Given a good proportion of his success has rested on somehow simplifying or commodifying existing expensive technology (e.g. rockets, and lots of the technology needed to make them; EV batteries) it's surprising that Musk's response to lidar being (at the time) very expensive was to avoid it despite the additional challenges that this brought, rather than attempt to carve a moat by innovating and creating cheaper and better lidar.
> So it’s not a surprise to see the low end models with lidar.
They could be going for a Tesla-esque approach, in that by equipping every car in the fleet with lidar, they maximise the data captured to help train their models.
It's the same with his humanoid robot. Instead of building yet another useless hype machine, why not simply do vertical integration and build your own robot arms? You have a guaranteed customer (yourself) and once you have figured out the design, you can start selling to external customers.
> why not simply do vertical integration and build your own robot arms?
Robot arms are neither a low-volume unique/high-cost market (SpaceX), nor a high-volume/high-margin business (Tesla). On top of that it's already a quite crowded space.
The ways in which Musk dug himself in when experts predicted this exact scenario confirmed to me he was not as smart as some people think he was. He seemed to have drank his own koolaid back then.
And if he still doesn’t realize and admit he is wrong then he is just plain dumb.
I think there’s room for both points of view here. Going all in on visual processing means you can use it anywhere a person can go in any other technology, Optimus robots are just one example.
And he’s not wrong that roads and driving laws are all built around human visual processing.
The recent example of a power outage in SF where lidar powered Waymo’s all stopped working when the traffic lights were out and Tesla self driving continued operating normally makes a good case for the approach.
Didn't waymo stop operating simply because they aren't as cavalier as Tesla, and they have much more to lose since they are actually self driving instead of just driver assistance? Was the lidar/vision difference actually significant?
The reports I’ve read said that some continued to attempt to navigate with the street lights out, but that the vehicles all have a remote confirmation where they try to call home to confirm what to do. That ended up self DDoSing Waymo causing vehicles to stop in the middle of the road and at intersections with their hazards on.
So to clarify, it wasn’t entirely a lidar problem it was an need to call home to navigate.
> roads and driving laws are all built around human visual processing.
And people die all the time.
> The recent example of a power outage in SF where lidar powered Waymo’s all stopped working when the traffic lights were out and Tesla self driving continued operating normally makes a good case for the approach.
Huh? Waymo is responsible for injury, so all their cars called home at the same time DOS themselves rather than kill someone.
Tesla makes no responsibility and does nothing.
I can’t see the logic the brings vision only as having anything to do lights out. At all.
Yes... but people can only focus on one thing at a time. We don't have 360 vision. We have blind spots! We don't even know the exact speed of our car without looking away from the road momentarily! Vision based cars obviously don't have these issues. Just because some cars are 100% vision doesn't mean that it has to share all of the faults we have when driving.
That's not me in favour of one vs the other. I'm ambivalent and don't actually care. They can clearly both work.
They do, but the rate is extremely low compared to the volume of drivers.
In 2024 in the US there were about 240 million licensed drivers and an estimated 39,345 fatalities, which is 0.016% of licensed drivers. Every single fatality is awful but the inverse of that number means that 99.984% of drivers were relatively safe in 2024.
Tesla provided statistics on the improvements from their safety features compared to the active population (https://www.tesla.com/fsd/safety) and the numbers are pretty dramatic.
Miles driven before a major collision
699,000 - US Average
972,000 - Tesla average (no safety features enabled)
2.3 million - Tesla (active safety features, manually driven)
5.1 million - Tesla FSD (supervised)
It's taking something that's already relatively safe and making it approximately 5-7 times safer using visual processing alone.
Maybe lidar can make it even better, but there's every reason to tout the success of what's in place so far.
No, you're making the mistake of taking Tesla's stats as comparable, which they are not.
Comparing the subsets of driving on only the roads where FSD is available, active, and has not or did not turn itself off because of weather, road, traffic or any other conditions" versus "all drivers, all vehicles, all roads, all weather, all traffic, all conditions?
Or the accident stats that don't count an accident any collision without airbag deployment, regardless of injuries? Including accidents that were sufficiently serious that airbags could not or were unable to deploy?
The stats on the site break it into major and minor collisions. You can see the above link.
I have no doubt that there are ways to take issue with the stats. I'm sure we could look at accidents from 11pm - 6am compared to the volume of drivers on the road as well.
I wonder how much of their trouble comes from other failures in their plan (avoiding the use of pre-made maps and single city taxi services in favor of a system intended to drive in unseen cities) vs how much comes from vision. There are concerning failure modes from vision alone but it’s not clear that’s actually the reason for the failure. Waymo built an expensive safe system that is a taxi first and can only operate on certain areas, and then they ran reps on those areas for a decade.
