utter it.

It's a bald faced lie. It's stock manipulation.

Awww.. f*ck it. I give up.
 
2022-05-23 8:17:43 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-23 8:19:15 AM  
It's Musk's latest timeline on Tesla's full self-driving effort, but he has always been wrong about those in the past.

Holy shiat!  A slightly skeptical article about Elon from Electrek.  This is a major breakthrough from the "journalism" outlet that basically just reprints Tesla press releases.

They're close, but they're not all the way there.  Elon has not been "wrong about those in the past."  He's just been lying.  He's always lied and he's lying now.  He's a liar.
 
2022-05-23 8:23:59 AM  
I read this in Owen Wilson's voice:  They also removed the forward-facing radar from all their models recently, which in theory makes the cars more dangerous. But did it?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-23 8:24:16 AM  

thornhill: Aren't they copying other companies by dropping LiDAR?

I recall hearing a story on NPR a few years ago about how an Israeli company was developing self-driving/driver assistant at a fraction of the cost of Tesla because they were only using inexpensive cameras, and specifically, no LiDAR.


They never used LiDAR for FSD specifically. They used to have radar for distance measuring but they're dropped it from all their models.

But yes, they are also not the only group who believe FSD can be achieved with cameras only.
 
2022-05-23 8:31:18 AM  
So, more dead people then.
 
2022-05-23 8:31:59 AM  
It seems like some people are expecting autonomous vehicles to have a fatality rate of 0.

This is unworkable and short-sighted. Right now, in the US, every year, something like 40,000 fatalities occur due to meat-driven cars. That's been pretty constant for years. We try to make driving safer, but 40,000 seems to be simply the cost of doing business, and while we haven't exactly accepted that, it does tend to become background noise.

The issue isn't "don't initialize AVs until they're perfectly safe." The issue is "don't initialize AVs until they reduce fatalities by at least two standard deviations." A reduction from 40K to 30K would be a Big Deal, but the press insists on treating every AV fatality like an airplane crash. If every meatcar fatality were reported the way AV fatalities are reported, we'd have over 100 breathless news articles warning of the dangers of human driving... every day. It's kind of like how mass shooter stories have become yawnworthy for anyone not directly involved.

None of this is meant to imply that a) we're there yet or b) Musk is anything but a huckster; it's more of a general observation about the utility of self-driving autos.

And yes, the true measure should be fatalities per mile driven, and of course we need to take into account survivable injuries as well, but I assert that safer self-driving cars would reduce injuries as well as fatalities; I'm just using it as a benchmark.

Just be aware that there are a lot of groups who would like to see nothing more than self-driving technology get stalled in its tracks. Truckers, cops, municipalities, rideshare drivers... just to name a few groups whose income absolutely depends on there being human drivers. Add in the idiotic fears of mechanization, and you get a severe bias against the development of advanced transportation technology. Some people have a vested interest in making sure that the propaganda skews against AVs, and they're going to couch their objections in terms of safety. Probably the safety of children. And puppies.

Oh, and one other thing. Assuming we can get the fatality rate down to 30,000 a year instead of 40,000 like I said above. Those 30,000 might not be in the same group as the 40,000. In other words, your life might end due to an AV where it wouldn't have with a meatcar incident, or vice-versa.

It's a real-life Trolley Problem. With AVs instead of a trolley.
 
2022-05-23 8:36:10 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: It seems like some people are expecting autonomous vehicles to have a fatality rate of 0.


Nobody is expecting that.  People are expecting autonomous vehicles to be autonomous vehicles.  People are expecting Elon Musk to deliver on the thing he keeps promising.  It's not our fault that he's not fulfilling his promises.  He needs to either fulfill his promises or cease making promises.
 
2022-05-23 8:38:53 AM  

foo monkey: foo monkey: Until all cars communicate their presence, size, vectors, and use the same algorithm, automated driving is still individual cars making localized decisions as to how to drive, no different than what humans do now.

While there are huge safety advantages to this kind of technology, it's being marketed as Minority Report, but we're getting Logan.


