Readit NewsDid she ask you to cure this tumor? Did she ask you to post about it?
This is a common story in disability and chronic illness communities -- a partner gets so fixated on the illness they forget the human afflicted with it. The ill partner goes to the grave wishing their partner would stop fighting and start just spending their remaining time filling their lives with joy.
It leads to especially dark places when they don't succeed.
I wish him all the best, but don't lose sight of the human suffering the illness and what they want.
For a smart VC with some money and with some knowledge of biology and willing to put in some hours, and with a disease that is “on the bubble”, i.e. not a slam dunk for modern medicine, but also not a death sentence, that there’s a decent chance that he can meaningfully improve the outcome.
I also see what you’re saying about the vibe and making it about himself, but that’s also helping him get attention… here we are talking about it. With more attention he’s going to get more skilled people helping her out.
If you're executing the operations interactively, you're seeing what's happening on the stack, and so it's easy to keep track of where you are, but if you're reading postfix expressions, it's significantly harder.
The 3x figure in the title is based on a comparison of the Tesla reports with estimated average human driver miles without an incident, not based on police report data. The comparison with police-report data would lead to a 9x figure instead, which the article presents but quickly dismisses.
The denominator problem is made up. Tesla Robotaxi has only been launched in one location, Austin, and only since July (well, 28th June, so maybe there is a few days discrepancy?). So the crash data and the miles data can only refer to this same period. Furthermore, if the miles driven are actually based on some additional length of time, then the picture gets even worse for Tesla, as the denominator for those 9 incidents gets smaller.
The analysis indeed doesn't distinguish between the types of accidents, but this is irrelevant. The human driver estimates for miles driven without incident also don't distinguish between the types of incidents, so the comparison is still very fair (unless you believe people intentionally tried to get the Tesla cars to crash, which makes little sense).
The comparison to Waymo is also done based on incidents reported by both companies under the same reporting requirements, to the same federal agency. The crash definitions and reporting practices are already harmonized, at least to a good extent, through this.
Overall there is no way to look at this data and draw a conclusion that is significantly different from the article: Tesla is bad at autonomous driving, and has a long way to go until it can be considered safe on public roads. We should also remember that robotaxis are not even autonomous, in fact! Each car has a human safety monitor that is ready to step in and take control of the vehicle at any time to avoid incidents - so the real incident rate, if the safety monitor weren't there, would certainly be even worse than this.
I'd also mention that 5 months of data is not that small a sample size, despite you trying to make it sound so (only 9 crashes).
Deleted Comment
I'm willing to accept robotaxis, and accidents in robotaxis, but there needs to be some solid figures showing they are way _way_ safer than human drivers.
Why? Competition for instance, works fine even with price discrimination, because bidders will still compete with each other on offering the lowest price.
Since it's also cheaper, it's likely that Na-ion will be adopted by cheaper city runabout type EVs, while premium long range EVs will continue using Li-ion.