I've been trying to set up a private google cloud account for some experiments, however anytime i try to add a payment method there is a generic error.
Ironically, there is no way to reach their support without an active paying account, so they're basically blocking me from becoming a paying customer.
I have no confidence left in google for anything critical.
I thought the site was pretty clean, and it's definitely refreshing with a site linked here that does not show a paywall or crash the browser due to some badly written javascript.
I do agree that the font size was a bit large though, but that can be easily fixed by simply reducing font size in the browser. Firefox (I'm sure there are many other options, e.g. Pocket) can show the site in article mode where you can easily adjust the font size to your liking. Problem solved!
The statistics also includes all the cases where drivers are not paying attention as they should, and it's still safer than the average car (at least according to Tesla).
> it's still safer than the average car (at least according to Tesla).
This is Tesla's big lie.
In all their marketing, Tesla is comparing crash rates of their passenger cars to ALL vehicles, including trucks and motorcycles, which have higher fatality rates. Motorcycles are about 10x-50x more dangerous than cars.
Not only that, they aren't controlling for variances in driver demographics - younger and old people have higher accident rates than middle-aged Tesla drivers - as well as environmental factors - rural roads have higher fatalities than highways. Never-mind the obvious "accidents in cars with Autopilot" vs "accidents in cars with Autopilot on".
If you do a proper comparison, Tesla's Autopilot is probably 100x more fatal than other cars. It's a god-dammed death trap.
This is not a problem that will be solved without fundamental infrastructure changes in the roads themselves. Anyone that believes in self-driving cars should never be employed, since they don't know what they're talking about.
I agree that the comparison with all motor vehicle deaths is misleading, and that we ought to be looking at accident rates for Tesla cars with Autopilot on versus off. That Tesla hasn't answered the latter despite having the data to do so is concerning.
However, I don't see the evidence for the claim that "Tesla's Autopilot is probably 100x more fatal than other cars". The flip side of the complaint that Tesla hasn't released information to know how safe Autopilot really is, is that we don't know how unsafe it really is either. If this is merely to say "I think Autopilot is likely very unsafe" then just say so, rather than giving a faux numerical value.
As for the claim that self-driving cars can't work without "fundamental infrastructure changes" and everybody working on self-driving cars should be fired, I think you're talking way beyond your domain of expertise.
You're complaining about one side using wildly misleading and baseless stats, but then turn around and throw out a completely baseless and fairly absurd claim with no attempt to even back or source it, and then claim that because some cars have 0 fatalities that means something.
The truth is somewhere in between Tesla's marketing and your wildly absurd 100x more fatal claim, but its much closer to Tesla than you.
Tesla's statistics (i.e. real numbers, but context means everything) do involve a whole whack of unrelated comparisons (buses, 18-wheelers, motorcycles) that all server to skew the stats in various ways, we can ignore them claiming to be slightly safer than regular cars.
However comparing more like to like, IIHS numbers for passenger cars driver deaths on highways puts Tesla at 3.2x more likely than all other cars to be involved in a fatal crash (1 death/428,000,000 miles driven vs tesla's 1 death/133,000,000 miles driven).
Of course this too is an unfair comparison. A 133hp econobox/prius vs a sports car in terms of performance is considered equal in that comparison. If one was really interested in accuracy, a comparison of high power AWD cars in similar price ranges driven on the same roads by the same demographics would be needed.
So by even standards clearly biased against Tesla, they are no where near 100x more fatal than other cars. Tesla's own numbers claim autopilot reduces accidents, and supposedly NHS numbers back them up.
Its important and critical to not believe marketing hype and lazy statistics. If you want people to take you seriously, countering hype and bad stats with equal or worse hype and worse counter stats is not the way to do it.
What is the catchment range for new (inexperienced) drivers? 18-25? There are a lot of people who have been driving for a long time who are not good at driving at all and lack all kind of self awareness. For example, following the car in front too close.
I would also think that the average Tesla owner is less likely to experience constant stress, long commute hours, tiredness and possible mental health issues that can contribute to car accidents.
Drivers not paying attention in non-autopilot vehicles is an increasing problem with the prevalence of smart phones. In places where it's illegal to text and drive I don't think you're going to get out of a ticket by telling the police officer "it's okay because Tesla was driving".
I do believe "it's still safer than the average car" because there's not a big tank of explosive - I'm most curious to hear what caused such a massive fire in this crash. But you're talking about the autopilot and it's statistically incorrect to say it's safer than the average car. It's merely safer than a driver alone - this should be no surprise as you'll find that cars with backup cameras and alarms don't hit have as many accidents while in reverse as cars without them.
I do believe "it's still safer than the average car" because there's not a big tank of explosive - I'm most curious to hear what caused such a massive fire in this crash.
How does a Tesla get such good range? There's still a lot of energy in those batteries, and damaging them is far easier to cause a fire than leaking fuel --- the former can self-ignite just from dissipating its own energy into an internal short, while the latter needs an ignition source. In addition, the batteries are under the entire vehicle and thus more likely to be damaged; a fuel tank has a smaller area and is concentrated in one place.
It is extremely rare for fuel tanks to explode in a crash.
I see how that is intuitively true, but it isn't really true in practice. Post crash fires with ICE are unusual, but not extremely rare. Similarly, post-repair car fires (leaky fuel lines) are not as unusual as most people think.
So far, experiential evidence with Tesla seems to be showing a lower than average risk of fires, though the breadth and nature of the battery leads to challenges in managing the fire itself.
All cases that I'm aware of proceeded at a slow enough pace to allow evacuation of the vehicle.
It is the opposite, LiIon/LiPo batteries are inherently dangerous and can cause chemical fire for various reasons (overcharging, undercharging, puncture, high temperature, etc.). These things are monitored/controlled in any modern application in normal usage, but in a crash you have to remember that you are literally few inches away from a massive stored up potential chemical energy. The fire burns very hot, the smoke is toxic and assuming somebody gets to you in time, it can only be extinguished reliably using special dry powder fire extinguishers (Class D)...
`git log <file>` gives you the entire history of commits that touches that particular file.
edit: i suppose you mean the ability to keep track of what is being done in other unmerged branches perhaps?