The "bad guys" in Logan looked like local shiatkickers out for a shiatty vendetta, not suited up walstreet types, or even their goons. There is no way in hell some yokels got proprietary access to software beyond their compression and put in "if see license plate #XXX-XXXX then run it over" Else if proccall keep on truckin".
 
2022-05-23 8:43:51 AM  
Like Doctor Strange struggling to control six spells at once, I am laboring to keep my head from exploding. Not..... going.... to rant.

Because... starting a few months ago, I have a cheery happy family member who, because of a debilitating condition that occurred suddenly, can't drive.... Like even a golf cart or a bicycle or a Segway. It is a brain thing that prevents sufficient concentration to handle anything moving faster than about 3 mph. I do not want him to be homebound the rest of his life, but he will not move from his rural residence, and won't pester his spouse to be his chauffeur.

I am not Elon's biggest fan to say the least, but he is in a unique position to help a lot of people, including one of my loved ones. Is he screwing around with his ego and vaporware just to keep people from buying a VW or KIA? Or is he serious?

"I" need a vehicle that can take a person, at any speed, over a public road, for say, 10 mile trips with only three or four intersections. Parking lot to parking lot. The rider has to get in, point to a location on a nav screen, and go. No crashing. No risk taking. No nonsense. It is a simple trip. A simple service. Over and over. Basic mobility.

If he had a chauffeur or helper for his regular vehicle, one trip would be, say, 100 bucks. So doing that once a week is 5000 bucks per year. Ten years is 50,000 dollars. Two trips a week makes it a 100,000 dollar value. Five per week is 250,000 dollars. It is truly a "killer app." A stupid Johnny Cab would be worth more than a Ferrari.

Go to it Elon. Keep breaking your eggs. Go ahead and kill a few fools if you have to. Expose your member or whatever it takes. Provide a simple product that works every time, if you can. Some people probably can't wait another decade listening to excuses.

/ Has anyone thought of just getting systems for a few routes? Just drive the route five times and a program can just neural net on its own thereafter?
// Put a flashing light on the roof so a Johnny Cab can be allowed to move at about 40 mph or much slower and everyone can give it a wide berth?
/// How about REMOTE DRIVING, where a chauffeur can be sitting on a sofa somewhere, moving a vehicle with a passenger along a simple route, with monitors and sensors etc. At least that would reduce costs for labor, and let a chauffeur schedule services, locations etc.
/\/ Why do I have to think of all this stuff?
 
2022-05-23 8:50:34 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: It seems like some people are expecting autonomous vehicles to have a fatality rate of 0.


Self driving vehicles don't have to be perfect.

They just have to be better than humans.

/and also: In case of accident that the manufacturer is liable, not the insurance company.
 
2022-05-23 8:54:26 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: Just be aware that there are a lot of groups who would like to see nothing more than self-driving technology get stalled in its tracks. Truckers, cops, municipalities, rideshare drivers... just to name a few groups whose income absolutely depends on there being human drivers. Add in the idiotic fears of mechanization, and you get a severe bias against the development of advanced transportation technology. Some people have a vested interest in making sure that the propaganda skews against AVs, and they're going to couch their objections in terms of safety. Probably the safety of children. And puppies.


I have to revisit this hilarious post.  The thing holding back the glorious future of Elon fulfilling his promises is the all-powerful rideshare driver lobby.  The people making minimum wage in their Sentras so they can put food on the table.  Those people are surreptitiously preventing the wealthiest man on the planet from giving us this glorious technology.

Meanwhile, in reality, the people who employ truckers and rideshare drivers want nothing more than to replace truckers and rideshare drivers with these autonomous vehicles.  Uber, another bullshiat promise company (remember flying taxis), made it a part of their business model to replace all their drivers with autonomous vehicles.  This never happened because it was a bullshiat promise.  It wasn't because of those in the powerful ride share lobby.

This is a goddamn cult.  Whenever The Leader fails in his prophecy, it's someone else's fault.
 
