It’s crazy how to truth can hide in plain site. This guys channel had raw footage of FSD driving through terrain deliberately chosen to be difficult and FSD absolutely shined. Just flicking through the channel it’s immediately apparent that FSD is the most advanced self driving system by a mile. But sometimes it made mistakes. And literally any time I have ever seen a video of FSD float to the top of a link aggregator site, it’s a video of one of the mistakes. If you didn’t deliberately look through the archives yourself, you might not ever know that FSD does anything besides make mistakes.
The reason the failure videos float to the top is because failure in self-driving can result in serious bodily harm for those that have little to no control of whether they’re participating in a review or test.
I genuinely don't think this is true. FSD is better than a lot of people make it out to be, but I'm pretty sure they're still leagues behind Cruise who is behind Waymo.
I don't think Tesla publishes their data, but from the 2021 report [1] Cruise is at 42,022 miles/disengagement and Waymo is at 7,800. In fairness, Waymo switched their car base car, which seems to be causing issues. Waymo was at 29,944 miles/disengagement in 2020.
The videos I've seen of Teslas appear to have a much lower miles/disengagement number. Even if we presume they're going 60mph the whole time (they're not), they would need to have 1 disengagement per 130 hours of video just to keep up with Waymo's new, much lower stats. They'd need 1 disengagement per 700 hours of video to keep up with Cruise. With a more realistic estimate of an average 15mph, you'd have to quadruple those numbers.
There's some wiggle room, because disengagements and whether they're reportable is somewhat subjective. The delta seems large enough to say that Tesla isn't particularly close, though.
Yes it can drive, but it does so on a very sketchy way. Yes it's advanced, but not nearly advanced enough. The worst part, sometimes you can't react fast enough if the car makes a mistake.
Getting this beta off the roads cannot happen quickly enough. I don't want to risk my life for the gain of some company. I don't care if FSD drives 99% correctly, the 1% is what can cost lives.
If you look careful, you also see FSD is not a smooth drive at all. I'm on the edge of the seat all the time and people who are comfortable in it, are because of ignorance.
But by doing the beta test, we can get a safe FSD out sooner, and it doesn’t take much to be safer than the average driver. So even though running a beta on public roads has its risks, it might save lives in the long run if it means we get an effective FSD out 5 years sooner for example.
I seen many fanboy made videos where shit just works, sometimes the fanboys live stream and the mistakes can't be hidden. When we get full data transparency( where full here mean 100% and not the fake "full" from the Tesla dictionary) just want to know if Tesla's PR stats include the mistakes too when they calculate safety , what I mean is if each time a human had to intervene is counted as a crash , and how corners or roads where the user has no choice then take over are also counted. Is like F in FSD seems to be mathematically { F, the subset of everything where our shit worked(we intentionally exclude stuff and have our fanboys defend them as micro mistakes or blame the roads, or blame the driver or blame anyone else/ in our dictionary FSD and autopilot means whatever we want to mean and yes the naming is very clever to be super missleading because $$$ ) }
I price motor insurance for a living and in my models the absolute worst 'insurable' risks (ones that pass underwriting scrutiny) will have some sort of impact every 3rd year. If we filter that to more severe cases where there's bodily injury it moves out to 8/9 years.
What this means is the absolute worst drivers will go ~100k miles between causing serious accidents so the threshold between good, bad and awful drivers is really far out into the tails of the distribution. Without actual driving data to work from we don't know how safe FSD is and youtube videos are purposefully selected for views. Even so the sheer number and 'randomness' of fails is concerning because nothing like alcohol, speeding or inexperience to point to.
Yes thank you. I was literally thinking "the worst driver I know has been in two accidents in the 20 years of our friendship, that must be pretty close to 99.9% safe."
I don't have very strong intuition about risks this small. I do know the thing that ultimately lead me to being able to beat nethack at will was internalizing the idea that "something that's 99% safe is almost certain to kill you over the course of a run." Feels similar.
