Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Does Tesla have a big math problem?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Here you go. (Im always here to help remind the Tesla f boiz of reality)





 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Yelobird and EVNow
Back to the subject, the camera will have the same resolution throughout the frame. Comparing the whole frame resolution of the camera to the resolution of a pair of human eyes just isn’t valid.
One more point that is often missed is .... our eyes didn't evolve for driving (duh!). So, what resolution of vision is actually needed for driving is obviously different from our actual vision.
 
Here you go. (Im always here to help remind the Tesla f boiz of reality)





When will you learn that - just like you - media always produces click-bait misinformed headlines and articles on Tesla ? Go to the source and do some original research.

Or look at the post above yours, where I've produced the receipts.


ps : Actually, come to think of it - the reason many people here are biased against Tesla is that the media they consume are biased against Tesla.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
they clearly show they are talking about 1 million "robotaxi capable" cars.
I think we're in agreement. He wasn't claiming that every car would be used as a robotaxi. You have to buy FSD to even have that capability.
He was only claiming that the software would be "feature complete at a reliability level that we would consider that no one needs to pay attention, meaning you could go to sleep in your from our standpoint." And of course you will only be able to do that in jurisdictions where it is legal.
A lot of people use robotaxi as shorthand for a vehicle capable of driverless operation, not literal robotaxis. I like do that to avoid mentioning SAE levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtndrew1
I think we're in agreement. He wasn't claiming that every car would be used as a robotaxi. You have to buy FSD to even have that capability.
He was only claiming that the software would be "feature complete at a reliability level that we would consider that no one needs to pay attention, meaning you could go to sleep in your from our standpoint." And of course you will only be able to do that in jurisdictions where it is legal.
A lot of people use robotaxi as shorthand for a vehicle capable of driverless operation, not literal robotaxis. I like do that to avoid mentioning SAE levels.
But it is important to emphasize that Elon was talking about cars with hardware capable of FSD. Not just refer to media clickbait / lazyness / disinformation.

Here is Elon on the podcast with Lex Friedman later that year.



The thing that's really profound and I'll be emphasizing at the sort of what that Investor Day that we're having focused on autonomy is that the cars currently being produced with the hardware currently being produced is capable of full, self-driving.

Ofcourse - we all know Elon has been saying FSD will be ready by end-of the year / next year now for several years. Just like many other CEOs/ leaders who have all said FSD would come much earlier.
 
One more point that is often missed is .... our eyes didn't evolve for driving (duh!). So, what resolution of vision is actually needed for driving is obviously different from our actual vision.
That vastly widens the scope of the discussion. Consider a fighter pilot landing on the deck of a carrier. The eyes didn’t develop that capability, the brain did. The brain/eye combination is what should be considered here so the eye becomes simply an input device. The brain, it’s neat as well.
 
When will you learn that - just like you - media always produces click-bait misinformed headlines and articles on Tesla ? Go to the source and do some original research.

Or look at the post above yours, where I've produced the receipts.


ps : Actually, come to think of it - the reason many people here are biased against Tesla is that the media they consume are biased against Tesla.
Yes, you are correct. He also never said Tesla's will be able to go from NYC to LA by 2018 via smart summon. That was the media making that up. I get it now.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: EVNow
Yes, you are correct. He also never said Tesla's will be able to go from NYC to LA by 2018 via smart summon. That was the media making that up. I get it now.
Strawman.

Obviously when I show how wrong you are - you have to attribute something I didn't say to divert attention.

straw man
[ˌstrô ˈman]
NOUN
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach" · [more]
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity:
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
 
Yes, you are correct. He also never said Tesla's will be able to go from NYC to LA by 2018 via smart summon. That was the media making that up. I get it now.
Where on Tesla's website or spec sheet for the cars, or ordering page did it say the cars can be summoned from NYC to LA? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Just like I'm still waiting for my flying car which was promised by the year 2000.
 
One more point that is often missed is .... our eyes didn't evolve for driving (duh!). So, what resolution of vision is actually needed for driving is obviously different from our actual vision.

True, but driving did evolve from our eyes (and more broadly, our senses). The layout and markings for roads have evolved to be readily seen and evaluated by our senses (primarily eyes, but also hearing).

As has been said many times here before, if you were going to design a road system for only automated vehicles, it would look a lot different than the roads do now.
 
But it is important to emphasize that Elon was talking about cars with hardware capable of FSD. Not just refer to media clickbait / lazyness / disinformation.

Here is Elon on the podcast with Lex Friedman later that year.
I still think the media reporting was basically accurate. I don't think anyone really cares about the difference between a vehicle that is capable of safely driving you while you sleep and a literal robotaxi. To the public they are the same thing.

He predicted in that interview that Autopilot would be safe enough to use without supervision in 6 months. The interview came before autonomy day so he probably didn't want to spill the beans on FSD.
Lex Fridman:
"Do you see Tesla's full self-driving as still for a time to come requiring supervision of the human being. So, its capabilities are powerful enough to drive but nevertheless requires a human to still be supervising, just like a safety driver is in other fully autonomous vehicles?"
Elon Musk:
"I think it will require detecting hands on wheel for at least six months or something like that from here. Really it's a question of, from a regulatory standpoint, how much safer than a person does Autopilot need to be for it to be okay to not monitor the car."
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
You are assuming the oncoming traffic is going to rear-end a car who pulls out and only makes it to 73 MPH before the 75MPH oncoming traffic catches up? While of course that will occasionally happen because human drivers suck, it would totally be the oncoming traffic at fault in the collision.