2022-05-23 8:55:44 AM  

Rapmaster2000: I read this in Owen Wilson's voice:  They also removed the forward-facing radar from all their models recently, which in theory makes the cars more dangerous. But did it?

[Fark user image 850x350]


tse2.mm.bing.netView Full Size
 
2022-05-23 8:57:55 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Madman drummers bummers: Just be aware that there are a lot of groups who would like to see nothing more than self-driving technology get stalled in its tracks. Truckers, cops, municipalities, rideshare drivers... just to name a few groups whose income absolutely depends on there being human drivers. Add in the idiotic fears of mechanization, and you get a severe bias against the development of advanced transportation technology. Some people have a vested interest in making sure that the propaganda skews against AVs, and they're going to couch their objections in terms of safety. Probably the safety of children. And puppies.

I have to revisit this hilarious post.  The thing holding back the glorious future of Elon fulfilling his promises is the all-powerful rideshare driver lobby.  The people making minimum wage in their Sentras so they can put food on the table.  Those people are surreptitiously preventing the wealthiest man on the planet from giving us this glorious technology.

Meanwhile, in reality, the people who employ truckers and rideshare drivers want nothing more than to replace truckers and rideshare drivers with these autonomous vehicles.  Uber, another bullshiat promise company (remember flying taxis), made it a part of their business model to replace all their drivers with autonomous vehicles.  This never happened because it was a bullshiat promise.  It wasn't because of those in the powerful ride share lobby.

This is a goddamn cult.  Whenever The Leader fails in his prophecy, it's someone else's fault.


If you're seriously interpreting me as a Muskrat based on my post, you didn't read it.
 
2022-05-23 9:06:41 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: Rapmaster2000: Madman drummers bummers: Just be aware that there are a lot of groups who would like to see nothing more than self-driving technology get stalled in its tracks. Truckers, cops, municipalities, rideshare drivers... just to name a few groups whose income absolutely depends on there being human drivers. Add in the idiotic fears of mechanization, and you get a severe bias against the development of advanced transportation technology. Some people have a vested interest in making sure that the propaganda skews against AVs, and they're going to couch their objections in terms of safety. Probably the safety of children. And puppies.

I have to revisit this hilarious post.  The thing holding back the glorious future of Elon fulfilling his promises is the all-powerful rideshare driver lobby.  The people making minimum wage in their Sentras so they can put food on the table.  Those people are surreptitiously preventing the wealthiest man on the planet from giving us this glorious technology.

Meanwhile, in reality, the people who employ truckers and rideshare drivers want nothing more than to replace truckers and rideshare drivers with these autonomous vehicles.  Uber, another bullshiat promise company (remember flying taxis), made it a part of their business model to replace all their drivers with autonomous vehicles.  This never happened because it was a bullshiat promise.  It wasn't because of those in the powerful ride share lobby.

This is a goddamn cult.  Whenever The Leader fails in his prophecy, it's someone else's fault.

If you're seriously interpreting me as a Muskrat based on my post, you didn't read it.


Oh, OK.  Thanks!
 
2022-05-23 9:15:47 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Madman drummers bummers: Rapmaster2000: Madman drummers bummers: Just be aware that there are a lot of groups who would like to see nothing more than self-driving technology get stalled in its tracks. Truckers, cops, municipalities, rideshare drivers... just to name a few groups whose income absolutely depends on there being human drivers. Add in the idiotic fears of mechanization, and you get a severe bias against the development of advanced transportation technology. Some people have a vested interest in making sure that the propaganda skews against AVs, and they're going to couch their objections in terms of safety. Probably the safety of children. And puppies.

I have to revisit this hilarious post.  The thing holding back the glorious future of Elon fulfilling his promises is the all-powerful rideshare driver lobby.  The people making minimum wage in their Sentras so they can put food on the table.  Those people are surreptitiously preventing the wealthiest man on the planet from giving us this glorious technology.