This, as someone in tangentially related industry I see the very same issue - you need a LOT of tail events to be able to train the models on them and obviously tail events are rare by construction. So it will be all smooth sailing until you hit the 1/1e9 and kill someone with your model3.
So from viewing some videos it is apparent to you that Tesla's FSD is the most advanced? Sorry to say this, but this is as unscientific as it gets. There are data and metrics to determine this and there is so much to consider when evaluation and comparing the data from these kinds of systems.
One person assessing this from on person's (and an employee even more so) youtube channel is just fanboy talk.
Reading these comments is forehead slap inducing. People think that just because something is mental that it has to do with your mindset, your parents, your this your that.
When a dude can run faster than other people, it’s written off as genetics. When someone is resilient to depression, it’s anything other than genetics. Both cases are the same: it’s just biological.
I’ve been suffering super hard with depression recently and it’s made something clear to me: your mindset is bullshit. It might tip things one way or another but the actual mechanisms of depression will change your life. Everyone will be super humbled when we figure out how to turn off depression, and everyone gets it and everyone experienced on average a 50% boost to their intelligence and productivity. They will be humbled because they will realize that all of that relative suffering was totally pointless and for no other reason than a quirk of evolution. And that some people had it good for absolutely no reason. But it’s exciting to know that this day will come and it can’t come fast enough for me!
Depression, like your sports analogy, is not only rooted in genetics but also in the environment. While you can act on your environment, you can't act on genetics for now. Focusing on what is in one's reach is the only thing one can do. Being certain that the cause is out of our control (while true for parts of it) is in itself something fueling depression.
No no no. Nobody is fully aware of the situation but choosing to focus on what they can control. Most of the people in the first world who suffer from depression don’t even realize they have depression. Depression and mindset and sadness are are muddled together in our lexicon — the thing I’m pointing out is that most people don’t even know the truth. For me, knowing that it’s not my actions causing me to feel this way is what saves me. Because for a long time I blamed myself because of the mass ignorance we harbor. The whole reason for the muddling is that the mind naturally tries to put together cause and effect and so depression can hide that way. It’s a fight of intuition against science.
But it is, in part, your actions. The evidence does not support claiming depression is purely biological. That, however, doesn't mean blame is helpful or appropriate.
Meh... you're teaching depressed people to focus on changing things to improve their environment. Maybe some of them can't and the best thing for them to do is accept it, even if it is a substantial drain on their productivity and life quality. Indeed there are some therapeutic approaches that do exactly this (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy).
Obsessing over an intractable problem as if it can be improved can make the problem worse.
Some people are more susceptible to depression, that's clear. You mentioned mindset, but therapy approaches are not tantamount to just "rationalizing" your way out of depression. If it were that simple no one would be depressed. Interventions are a multi-pronged approach, but for those dealing with cognitive factors, they apply training with workbook exercises. The CBT way is to learn to recognize distorted unrealistic thinking, there are also approaches that attempt to mitigate automatic thinking or the emotional reaction to it. Bottom line is the research suggests this is generally effective.
There appear to be many different causes for depression. The day may come when it’s either curable for all the causes or at least the symptoms can be removed. If faith in that day is needed to survive until then, have that faith.
It is so pointless. Why does it occur more than its opposite?
I once heard someone say that depression is a spiritual problem, as in the cause lies with your relationship (or lack there of) with a higher power.
I just had a thought - what if there is a biological or evolutionary quirk that believing in a higher power results in more happiness? It would certainly explain why some people who seem to have a supernatural outlook are so happy dispite what seems like terrible suffering.
E.g. Carlo Acutis [1] was known for his cheerfulness despite suffering and dying from leukaemia.
Change your environment. Move to another country and reinvent your identity. This can change your mindset. I think the misnomer is that mindset can be changed by willpower alone. They are wrong.