Tesla specifically decided not to use the taxi-first approach, which does make sense since they want to sell cars. One of the first major failures of their approach was to start selling pre-orders for self driving. If they hadn’t, they would not have needed to promise it would work everywhere, and could have pivoted to single city taxi services like the other companies, or added lidar.
But certainly it all came from Musk’s hubris, first to set out to solve the self driving in all conditions using only vision, and then to start selling it before it was done, making it difficult to change paths once so much had been promised.
> And if he still doesn’t realize and admit he is wrong then he is just plain dumb.
The absolute genius made sure that he can't back out without making it bleedingly obvious that old cars can never be upgraded for a LIDAR-based stack. Right now he's avoiding a company-killing class action suit by stalling, hoping people will get rid of HW3 cars, (and you can add HW4 cars soon too) and pretending that those cars will be updated, but if you also need to have LIDAR sensors, you're massively screwed.
> The ways in which Musk dug himself in when experts predicted this exact scenario confirmed to me he was not as smart as some people think he was.
History is replete with smart people making bad decisions. Someone can be exceptionally smart (in some domains) and have made a bad decision.
> He seemed to have drank his own koolaid back then.
Indeed; but he was on a run of success, based on repeatedly succeeding deliberately against established expertise, so I imagine that Koolaid was pretty compelling.
To be frank, no one had a crystal ball back then, and stuff could go either way with uncertainty in both hardware and software capabilities. Sure Lidars were better even back then, but the bet was on catching up on them.
I hate Elon's personality and political activity as much as anyone, but it is clear from technical PoV that he did logical things. Actually, the fact that he was mistaken and still managed to not bankrupt Tesla is saying something about his skills.
Fair. So in a sense, the lidar vs camera argument ultimately can be publicly assess/proven through human babysitter (regulation permit) and accident rates. or maybe user adoptions.
Re: "Or maybe the operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics?"
So, out of curiosity, if I tried installing MacOS on any of the 15+ computers I have at home, what are the likely chances that this "operating system should just work reliably for (at least) the basics?"
I can tell you that my success rate with Linux is 100%.
I’m not especially speaking for MacOS, but to your question, I suspect if you tried to install an appropriate version of MacOS on Mac hardware, you’d have very close to a 100% success rate. That’s certainly my past experience with Mac and, FWIW, Windows too.
Anyway, my point wasn’t that Linux should be perfect; but that if it can’t be, maybe give some help why, and more experienced users shouldn’t just jump to blaming the struggling newbie.
The key is this: if you want Linux to win with non-experts, it needs to target being a better experience for non-experts than the alternatives, to justify the effort of changing.
Re: "if you want Linux to win with non-experts, it needs to target being a better experience for non-experts than the alternatives"
I agree in broad terms, but let me re-capitulate this. Which OS do you think would offer a better experience for non-experts when installing on bare-metal? By my reckoning, Windows is a nightmare to install afresh on random hardware, and MacOS wont work on most-all random hardware. Users think that Windows is easier because they almost never have to install it from scratch.
Also, do you factor in the ever-increasing nuisances (AI, ads, spyware)[0][1][2][4] that Microsoft and Apple are injecting into their operating systems, and the move towards digital sovereignty which is accelerating in every nation outside of the US in any computation of what is a 'better experience'?
> I agree in broad terms, but let me re-capitulate this. Which OS do you think would offer a better experience for non-experts when installing on bare-metal? By my reckoning, Windows is a nightmare to install afresh on random hardware, and MacOS wont work on most-all random hardware. Users think that Windows is easier because they almost never have to install it from scratch.
I've done multiple installs of every Windows (except 8) Windows since the NT4 era, and multiple installs of OS X over the last decade. They have almost always been straightforward and successful, unless I've complicated things with weird partition/dual boot requirements. (OS X isn't really a fair comparison, as the target hardware is so hugely restricted.)
----
Aside from the initial installation 'just working' (which I accept might not be dramatically different with Linux, these days, and indeed, I accept that Windows often needs additional drivers downloading, depending on your system.) there's another big factor to consider.
With Windows and OS X there's a long-established concept (at least, prior to the app store era) that if you want to install something, you download a file and run it. This applies whether it's drivers or software, and >95% of the time also provides a simple uninstall path. Even my elderly mother can grok this.