Meanwhile, in reality, the people who employ truckers and rideshare drivers want nothing more than to replace truckers and rideshare drivers with these autonomous vehicles.  Uber, another bullshiat promise company (remember flying taxis), made it a part of their business model to replace all their drivers with autonomous vehicles.  This never happened because it was a bullshiat promise.  It wasn't because of those in the powerful ride share lobby.

This is a goddamn cult.  Whenever The Leader fails in his prophecy, it's someone else's fault.

If you're seriously interpreting me as a Muskrat based on my post, you didn't read it.

Oh, OK.  Thanks!


I guess I didn't make the important point, which is that Musk with his shenanigans is almost single-handedly setting back the development of actual AVs by years, feeding into public fears. It was already getting too long.

And yeah, the rideshare thing was meant as a joke. But municipalities stand to lose a lot of revenue if they suddenly have to deal with a lack of speed-limit breaking, red-light running, drunk driving, and stop-sign blowing. I think we know from the last couple of years that propaganda has real effects. If enough people pull the "ooga booga robot cars scary" card, it tends to spread.

I just want AVs to happen so I can get home from bars. Everything else is secondary to that.
 
2022-05-23 9:16:00 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Uber, another bullshiat promise company (remember flying taxis), made it a part of their business model to replace all their drivers with autonomous vehicles.


They have to. That's the only way their business model can work.

Companies like Uber and Lyft are what are called zombie companies. There are a lot of them right now (DoorDash is another).

A zombie company is something that doesn't make any money and doesn't intend to. It exists more as a proof-of-concept than an actual for-profit business. Like a pilot program for something the government can do, or for infrastructure that could conceivably exist someday.

Uber and Lyft could be profitable in a world with autonomous driving vehicles, where they don't have to hire employees independent contractors. In fact that is what their business model is heavily dependent on. But we're at least 30 years away from autonomous vehicles dominating the roads, so they'll have to wait.

Timing is everything when it comes to commercializing technology. If Henry Ford tried to build his car 10 years earlier it might have become a colossal failure -- the world just wasn't ready for it yet. And what if you tried to run a gas station at the time. A gas station for what? Timing and infrastructure are critical.

There were thousands of startups and dot-bombs in the late 90s that were great ideas but wrong century. The Internet simply hadn't matured to the point where it was ubiquitous enough for people to think of doing everything through it, from turning on the lights in their house to ordering and delivering groceries.

This is the big gamble that Uber is going all-in on. Perhaps someday the infrastructure will be in place by which their business model will make enormous profits. But that infrastructure does not exist yet. And the real question is whether they can stay alive long enough until it does exist.
 
2022-05-23 9:19:10 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: I guess I didn't make the important point, which is that Musk with his shenanigans is almost single-handedly setting back the development of actual AVs by years, feeding into public fears. It was already getting too long.

And yeah, the rideshare thing was meant as a joke. But municipalities stand to lose a lot of revenue if they suddenly have to deal with a lack of speed-limit breaking, red-light running, drunk driving, and stop-sign blowing. I think we know from the last couple of years that propaganda has real effects. If enough people pull the "ooga booga robot cars scary" card, it tends to spread.

I just want AVs to happen so I can get home from bars. Everything else is secondary to that.


In 20 years, you'll still be calling a human driver to get you home from the bar and it won't be the fault of municipalities or propaganda or stoopids who are scared of robot cars.
 
2022-05-23 9:22:34 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Madman drummers bummers: I guess I didn't make the important point, which is that Musk with his shenanigans is almost single-handedly setting back the development of actual AVs by years, feeding into public fears. It was already getting too long.

And yeah, the rideshare thing was meant as a joke. But municipalities stand to lose a lot of revenue if they suddenly have to deal with a lack of speed-limit breaking, red-light running, drunk driving, and stop-sign blowing. I think we know from the last couple of years that propaganda has real effects. If enough people pull the "ooga booga robot cars scary" card, it tends to spread.

I just want AVs to happen so I can get home from bars. Everything else is secondary to that.

In 20 years, you'll still be calling a human driver to get you home from the bar and it won't be the fault of municipalities or propaganda or stoopids who are scared of robot cars.