Soldiers in the Vietnam war all did heroin. When they returned to the US people thought we'd have a heroin epidemic. Turns out the change in environment rewired there brains. Try it.
Whether or not you go insane when exposed to emotional stress has nothing to do with your character or personality. It’s biochemical. I hate the way that this article says “it’s impossible to predict who will go insane and who won’t” and it’s universally accepted when it’s not true and is based on untrue and harmful fuzzy thinking. It’s like saying “it’s impossible for man to fly” which may have been true in a practical sense a thousand years ago but it was never actually true. If more people had appreciated that, maybe we would have been flying much earlier.
The reason he says it’s impossible is because he thinks it’s based on subtle aspects of personality traits which are ephemeral and impossible to grasp.
Of course you can predict who will go insane. There are specific biochemical pathways that are responsible. In the future when we have mastered them we will probably find that there are certain obvious traits that correlate strongly to the disposition. It is often the case that the simple truth was hiding right in front of us.
Unfortunately, we’re in the stone ages of mental health. There is no blood test or brain scan we can do to assuredly find depression, bipolar, or any other common mental health diseases. Hopefully you’re correct and in the future we will have some for sure predictor, but at the current rate we have very little to nothing. You’re optimism doesn’t seem to match the environment.
There’s a huge number of leads in the search for markers. It’s just that nobody is talking about it. I’ve never met a lay person who had any clue of what’s going on in the space
Last year a couple of researchers published a paper on their approach to treat depression in otherwise-untreatable patients.
They implanted a chip in the patient's (yes, n=1) brain, which they trained to detect when the patient is going into depressing thoughts. Using Deep Brain Stimulation they terminate the signal propagation of that neural pathway.
Similar techniques have been used to treat Parkinson's.
Interesting. I think the field of using electronic brain stimulation to help disease is moving forward in a good direction compared to the lobotomies and craziness of the 60s. That seems to be what you’ve linked here.
I’m talking about a simple, non intrusive way of testing someone’s mental health without talking to them. That stills seems far off on the horizon. Maybe some MRI research might be able to take us into the future in that regard.
Try deep ketosis via ketogenic diet and try high fat carnivore diet. These things are super hyped up right now and seem like scams but they touch upon very real and very powerful metabolic pathways and mechanisms. They have helped many people with severe mental illness including myself.
Hey there! Very happy to see someone here with the same recommendation, hopefully that will boost the credibility of this recommendation to OP and others.
Thats nit what i saw at all. I saw people discussing modern economic features & peoplecs way of life. I saw only a little politics.
And i dont mind politics at all. When it degrades it's ugly. But most users seem to be willing to keep some open neutrality & interest in engaging one another, even when they disagree. I like tvis open society we have here & would not seek to change it. Itcs sad to hear someone insisting tbeir baised shape how everyone else acts & what we discuss.
There is a lecture on YouTube by a doctor who claims that all cancer cells ferment rather than respirate and that because of this, they are able to be starved with a combination of zero carb diet and a special protein that disrupts the fermentation of another protein that cancer cells can also use. He presents cases where he uses this method to treat a brain cancer patient. I’m on the train and not in a position to find his name or the video. Does anyone have anything to say about this?
As another commenter mentioned, the Warburg effect has been known for about 90 years, and has lots of past and current research on it. Thus, I'm going to trust that scientific process rather than some rando dr on YouTube that claims you can cure cancer with a carb free diet and a "special protein".
That thing with the fermentation is called the Warburg Effect, and it's the reason why PET scans work.
There are some cancer types where this is more prominent. But even then, it's hard to disrupt this without causing a lot of collateral damage, because normal cells also need to ferment.
This doesn’t add up. Collateral damage isn’t a concern in any other cancer treatments. And if fermentation is so necessary, how do people survive being in ketosis for years?
I know nothing about cancer treatment but here's a link to an npr article about this. I'd be really interested to hear thoughts from people who know what they're talking about.