With Linux, this is my recent journey: Must I use APT or APT-GET? Flatpack? Snap? Or can I use the built-in Software Manager (FWIW, I really like the one in Mint, except when stuff isn't available on it.) Oh, so some software (Mullvad, Blender, etc.) I need to download manually? I've installed Mint; am I on a Debian system? Okay, I'll download the DEB, but then how to install that? (Oh, it failed - open-whispr). For other things, we must download an Appimage and make it executable - great, that works, but it doesn't have an install feature, so how to install it somewhere so that it's not forever sitting in Downloads? Huh, okay, I can figure that out, but it's a pain. Oh, wait, some of those self-contained files I've downloaded will run directly from file manager, but for some reason fail silently via the start menu link I've just made. Okay, better trouble-shoot that tomorrow...
(For brevity, I've left out that at every stage, there were multiple web searches to find instructions for the correct approach, diving into all manner of forums, Stack Overflow posts, and Github repositories. And I've left out the more esoteric stuff, like slowing down touchpad scrolling via obscure command-line incantations.)
This is the reality of setting up a simple Linux system with (what is reputed to be) one of the most user-friendly distros there is.
And which is why, if the goal is Linux 'winning' on the desktop (beyond committed nerds) there's still quite some way to go on UX.
> Also, do you factor in the ever-increasing nuisances (AI, ads, spyware)[0][1][2][4] that Microsoft and Apple are injecting into their operating systems, and the move towards digital sovereignty which is accelerating in every nation outside of the US in any computation of what is a 'better experience'?
Totally with you, 100% - that's why I'm experimenting with a full shift to Linux myself. But this only applies to relative nerds. Many/most non-expert users don't know or care about such things.
Re: "Or can I use the built-in Software Manager (FWIW, I really like the one in Mint, except when stuff isn't available on it.)"
I think this (built-in Software Manager) is probably the right track for most normal users. Last time I checked, the Debian software repo had over 120,000 packages, so for most normal users, the bulk of what they need is likely there and thus likely easier to install than apps on MacOS or Windows. My usual track record for installing a new desktop for family members, including the top 100 apps they likely need, is under 30 minutes for Linux. The last time I tried this with Windows, it took days of effort and frustration and to some extent opened the computer up to security risks because of the multitude of binary sources I had to trust.
But yes, once you start needing specialist software, then your-mileage-may-vary. Having said that, apps like Blender are already in the Ubuntu repo, which should mean they are also in the Mint Software Manager, and thus a single-click away from installation.
In general, I would consider Linux to be the easiest platform to install software on for the most common 80% of the software that normal users need. It's certainly the easiest to maintain and update that commonly used software of any of the mainstream desktop OSes.
Again, I think a lot of the mismatch of norms & experiences comes down to what someone becomes accustomed to. If you're accustomed to downloading an installation binary (EXE/MSI) and double-clicking that to install on Windows, then you can become accustomed to downloading an installation binary (DEB/RPM) and double-clicking that to install on Linux (viz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOPQPrzmnw0).
I jumped on the Linux bandwagon with my main work laptop last week, when my perfectly fine (I thought) Windows 11 installation nuked itself without warning (possibly related to merely opening Teams).
I somewhat randomly chose Mint, and a few oddities aside; it’s been a pretty good experience.
The genius label we bestow on a select few is often a license to behave badly. I always enjoyed Richard’s music but never quite bought the stories told about him.
Why are you putting "value" above human decency? Maybe you shouldn't be considered to generate any "value" if you put misery on others, how can any "value" make up for the direct suffering?
There are plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities without the quality of being a tarpit of suck.
Because human decency is often overrated and hard usable value is often underrated.
If we removed the value (changes, inventions, artworks, products, etc) made by people which were lacking in "human decency" in this or that aspect, billions would be poorer, sicker, die sooner, and have much worse cultures.
>There are plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities without the quality of being a tarpit of suck.
Understanding is a great component of human decency too, as is not being a sanctimonious hollier-than-thou type. For example, not labelling someone who "wrote something mean in a forum" as "a tarpit of suck", as if that defines them totally, or as if the persons making such statements shit doesn't smell.
Plus "plenty people just the same, with the same capabilities", really? As if the output of an artist is interchangeable with that of another, so that we can just discard those that have done such grave offenses as "being rude on a forum" and just listen to another?
Is there really a distinction? Isn't the altruistic concept that we all have innate value also a statement of offering value, even by our mere existence?
I find it so odd that people overlook severe faults in those whose other qualities they rather love and greatly appreciate. It seems so unjust, yet it's universal.
A lot of James' discography is predicated on making other people suffer. The album art is offputting, the track listings are usually cluttered and useless, his music videos are scary and confusing, random tracks are designed to torture you (eg. Ventolin), and half of his music is released under unrelated aliases.