In 20 years, i'll be dead, which is why I want it to happen now. You know, so I can die sooner.
 
2022-05-23 9:26:42 AM  

Ishkur: Uber and Lyft could be profitable in a world with autonomous driving vehicles, where they don't have to hire employees independent contractors. In fact that is what their business model is heavily dependent on. But we're at least 30 years away from autonomous vehicles dominating the roads, so they'll have to wait.


Here's where I question the reality of this business model.  Uber said "We'll be profitable when we get autonomous cars" and everyone said "OK", but nobody asked what Uber looked like with autonomous cars.  Who owns the cars?  Does Uber own the cars now?  Does Uber become Hertz, but with robot drivers.  Why doesn't Hertz just become Uber then?  Uber has zero experience buying, managing, maintaining, organizing, distributing, and collecting a fleet of cars.  Did they bother to mention how they were going to do any of this?

If autonomous cars are real, I'm not buying shares of Uber.  I'm buying shares of Hertz.

This business model never actually existed at Uber.  It was always what's known as "a story for the investors."  The stock as IPO'd now and mom and pop already transferred their money to the VC that made up the story.  There's no reason to continue fleecing the rubes.  They've already been fleeced.

One of the things I immediately thought about robot cars is "who cleans them?"  In a cab, you've got the driver policing the customer behavior.  In an autonomous car, there is no immediate check on bad behavior.  What's to stop Chad from leaving his Starbucks cup?
 
2022-05-23 9:37:58 AM  
Fark Elon.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-23 9:42:29 AM  

phimuskapsi: Fark Elon.

[Fark user image 346x750]


Johnny FreeSpeech paid someone to keep quiet.
 
2022-05-23 9:54:05 AM  

NewportBarGuy: How is this not materially misleading information that would be met with massive fines and delisting from the stock exchange?

On each and every occasion they utter it.

It's a bald faced lie. It's stock manipulation.

Awww.. f*ck it. I give up.


Don't give up yet! I think you are only a few Fark posts from taking him down for good. Don't let all of your well spent time here go to waste.
 
2022-05-23 9:57:34 AM  

Ishkur: Rapmaster2000: Uber, another bullshiat promise company (remember flying taxis), made it a part of their business model to replace all their drivers with autonomous vehicles.

They have to. That's the only way their business model can work.

Companies like Uber and Lyft are what are called zombie companies. There are a lot of them right now (DoorDash is another).

A zombie company is something that doesn't make any money and doesn't intend to. It exists more as a proof-of-concept than an actual for-profit business. Like a pilot program for something the government can do, or for infrastructure that could conceivably exist someday.

Uber and Lyft could be profitable in a world with autonomous driving vehicles, where they don't have to hire employees independent contractors. In fact that is what their business model is heavily dependent on. But we're at least 30 years away from autonomous vehicles dominating the roads, so they'll have to wait.


Timing is everything when it comes to commercializing technology. If Henry Ford tried to build his car 10 years earlier it might have become a colossal failure -- the world just wasn't ready for it yet. And what if you tried to run a gas station at the time. A gas station for what? Timing and infrastructure are critical.

There were thousands of startups and dot-bombs in the late 90s that were great ideas but wrong century. The Internet simply hadn't matured to the point where it was ubiquitous enough for people to think of doing everything through it, from turning on the lights in their house to ordering and delivering groceries.

This is the big gamble that Uber is going all-in on. Perhaps someday the infrastructure will be in place by which their business model will make enormous profits. But that infrastructure does not exist yet. And the real question is whether they can stay alive long enough until it does exist.


That's not right at all.

Uber is losing money because it's spending so much on marketing and expansion. This is the Amazon playbook -- grow as fast as you can to push out all possible competitors, and add new services, like food delivery.

It's unclear if autonomous cars will really make Uber more profitable. Yes, they'll eliminate all human labor costs. At the same time, they'll have to maintain a massive fleet of vehicles around the world. It's going to be a nightmare.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.