Politics aside, FSD is quite awesome these days. It’s pretty much at “press a button and enjoy the ride” capability, although you do have to make a show of paying attention to the road. My truck came with lifetime FSD which I’m happy with, and two family members pay for the monthly subscription because of the quality of life improvement.
This is basically impossible to determine based on how safe the car "feels".
e.g. if it has a 99.9% chance of doing your daily commute without crashing and without you intervening, you can monitor it closely from the driver's seat for 6 months and there'll be ~90% chance that everything looks fine and you never need to intervene. But then if you start napping in the backseat on your commute, there's a 70% chance you'll crash within 5 years.
There are enough people who FA'ed and FO'ed in the form of ending up dead, or killing others, that we're not stuck in abstract calculations or speculation.
Stupid and irresponsible driver here. It drives quite well and saves me considerable mental energy on every drive I make now. If it gets into a wreck I know I’m liable, but in years of using it, that hasn’t happened. So why not enjoy the more relaxing drives now?
I'll post the 7 billion miles of stats here (https://www.tesla.com/fsd/safety) but then the objections will be "it's Tesla of course they lie" and the debunked "they turn FSD off right before an accident".
I recently went on vacation and rented a 7 year old Model X and the FSD on it (v12) was better than nothing but not great, especially after having v14 on my truck drive 99% of my miles. It truly is a life-changer for people fortunate enough to have it, so it's always jarring to see the misinformed/dishonest comments online. It's still not perfect but at this point I would trust it more than the average human and certainly more than a new/old/exhausted/inebriated/distracted driver.
Not OP but I have a couple of red lines that if crossed, I would move to Linux: things stop “just working”, and ads/nags/notifications/behaviors that I don’t want cannot be disabled.
Things are very occasionally annoying right now when a new update enables some new idiotic thing but 99.9% of the time things just work.
This seems backwards to me. Colleges should be prioritizing strong students for admission and nothing else. Our country needs the best engineers and doctors. Colleges are a scarce, valuable resource and should be reserved for the best students, regardless of why they are the best students.
I agree with this, but I think you didn’t get the point. The point is, the way we measure strength has to be considered in light of the environment. If a student is in a high school where the average strength is 100, and the student has achieved a strength of 200, it shows that the student has tenacity and grit and drive. Whereas another student might be in a high school where the average strength is 200 and has a strength of 200, and this shows that the student is content to be just average. After admission, the first student has a much higher potential of outperforming the average freshman. The first student’s strength could very well be limited by the amount of resources available in this high school, and not by his/her innate ability.
At least, this is what is supposed to happen, if you believe the UC admission officers.
I understand that point and I still disagree with it. There are objective, direct measurements of strength (standardized tests, performance at state/nation-wide academic competitions, admissions essays), and we don't need to resort to this more flimsy chain of subjective comparisons that use "relative strength of student within school" and "relative strength of school across all schools".
You said above that our country “needs the best engineers and doctors.” Are the tests you mention really objective, direct measures of which student is likely to be the best engineer or doctor in the future? What does it even mean to be the best engineer, and how do you test that?
This doesn't describe what UC is doing, however. LCFF is for (1) kids in foster care, (2) English learners, and (3) low income. If you go to a school that has lots of these kids, but you yourself do not have one of these disadvantages, then it doesn't mean that you've risen up out of poverty to achieve relative greatness. It means that you're not an immigrant/poor, but you go to school with a lot of such students. And in the age of grade inflation, getting good grades at a school with lots of low-performing kids is especially easy.
> This seems backwards to me. Colleges should be prioritizing strong students for admission and nothing else. Our country needs the best engineers and doctors. Colleges are a scarce, valuable resource and should be reserved for the best students, regardless of why they are the best students.
It seems unlikely that Americans would be so massively overrepresented in American colleges under this policy...
What got me to angrily turn it off was a gigantic closeup of a moose face. It’s kind of funny now that I think about it but I have two 32” monitors and I really did not need 64” of moose lips and wet nostrils.
This infuriates me. I launch the app to play music and am forced to interact with a pop-up promoting some random new release that is nowhere near the same universe as my music taste.
They recently did the annual “Wrapped” release. It took over the iOS Home Screen widget I use for playing/pausing recent playlists. The widget was unusable until you (1) watched the wrapped video in full on that device (didn’t matter that I had watched it on other devices before) and (2) you had to listen to the playlist they generated of your most played songs.
It keeps losing my downloaded podcasts. Takes forever to switch from online to offline mode. How hard could possibly be, just send a few packets if you get no answer you're offline.
It's really not that complicated yet they somehow managed to mess it up.
reply