1 - I don't think I've ever seen a road with a 75 MPH speed limit that has people entering the road via a stop-sign. A car going 75 on a road with stop signs is probably going 15-20 MPH over the speed limit.

2 - If you turn onto the road and make it anywhere close to the speed limit you are not going to be rear ended and if you do it is the car in the rear's fault.

In a more realistic scenario, the speed limit is 55, oncoming traffic is going 60. As long as you make it to 50 before the other cars would catch up you are fine. That still might be hard for the cameras, but it is not nearly as hard as when you assume that the car has to worry about people going way over the speed limit and are also not paying any attention to merging traffic.
Texas has many roads that you enter a roadway that's traveling 70mph (posted speed) or faster.

Hwy 195 is an example

Also Missouri, kansas and new Mexico has road that do the same thing.

Not arguing with your point, I travel alot and this roads always make me nervous. Not everyone trys to get up to speed quickly, many putter out like it's a Sunday drive
 
It can be a planner issue because if the perception module can't accurately gauge speed and distance of the traffic in order to make an unprotected left, then the planner should be smart enough to abandon the left turn plan, and tell the car to turn right and then make the next available u-turn. That's my thinking , at least.
I agree with you there. It’s actually an easier fix than trying to solve the b-pillar camera problem, but the problem will still exist where a driver would need to lean forward to get a visual of the road without putting the car in the road - as that can cause an accident.
 
Tesla just made a deal with Samsung to buy much higher resolution cameras for future cars. They also have HW 4, which is more powerful, in the wings. The OP may be right that there are situations where the current system cannot react quick enough to avoid every single situation but is is powerful enough to avoid the vast majority of collisions. The future system will be able to avoid an even higher percentage of them.
Weird they would put higher res cameras when the current are fully capable of FSD. That costs more money and Elon doesn’t like to waste money!
 
Well, here’s something. I don’t want to say wrong, “wrong” is too strong a word.

The optic nerve doesn’t have anything like the bandwidth necessary to carry all signals from the entire retina (sensing portion of the eye) so there’s a lot of preprocessing that goes into it before the signals are sent to the brain. That’s the basis for a lot of optical illusions. Your high resolution vision is only for a tiny tiny portion of the visual field, at the very center of where you are looking. The brain fills in the rest making you think you have high resolution throughout your visual field. That and the brain fills in color for you. You can only sense color in the center, otherwise it’s grayscale and your brain helpfully fills that in for you as well. And there’s a blind spot, the brain fills that in as well. There are certain types of visual information that immediately cause you to move your eyes. Movement is one, if you see unexpected movement out of “the corner of your eye” you’ll immediately look toward that movement, then you get the high resolution view.

Eyes are neat. You have 3 colors of receptors in the normal human eye, but only a tiny fraction of them are blue receptors. By far most are red followed by green then blue. Why? Blue light is scattered just as it is in the sky, so more receptors wouldn’t help. And the rods, people think they‘re for night vision only but the rods are also used for daylight vision. The rods provide virtually all your off axis vision. They don’t carry color information.

And air, it’s opaque over most light wavelengths. There’s a band in which air is transparent, your eyes are evolved to precisely see in that just that transparent wavelength band. For fun, look at the curve of light transmission through air vs wavelength. Then look at the sensitivity of the eye vs wavelength. It’s amazing… well until you think about it. It had to be that way.

Back to the subject, the camera will have the same resolution throughout the frame. Comparing the whole frame resolution of the camera to the resolution of a pair of human eyes just isn’t valid. And we didn’t even touch on 3D perception. That’s a whole other discussion. And there are brain circuits that keep your eyes accurately pointed even as you move your head. And there are inputs from the middle ears.

Did I say “neat”? Neat doesn’t even begin to describe just how stunningly amazing our eyes are.

OK, you guys are here for the Tesla stuff, not to hear me go on about eyes. But if I’m comparing Tesla to eyes, there’s no comparison, none at all.

Best,
David

Interesting. I think there are other posts in this thread that speak to how comparing eyes to resolution is hard because most of our high res is in the center like you say. When we need to get super high res we intensely focus on the center and discard a lot of noise from other areas we may have otherwise processed.

For a camera, that would be like having 8k res or something but only zooming in to use high res when you’re looking left and right for 70mph traffic that could T-bone you, but in 30mph traffic it’s simply unnecessary 99% of the time.
 
Where on Tesla's website or spec sheet for the cars, or ordering page did it say the cars can be summoned from NYC to LA? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Just like I'm still waiting for my flying car which was promised by the year 2000.
Yes, you are correct. The CEO never said Tesla's would be able to be summoned from NYC to LA by end of 2018. He also never said 1 million robotaxis would be on the road by end of 2020. There is also no such thing as phantom braking. You are correct. The rest of the world is incorrect. 🤣
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: DocRob and Dewg
Yes, you are correct. The CEO never said Tesla's would be able to be summoned from NYC to LA by end of 2018. He also never said 1 million robotaxis would be on the road by end of 2020. There is also no such thing as phantom braking. You are correct. The rest of the world is incorrect. 🤣
Wow, you're gullible. I've got a bridge for sale...
😂

Here 2101, this will fix your problem. In your brain, create a subroutine that does a global search and replace for any tweet by Elon. When he says "will" replace that with "will, we hope". That should calm you down.