Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | fortran77's commentslogin

The latest version of FSD is amazing. We have it on our Plaids (2024 and 2026 models) and I probably only actually "drive" 5% of the time. There's a camera to see if you're paying attention to the road, so no longer any need to keep your hands on the wheel. It'll start from a parking space and go all the way into my house and back into the garage.

Of course, I don't trust it as much as I trust Waymo's system, and I'm very careful when using it in rain or fog...


So you're saying people should just pay for the subscription? Seems like tangential FSD(S)-glazing here.

Cameras wired into an internet connected car is the #1 reason why I will never buy a car like a Tesla.

Anecdotes like yours are often from the point of view of someone in California - sunny, clear weather most of the year. In monsoon rain, fog, snow, or unusual markings on the road, all these systems break down.


> Cameras wired into an internet connected car is the #1 reason why I will never buy a car like a Tesla.

Well then, this isn't the car for you. For many other people the safety features are important. I wouldn't mind if every car had a camera that made sure the driver was paying attention and didn't fall asleep.


That’s completely valid but the problem for me is the fact that you do not control the internet connection in these cars. A camera does not need an internet connection to monitor the driver.

Why is so much NJ on the map?

a) couldn’t decide where to draw the edges b) I live in NJ ;)

I'm sorry.



I'm in an adjacent business (FORTRAN) and it hasn't hurt me at all.

Do you mean you are using LLMs for your Fortran work?

Very little. A lot of Fortran today is converting old Fortran to Python+Numpy or Matlab. I've tried Claude and Copilot and it's pretty sketchy on this. I do use it for "print" statement formatting, etc.

How on earth is Bike > Walk? Walk is > Bike.

Bike is the most efficient form of transportation, period.

Shoes have a lower environmental impact and cost than than steel, plastic, rubber tyres (which AFAIK use at least some synthetic rubber made from oil), etc. Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant. It requires less physical extortion so is more efficient that way, but another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise.

> another way to phrase that is that it is less exercise

Biking is less demanding on some parts of the body that only can take so much stress. So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints. That's not less exercise, that's several times more than a walker or runner can do. So in the same time as walking you can either be faster at your destination and save time and/or energy, or go further while spending the same or less energy, or output more energy. The choice is yours.

Anyway, from the CO2 perspective, biking vs walking is splitting hairs really.


> So you can push other parts more if that makes sense: top cyclists can do 400-600 W sustained or 1-2 kW in short sprints.

Very few people are top cyclists, or top anything else. Top cyclists are doing it as a sport, not as a means of transport.

> Anyway, from the CO2 perspective, biking vs walking is splitting hairs really

I agree. I am responding to people who are claiming it is better than walking to a significant extent.


> Top cyclists are doing it as a sport, not as a means of transport.

Well you were mentioning exercise, so I reacted to that. The point is everyone biking as exercise can push more watts than when walking, if they want to.


Bikes require very little steel and the rubber tires end up lasting longer (typically) than the shoes you do.

> Walking does not use fuel so efficiency is not really relevant.

Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities. Now, it can be insignificant. If the only food you eat is like oatmeal and beans that you grow yourself, then yeah it's going to have a non-existent impact.

However, if you have any sort of meat or imported foods, that CO2 budget can go up pretty quickly.

The actual energy for making the steel for a bike, which will outlast your children, isn't significant.


> Ah, it is. You eat food, that's fuel. It's the major source of CO2 for both activities.

That implies all exercise is a bad thing. i think you will find very few people are sufficiently keen to reduce CO2 that they will deliberately get less exercise and damage their health. I am certainly not doing that. At the moment I am trying to get more exercise.

> Bikes require very little steel

Compared to a car, certainly. Compared to shoes, an awful lot.

> a bike, which will outlast your children

The typical life span of a bike seems to be about five and ten year years. I really hope my kids last a reasonable multiple of the top end! The level of sales of cycles in the UK (well over 1 million a year) vs the number of people who cycle at least once a week (less seven million) implies a life of about five years. About half of that is leisure cyclists so not really comparable to people using transport to get somewhere.

Leisure cyclists want to get more exercise so by your argument about that being a bad thing they (and therefore half of all UK cyclists) are actively harmful.

https://road.cc/content/news/uk-cycle-sales-plummet-early-19...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e71a4f20ae8...


What about the extra set of Lycra clothing you need? The extra shower you take? The razors and electricity to shave your legs? Your helmets?

I worked for Olivetti’s Advanced Technology Lab in Cupertino CA in the late 80s. They had some innovative PCs back then.


It's not social anxiety. It's fear of being shot.

What a great society


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: