All manufacturers have for some time been required by regulators to report any accident where an autonomous or partially autonomous system was active within 30 seconds of an accident.
My question is better rephrased as "what is legally considered an accident that needs to be reported?" If the car scrapes a barricade or curbs it hard but the airbags don't deploy and the car doesn't sense the damage, clearly they don't. There's a wide spectrum of issues up to the point where someone is injured or another car is damaged.
And not to move the goalposts, but I think we should also be tracking any time the human driver feels they need to take control because the autonomous system did something they didn't believe was safe.
That's not a crash (fortunately!), but it is a failure of the autonomous system.
This is hard to track, though, of course: people might take over control for reasons unrelated to safety, or people may misinterpret something that's safe as unsafe. So you can't just track this from a simple "human driver took control".
That is not correct. Tesla counts any accident within 5 seconds of Autopilot/FSD turning off as the system being involved.
Regulators extend that period to 30 seconds, and Tesla must comply with that when reporting to them.
How about when it turns into oncoming traffic, the driver yanks the wheel, manages to get back on track, and avoids a crash? Do we know how often things like that happen? Because that's also a failure of the system, and that should affect how reliable and safe we rate these things. I expect we don't have data on that.
Also how about: it turns into oncoming traffic, but there isn't much oncoming traffic, and that traffic swerves to get out of the way, before FSD realizes what it's done and pulls back into the correct lane. We certainly don't have data on that.
It's a one-time performance based compensation package split into multiple tranches, with options worth 1% of stock being provided as payment for each one, with up to 12 in total.
The AI didn't leak anything, it's hallucinating and connecting dots that don't exist, like the the US exit of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It's putting it up there right next to the founding of SpaceX and writing as they were connected, but that's just completely ridiculous.
And the suggestion that "his Mars colony will have it"(nuclear missile defense) is not supported by the article referenced at all. The only thing it's saying is that if there were a nuclear war, Mars would be safer than the moon as the flight time makes it much easier to react to.
You're deliberately misconstruing the story. Elon was shopping for rocket boosters, and the R7 hadn't been an ICBM for decades. They were retrofitted as single-use booster rockets, and were more commonly known for taking Yuri Gagarin to space.
Autopilot did not even exist as a public feature in 2013. It was first mentioned as being in development then, but the cars didn't even have any hardware for it until September 2014.
There is a reason accidents are done on a per mile basis, so let's make a quick example to show why.
There is two cars, car A and car B. Each driven by 1000 drivers each year.
Car A: The drivers drive a total 10000 km each year, and 20 people get into one accident each, averaging one accident every 500 km.
Car B: The drivers drive a total 1000000 km each year, and 40 people get into one accident each, averaging one accident every 25000 km.
Which car is safer? According to this opinion piece it's car A. But anyone that has even surface knowledge about statistics would realize that it's car B.
It would take only 500 km in car A for someone to have gotten into an accident on average, while for Car B it would be 25000 km. Drivers of car A are therefore on average 50 times more likely to get into an accident. Statistically, if car A was driven as far as car B, every single driver would have had two accidents each.
Conclusion: It is impossible to reach the conclusion in the title given only accidents per total number of drivers. More data is needed.
A suspect there's also an aspect than longer journeys are safer to take into account. Merging onto a high speed road is a time where accidents are more likely, but you might only do it once between cities. Cruising at high speed on a good road0 is relatively safe.
Drive in a city and you may be merging 5-6 times as you move from road to road.
I'm just saying that assuming a linear relationship to distance is probably incorrect as well.
This data from 2018[1] indicates that the most frequently driven car models are driven 25% more than average, and the least are driven 75% less than average. That is individual models, which you would expect to average out over multiple models. The large car companies like Ford and GM with a broad range of model types and customer base are in the middle of the pack in the lending tree report, as expected, while smaller companies tend to fall at the extremes. This could be explained by either differences in the types of customers they attract, or differences in driving distance.
For example RAM only sells trucks, and their drivers may not be any worse than other truck drivers, but they don't sell other vehicles to bring the average down.
Looking at the brands with the lowest crashes, they are one that are stereotypically owned by older drivers who drive significantly less miles.
All in all, enough suspicious correlations for me to take the data with a grain of salt.
A reason, but realistically, EV buyers are, anecdotally, buying them because they're greener and cooler than ICE vehicles. Very little people I know are doing it for the perceived cost savings and almost none of the EV owners I know are high-milage drivers.
They did not say Starship was a requirement for Starlink, they said they could use it when ready to speed up the rollout.
SpaceX has been launching the Gen2 satellites, originally intended to be launched on Starship, on Falcon 9 instead.
They explicitly stated in the plan they submitted to the FCC that they would use Starship, going as far as to say that they’re completely going to stop using the Falcon for Starlink in a letter to the FCC.
The letter was even picked up by media who then reported on this early last year.
> and I suspect at an inflated price compared to purely commercial launches
They do cost more than commercial launches, but that is because they have extra requirements that commercial customers don't, and that adds a bunch to the total cost to fly those missions.
