Proof: Tesla's are Robotaxi's actually trying to kill us

I really don't want to start of by telling you I told you so. but you know what I'm going to say now, don't you... [Fill in the blank]. I mean, Goddamnit Elon, quit lying to us good folk. We believed in you and now you're using your Robotaxi's to try and wipe out a whole civilisation. Not really. I like to exaggerate. But it is true that Robotaxi's are so unsafe at driving that not even Tesla's own engineers who developed the thing would get in and be driven by the driverless cars.

And no, I'm not claiming that just because I'm a self driving sceptic and I know a bit about how AI works and how vehicle demo's tend to work, this time it's actually based on an investigation by Reuters. The journalists at that fine establishment talked to dozens of (former) Tesla employees that worked on the Full Self-Driving software only to find out it's safety claims are based on little more than complete horse shit.

For instance: Musk once claimed that FSD is ten times safer than humans are at driving. He didn't mention that comparison was cherry picked. Tesla used their own data for airbag deploys as the base data for the amount of accidents the FSD-cars were involved in. It compared that to the recorded amount of vehicles that were towed from an accident. That's not even close to a fair comparison, because vehicles that need towing don't necessarily have had their airbags deployed. They could've gotten stranded with a broken fuel line or a flat tyre. It's like comparing the amount of people that come into the ER with broken bones, compared to those who stubbed their toe.

To make things worse: Tesla chose to make this comparison. The NHTSA, who provides this kind of data, also has the data for the amount of cars involved in crashes with their airbags popped. And even if it had chosen to go this more fair route, Reuters points out that the comparison would've ended up in favor of Tesla because the FSD-vehicles are at best four years old, and the median age for cars in the US is about 12 years. I couldn't find a better way to put it than Reuters did: "It’s like saying: ‘My jet airplane is faster than your World War II bomber.’ Yeah, so, what’s your point?"

But it gets worse. You know those product demo's Tesla did for the Cybercab and Robotaxi's? Yeah, they were heavily pre-scripted. By that I mean AI-trainers logged hundreds of hours to make sure the routes the cars were going to drive were so well plotted out and clearly marked with human added data to minimize any faults from the cars. In other words: it was like the cars where driving with 8k vision through the pre marked routes instead of the 480p vision they use in the real world.

That's also why the tests with the Robotaxi's in Austin are limited to such a small area. Human data augmentation can only go so fast. And Reuters spoke to a bunch of those data labelers, as they're called, and let's just say they've seen things. Like what you ask? Like Tesla's driving at speeds of up to 100 kph through slow 40 kph zones, nearly missing children they didn't detect. Or driving into work zones, not recognizing emergency vehicles and almost hitting motorcyclists.

I've told you this before, but considering all this, it very much makes sense that Tesla chose the Netherlands to get FSD approval first. Training the FSD-AI on the relatively small and dense country is way easier that to let Robotaxi's map all of Germany or France. The small country also has a relatively mild climate, which is way easier to train on than the Nordics for example. Getting approval in the 'koude kikkerlandje' as we Dutch like to call our country, was the easiest to train for.

And that also means we in The Netherlands are way better off than any of the poor fuckers outside of our perfectly pre-trained area of FSD- excellence. I hope your leaders are prepared for the hitting of many cyclists, the speeding in many school zones and the not stopping for many emergency vehicle's by the unknowing FSD-driven shitboxes Elon tries to sell us all for his own trillion dollar benefit package.

But, you know, it could just be me. I could just be the old man yelling at the sky here. At least I'm not alone anymore. I'm joined by the old men from Tesla and Reuters. It's fun here. I recommend you join us. We have good beer and clear skies.

In other news:

The world has been so taken up with the hideousness of the Ferrari Luce, that we've totally forgotten the fact Lamborghini tested the EV-waters way before the people from Maranello fcuked up as bad as they did. Do we remember the Lanzador. The damned good looking electric crossover from Lambo they unveiled a couple of years ago. If Lambo could do it back then, Ferrari could really do it today, but they chose not to. Why not? Read my explanation, dammit. Anyway: the Lamborghini Lanzador

Watch out, we're starting to circle jerk in the wrong direction now. EV's are great. I'd love to own one some time. I'm driving the Lucid Air and I adore the thing (I don't get the hate at all), but when Porsche starts complementing Hyundai on doing a good job with the fake shifting shit, things are going the wrong way. But I for one could do without shifting. I've never understood the appeal of it at all. I like driving. I like taking corners in the optimal way, braking and accelerating at the perfect spots. Getting that interrupted by shifting? It's breaking my flow. I also don't get why you'd want to be shifting all the time in a car which has 500 hp+ and yet, all the armchair warriors seem to think the manual is the way to go at that point and even far beyond. I don't get it.

Turns out Ferrari deliberately tried to make the Luce controversial. No I read that wrong, they knew they were going to upset their fans with an EV, so they deliberately chose to not market the car to them. No, I read that wrong too. Ferrari knew the EV would draw criticism, so it tried to innovate on the part of the design, not iterate on the beauty that made Ferrari what it is today. We all got the message wrong. Sorry Ferrari, we don't know we're this stupid.