You had a long back and forth with someone else in this post where you defended obvious dishonesty on the part of this group. They presented footage where FSD literally was not engaged in an ad showing its flaws, and it doesn’t matter if the driver signed paperwork or they had other footage where it allegedly was enabled and in total working order. Dan’s credibility was done when he didn’t backtrack and try again right there.
That is brazen dishonesty, and the fact that you will not admit that means you’re a waste of time. If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try to replicate the results so it can come from someone who has even a shred of trustworthiness.
So we do agree that at the time this video was recorded, the error message was at the bottom of the screen instead of at its current prominent location that cannot be covered.
(Your citation for the error message being placed in the more prominent location is from June 2024. Mouse over the "1 year ago" to see the date it was posted, June 27th 2024. This is after the video you reference, April 24th 2024.)
Only one error message can be displayed at a time at the bottom of the screen, and considering how frequently this specific individual has been dishonest, I would not put it past him to have removed the payment method to block the error message from being visible.
If your response to this is why does the message get blocked, I ask you what normal user would have paid $6,000 for FSD and not ever planned to use a supercharger? And if they were paying $99/mo for it as a subscription, there would have been a card to pay for superchargers. (Additionally, this error message doesn't appear until after the first time you supercharge, because that one will be allowed to start without payment attached as a courtesy.) This edge case is still one that should be fixed, and so it is good that it was.
I mean, the first video you posted just now doesn't even show the screen at the time of impact! At this point, either the guy is dishonest or stupid. And neither are trustworthy. It would be a better use of your time to defend people making videos to this effect not associated with The Dawn Project. They’re obviously not managing to convince Tesla, nor any relevant safety bodies that something needs to be done.
In any case, we are arguing over footage that is 14 months old. That version of FSD was and is never going to be used by unsupervised autonomous vehicles. I agree that their previous titling of the feature lacking “(Supervised)” was misleading, but it did still require full attention and constant confirmation of hands on the wheel.
Are we sure this isn’t just that there is some set of bots that just vote contrarian opinions on polls that are nearly 100% in one direction just in hopes of gambling on the high return? It’s possible none of the bets on this topic are even aware how bizarre it is to vote yes.
How long ago was it? I was absolutely terrified when I tried it on someone's car in 2023 and swore the whole thing off, but these days when I drive my brother's car I have it on FSD basically the entire time. It has gotten extremely impressive in the past ~8 months.
It really sucks that this is such a poisoned well that I'm extremely skeptical about any of these claims at this point. FSD is not perfect, but the last time there was a big scare like this the person was just using cruise control, not FSD.
This specific guy also has basically made his entire modern career out of lying about FSD for clicks, so... In the past he released a video where you could see the screen warning the accelerator was held down so the car would not stop. Having used it myself and seen that warning message, it also makes the standard alert error sound when it appears to draw your attention.
It can see pedestrians (they even have a specific model on the visualization) and will stop for them. If one jumped in front of the car, it will slam on the brakes regardless of if FSD is enabled or not. If it somehow didn’t brake before impact, it would slam on the brakes.
With Godot, you can’t make sweeping platform changes—especially adding a new one—as an extension. This is the only path besides Apple forking Godot, which would be unworkable in the long run and obviously undesirable for both parties.
There is nothing going on here but embracing. When Microsoft did it, they forked a project and added their own features to their private fork, intending to replace the original. Apple is directly contributing code to the source project here.
Even if Apple was somehow harming and attempting to subsume Godot in this situation, what would the end game be? What would managing a game engine descended from Godot do for them?
Apple is contributing Vision Pro support to the Godot game engine. Basic support for "2D" windows is currently included, in the future it will be able to do fully immersive experiences.
You can also repair their devices yourself using their repair program, but only if you have the capabilities as an individual, so I don’t see your point.
I find this pretty accurate. I’ve never understood why everyone thinks Apple assumes it would be a runaway sales powerhouse on the first generation. You would have trouble selling almost anything for $3500 + tax. Long game.
This just doesn't make any sense. Even in an ideal world where voice assistants never failed, some of the most basic daily interactions become extremely complex and time consuming with audio only. When 3 different people text you it takes infinitely more time to clarify that with voice than you would be able to just read. Plus, people like social media, and young people really like tik tok. How are you going to record or meaningfully play back videos on a device where you can't see? Voice only is significantly more of a gimmick than the Vision Pro.
Nobody likes navigating call center menus. A voice only smart device would be doing that all day long.
That is brazen dishonesty, and the fact that you will not admit that means you’re a waste of time. If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try to replicate the results so it can come from someone who has even a shred of trustworthiness.