Waymo brings in $2.25 billion from outside investors, Alphabet

[malcolm]

The solid boosters were also reusable.

Kinda. 5000 components reused from 270 rockets according to Wiki.

Reusability is as open to interpretation as Autonomy

 

[banned-66611]

Here's an article that I am sure @diplomat33 will drool over.... if it wasn't for the ranking being outright hilarious.
They rank BMW's Strategy/Execution as much better then Tesla's -- BMW, the same BMW that just last week said they are not focusing on "self-driving".

Don't laugh yet, how about Yandex?
Yandex is the Russian version of China! They have absolutely no idea how to create, it is 101% copy/paste, it's just going to be fun to see who's IP they will rip off.

I disagree with 99.1% of the ranking from this article, but if I was to put Tesla on this chart, I would place it here:
Just a quick though on Tesla lacking strategy (S) or execution (E):

• A chip built from the ground up (and in house) for the sole purpose of autonomy. (both S&E)
• HYPER focus on the select path - Computer Vision w/ cameras (S)
  • the path was selected based on first principles thinking
• Massive focus on data gathering and labeling. (S & E)

View attachment 522412

Tesla trails Waymo, Cruise and others in self-driving strategy, study claims - Roadshow

Skimming this the issue seems to be that Tesla is only really aiming for level 2 tech at the moment. What they are calling "full self driving" is really just level 2, it needs a qualified driver to be alert and ready to take over at any moment and there is no realistic prospect of it ever getting better than that.

Of course that means everyone who already bought FSD is being ripped off, but again we knew that.

Because Tesla set its goals so low it's way behind. Everyone else skipped over the level 2 stuff and went straight to level 5. Proper hardware, realistic path to making it work, and in the case of Waymo demonstrated success.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Reusability is as open to interpretation as Autonomy

No, there is a very hard line. If a vehicle is autonomous then it is responsible for driving.

 

[malcolm]

Let me guess. Navigant Research/ Guidehouse/Veritas Capital ?

It's just their annual survey of the best autonomous vehicle press releases and videos. If Tesla wants a higher rating they should publish more. Their system would be no better, of course.

 

[Daniel in SD]

There is no way to cheat self-driving, but how you measure and present progress toward that goal is open to manipulation.

They have to report disengagements that involve accidents and there are others where the safety driver just took over. Are there others? Disengagements say nothing about average speed, hesitancy, transitions between road types, and other factors which may or may not irritate passengers or other road users.

We all have crude labels for other drivers; grandma, menace, idiot, Audi owner .... and worse

I can imagine self-driving cars being called carseholes by other road users, partly because of the silly sensors, but also because of a perceived type of driving behaviour.

I guess my problem is that it isn't solved until it is solved. Appearing to be close to a working product isn't the same as having a working product.

No one is arguing that the disengagement metric isn't manipulatable.
From what I gather Cruise vehicles are super annoying to other road users. They're very cautious and they follow the law. I suspect they also sometimes behave in an unpredictable manner given how many times they get rear ended.

 

[malcolm]

No, there is a very hard line. If a vehicle is autonomous then it is responsible for driving.

And for very good financial reasons all of the main players are involved in pushing the niche advantages of their own limited systems as virtual winners.

Yet as you rightly suggested, no one has crossed the finish line and cool demos aren't enough.

It like Spacex. No amount of Grasshoppers or FR demos are the same as an orbital booster reaching MECO then separation, then Boostback, then Entry Burn, then Landing Burn, then sticking the landing.

 

[malcolm]

No one is arguing that the disengagement metric isn't manipulatable.
From what I gather Cruise vehicles are super annoying to other road users. They're very cautious and they follow the law. I suspect they also sometimes behave in an unpredictable manner given how many times they get rear ended.

I wonder if this will incite more vandalism against test vehicles and those belonging to early adopters. IIRC there was some reported a while back.

Here it is: Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars

 

[Daniel in SD]

And for very good financial reasons all of the main players are involved in pushing the niche advantages of their own limited systems as virtual winners.

What are the financial reasons?

 

[malcolm]

What are the financial reasons?

Wide adoption of their technology into different transport sectors. Self driving taxis and private vehicles but mostly self driving lorries and big-rigs.

Delivery drones don't have to be annoying quadcopters.

It's why so many partnerships are popping up. Like Toyota / Maxar / Carmera. Or those with Nvidia or Mobileye or Google etc etc. Some are software only, others are hardware/software.

There might even be some uses in city aviation.

Leave the Flying to Us: Airbus Working on GPU-Powered Autonomous Air Taxis | The Official NVIDIA Blog

Everyone has bills to pay and shareholders to placate.