Not sure you understand how "The Formula" works. The profit generated by adding this feature will outweigh the cost of any resulting accidents that they take liability for.
A less pessimistic way of phrasing it is that within the boundaries they've defined, their self driving system is so much better than a human that they're willing to assume responsibility for crashes deemed "at-fault" while using the system.
Not intentionally trying to compare that with other automakers, but Mercedes is the only "you can buy now" vehicle (ignoring robotaxis/Waymo/others) that assumes liability with those capabilities. Until other automakers provide that legal guarantee, they're parlor tricks at best that will continue to get folks killed in scenarios that they otherwise wouldn't had they been actually paying attention.
To be honest I don't think the best option for this is a VR headset, it's a pair of VR glasses. I use the Viture One glasses on airplanes, and the best part is they mostly just look normal on the face compared to something like a AVP or Quest. I think the new xReal One Pro glasses have a better FoV, but probably not enough for me to upgrade at this point. They can do "spatial tracking" where the display stays oriented in the same spot as a floating monitor if you move your head, or "static tracking" where the display is always fully in your FoV regardless of where you move your head. Both options plug in via usb C, and you can use them with anything that can do displayport over usb c (Steam Deck, Macbook, Android Phones, iPhones with an adapter, etc).
Echoing this, I dread every time I have an uber/lyft/etc that is a Tesla. I'm very convinced that most folks who buy Teslas generically hate cars, and simplifying the experience for them is how they get to drive/start/continue driving.
Someone who can't manage a gear selector because it's "too complicated" is not someone I want driving on the road, and when you combine that with exceptionally terrible ride quality for the price, it makes for a dreadful experience.
When you dumb down/streamline a phone experience into an iPhone you get something anyone globally can use, with not many downsides. When you dumb down a car experience into a single screen/app you get exceptionally shitty drivers.
That's incorrect. It's a titrated drug similar to blood pressure meds. If you have effectiveness at a 1mg dose for example, you stay at that. The drugs have maximum doses.
I'm based in the US. Most of those options are available from Amazon.
I've owned both the Viture glasses and the nreal air (back when they were called nreal rather than xreal). The picture quality on them is more than enough to use as a second display, but where it shines for me is on flights. It mostly just looks like a normal pair of oversized glasses, but presents an incredible display on that is miles beyond any in flight entertainment system.
I only bought the Viture because I lost/forgot my original nreal air glasses on a flight and they were never found.
While I was being slightly sarcastic up above, thank you @hcazz, @RajT88, @Eugr, @saurik for the replies and descriptions of the viewing experience.
If they're nice enough for use in a semi-dark airplane, I may need to look into a pair. Spend enough time in restaurants and other low lighting areas, it might be worth it for mobile computing purposes.
@hcazz, question: can you use them effectively while walking around in broad daylight?
@RajT88, @Eugr, thank for the viewing descriptions. Those types of issues were a little bit of what I was worried about. Hallway feeling vision, and tiny "correct" spot for viewing. The multi-monitor setup idea is kind of neat, since then you could have floating layer screens with overlap you work on. Floating code/text highlighting for a programmer for example.
A portion of the question above, was closer to: "why is all the discussion in America completely dominated by two FAANG choices when there are apparently so many other decent/good/great alternatives?" People are apparently paying $3500 to look goofy in public and have uncomfortable viewing experiences? (the reviews I've read on the Vision Pro and Quest have not been great)
This Vox article [1] for example has almost the same statement: "Goggles. They’re goggles. Also, let’s imagine ... that maybe one day they’ll just become glasses." (while [checking...] $380 AR glasses with decent reviews are available)
The "meta verse" and Quest got almost the same response. See this Verge article [2]. "Meta’s $1,499 headset is better at showcasing VR’s weaknesses than strengths."
Same, I can buy these in the US either off Amazon or from the manufacturer's websites.
For my money, I'm waiting for the tech to improve a bit more before I buy the XReal Air's. A little bit smaller, a little bit better tracking and support for using phone on Desktop mode, or a PC in multi-monitor mode. I'd like something which is both great on the go, and worth using at home, when I feel like my multi-monitor setup doesn't have quite enough screen real estate for some computing task.