If you're not familiar with Aphex Twin, it's hard to understand that this hatred does nothing to inhibit his success.
Just because art is challenging and unpredictable doesn’t mean it’s interned to make you suffer.
Is Giger’s art created to cause suffering? How about Beksiński’s paintings? The emotions they invoke are not happiness or joy, but neither are they purely dread or loathing.
Aesthetic pursuit isn’t solely (or even primarily) about the emotions it conjures in the consumer.
Remember: the customer is always right in matters of taste.
Hofstadter's GEB is challenging. Francis Bacon's Popes are disturbing. Aphex Twin is irritating. None of these people hate their audience and they're all pushing boundaries.
Andy Kaufman was challenging, disturbing, and irritating in equal measure and he did hate his audience.
You guys are doing a lot of hand-wringing over what was likely just tongue-in-cheek trolling among people who considered each other friends. I could easily see creating a thinly veiled persona to do some annoyance of a close friend and call them an ass-licker in my early days. It’s a form of affection.
You’re right, but it’s like that kid at school who’s a bully and a d*ck but everyone tolerates and stays kinda friendly with because they’re a bit scared of him, and his parents have the best house for parties.
The US can probably go a lot further than they currently have, before a meaningful coalition of meaningful countries will do anything significant —even just economically or diplomatically— against them in return.
As someone with no skin the game in either direciton, it's interesting that you're so triggered by the mere mention of someone's name.
Is it really so difficult to parse out different aspects of a person's existence, such that one could simultaneously appreciate some of the positives (the existence and success of SpaceX, making Tesla a success against the odds, [popularisation of] some engineering leadership concepts) while also acknowledging the negatives (of which, more latterly, there are many)?
Or must the sheer emotion always cloud out rational judgement?
Aside from the edgy Unabomber quote and calling both established US political parties racists, everything there is reasonable analysis. What exactly got your goat?
"I don’t trust the news very much. I have no idea if the guy in the El Salavdor prison had a fair trial, if the students being deported are criminals, or even if they are being deported at all."
Nah, I think the point is that if you do something deliberately in public, be it social media or something tangible in the real world, you relinquish control over its usage.
If you don’t like this, then you can either try to restrict things to an extent e.g. by obscurity, like posting a YouTube video as unlisted, or building your fireplace somewhere public but remote or hidden, or you keep things enforceably private, like a private online group, or building on someone’s land.
I' m not defending Tesla for a moment, but I disagree with your take...
1) Wasn't it always inevitable that, once tha large established car manufacturers really started to knuckle down to creating EVs, that Tesla's lead and 'moat' would mostly vanish? They still have some of the most efficient EVs available, and their UI/UX is still one of the best, but of course they'll face compeition, and of course their competitors will try to differentiate in all directions, and especially those that are superficially attractive (and less expensive to deliver) like interior design.
2) Back in his earlier, pre-crazy days, Musk suggested (something along the lines of) that Tesla's goal wasn't to be a huge successful car company, so much as to prove that EVs were viable as everyday cars, and drive a revolution in the car industry. By this measure, they've mostly succeeded.
---
Big picture, totally agree that Tesla seems to have lost its way over the past few years, which unsurprisingly correlates (to an outside observer) with Musk's apparent changes in judgement and behaviour, with its consequent impact on Tesla's image and desirability amongst consumers. The Cybertruck turns out to have been a huge misstep, and not having delivered a 'model 2' - i.e. a small mid-sized option - (maybe instead?) is a huge miss.
Advantage for Tesla is that the rest of the auto industry has lost their way, too. For example, the infotainment in a brand new, expensive vehicle like a new GM is atrociously bad, unreliable, and slow/clunky to use.
Yes, I have. It has the infamous Android delays, and also conked out in the middle of a trip (this was in a renal); had to stop and start the car and re-pair the phone and navigation never worked again.
2025 model year, less than 20k miles.
I can get an iPad myself and a GPS myself that don’t have these problems.
I would argue that Tesla didn't lose its way, it used it way to get were they are and now you see the deficits of it.
They started without all the legacy and worries. Like existing suppliers, existing things, existing image. Fresh market, modern software development etc. brought them a proper market share.
Now the olds had to update themselves, which they did and now they are stuck with tesla.
But thats it. Tesla doesn't has that much innovation. Plenty of things did not materialize at all.
> So it’s not a surprise to see the low end models with lidar.
They could be going for a Tesla-esque approach, in that by equipping every car in the fleet with lidar, they maximise the data captured to help train their models.
reply