I have NReal/XReal Air, and I find them very uncomfortable. I wear glasses, so I have to use prescription inserts, so it adds to the weight. While they are not too heavy, they put too much weight on the bridge of my nose and tend to slide down over time. They are also very sensitive to placement, so if they slide down a little, you can't see the entire screen anymore. The FOV is pretty narrow.
The Viture One has a built-in diopter correction wheel which can correct up to 4 diopters (which might not be good enough for you; it is just barely good enough for me).
Google Glass was released almost a decade ago, I'm not convinced the tech isn't there. I also had a RECON Mod Live HUD for my Snowboard Goggles which was released in 2011 which had a unit size not that far off from the Google Glass.
It's disappointing that in 2023 there isn't something even remotely close (or better) to tech that was available 10+ years ago in the case of the RECON Mod Live.
It works only on highways, only in daylight, only when there's a lot of traffic, only under 40mph. Tesla's software does not have those limitations, so yes, it's objectively far superior than a glorified 'follow the car in front and do what it does' simple software that Mercedes is pushing.
Yeah, there are significant limitations to camera based systems. Although for Mercedes, I'd argue it's significantly more than:
>'follow the car in front and do what it does'
which is describing adaptive cruise control/radar based cruise control which has been on the market in vehicles for over two decades.
>Tesla's software does not have those limitations
Recklessly enabling a half baked vision only autopilot doesn't mean it's "superior". There's a reason actual self driving car companies (Cruise, Waymo, etc) report disengagements per mile as a means to show how "self driving" their vehicles actually are.
Until Tesla self-reports this data, it's nothing but a toy, and I wish folks the best who actually trust their life with it. [0]
>Officially, Telsa describes Autopilot as "an SAE Level 2 driving automation system designed to support and assist the driver in performing the driving task," as cited by NHTSA. Autopilot is not an autonomous driving technology, but the new numbers suggest people are treating it that way, sometimes resulting in tragedy.
He or she does not care so I don't even bother. I have already discovered here that people hate Elon therefore hate everything under his eye regardless of the facts around the successes of Tesla's engineering teams that have nothing to do with his personal politics or viewpoints.
This is fine, I enjoy my car and since I am the highest authority of myself, I do not need their validation of my personal experiences I have first hand.
With Tesla's Autopilot, you are driving the vehicle.
With Mercedes new L3 system (which I'm going to assume you haven't ever used, since it isn't available yet on a vehicle for purchase), the vehicle is driving.
This isn't about Elon, it's about the capabilities of the vehicle you're sitting in. You're also ignoring TFA -- if Tesla's Autopilot is the best thing on the market, why are they asking officials to redact information on whether or not someone got into accidents while using it?
I was able to see this in person recently at Jokulsarlon Glacier Lagoon in Iceland. The craziest part was how excited our tour guide was - she was taking as many photos as we were. From what they told us it doesn't last long, as the sun melts the top layer of ice, turning it opaque.
I understand it's interesting to announce accomplishments (such as increased areas for testing), but as someone who lives in West LA, it's slightly annoying to see multiple announcements saying "testing is expanded, be on the lookout!". I'm nearly at the point where I'm just ignoring announcements for Los Angeles because the last two haven't amounted to any changes for someone that lives here and wants to use the service.
Not sure you understand how "The Formula" works. The profit generated by adding this feature will outweigh the cost of any resulting accidents that they take liability for.
A less pessimistic way of phrasing it is that within the boundaries they've defined, their self driving system is so much better than a human that they're willing to assume responsibility for crashes deemed "at-fault" while using the system.
Not intentionally trying to compare that with other automakers, but Mercedes is the only "you can buy now" vehicle (ignoring robotaxis/Waymo/others) that assumes liability with those capabilities. Until other automakers provide that legal guarantee, they're parlor tricks at best that will continue to get folks killed in scenarios that they otherwise wouldn't had they been actually paying attention.