David Tank @ThinkTankExile

@benrwright @lord_bodner @CMiller111111 @seanmmitchell @tesla_semi Yeah but there wasn't an original product. People put down deposits to get a place in line to buy whatever Tesla was gonna call Roaster v2.

@Nick_Someone @seanmmitchell @tesla_semi Centering their point around physics rather than currently available tech wasn't the smartest move though...

@poojagurung397 @USADocumented Motive plays a significant role in sentencing, not necessarily with respect to "guilt"

Very interesting. Obviously tire wear is shitty, not just from an environmental perspective but also due to increased operating costs. I'd have to imagine that it's still offset by the fuel savings but hopefully it's something they'll be able to improve once there's more real world data.

@JasonRoycht @TheReal_BCM But all braking causes tire friction. Is it that you're saying regen vs coasting? I thought it was mostly the weight and torque that lead to increased wear.

@DoctorXanDO @SawyerMerritt Doesn't make sense to roll out what will inevitably be outdated tech by the time the demand is there. Tesla moves quick with iteration on the designs etc so it's most efficient to go hand in hand.

Oh shit, Vegas??! That changes everything about your argument that VMT can't increase without traffic getting worse. Oh wait, it has literally nothing to do with that! The parking part is obvious. Those enormous garages are full of cars that sit unused for hours/days, and they give an autonomous fleet thousands of places to stage instead of aimlessly circulating while waiting for another fare. But you're still avoiding the actual issue after straw mannig my position. Autonomous vehicles are likely to increase VMT. And not just because of deadheading, cause as transportation gets cheaper and easier, people will consume more of it. Trips that aren't economical today become economical. People travel farther. People who can't drive gain access to car travel. That induced demand is pretty much guaranteed. A meta analysis of 26 AV studies found like a 6% avg increase in VMT, including about 5% for shared AVs. But that STILL doesn't establish your original claim. VMT measures how many miles vehicles travel. Congestion measures what happens when traffic demand at a particular place and time runs into the effective capacity of the road/place/whatever. Those aren't interchangeable. If Cybercabs make transportation cheap enough that someone takes a 10 mile trip at 11 PM that they wouldn't take today, VMT just increased by 10 miles. That tells you literally fucking nothing about congestion on Las Vegas Boulevard at 6PM Likewise, if VMT increases across the network while peak traffic through the critical bottlenecks decreases or those bottlenecks process vehicles more efficiently, total VMT can increase while congestion decreases. That's why I brought up throughput, which you ignored in favor of the cute traffic light straw man. And there's another distinction you're missing. Higher utilization is part of the entire economic proposition here. A privately owned second car can spend 95% of its life parked. A cheap shared vehicle can spend far more of its life actually transporting people. Of course that can produce more VMT per vehicle. More utilization is the point. So yes, lower cost can induce more travel. Yes, deadheading adds additional miles. Your problem and why your argument (or lack thereof) meither proves your statement that reducing parking and reducing congestion simultaneously is impossible nor demonstrats that you're not an idiot. You keep presenting evidence that VMT may increase as though you've demonstrated that congestion therefore must increase. You haven't. That's the exact inference you still need to prove.

It is fascinating that you claim this is your job when you clearly don't understand the fundamental difference between network throughput and raw VMT, or the basic math behind traffic density params. You don't even needa futuristic/utopian setup to realize that removing human reaction times, eliminating the 30% of urban traffic currently circling for street parking, and replacing those empty parking spots with actual active driving lanes increases capacity and dynamically clears bottlenecks. Dismissing real systemic efficiency gains as "cute" just highlights your ignorance and outdated opinion that static models that assume infrastructure never adapts...no wonder your traffic projections are stuck in the 20th century. If you want to keep pushing back I can educate you more on the topic, or maybe you want to just get back to work preventing progress for the rest of us...

@Jamesinclair @Mic_VegasSphere You must be very bad at your job. VMT can increase while also improving traffic dummy.

@Jamesinclair @Mic_VegasSphere I don't think you really thought this through lol...

@SawyerMerritt Fake engine noises are allllmost as dumb as buying a Bentley.

All depends on how you drive it. I got over 40k on the OEM tires for my 2020 MYP, my buddy with the same model only got 14k cause he drives like a mad man. I got more miles on the tires than I did with my old Infiniti, along with 4-5x the fuel equivalent with the eMPG comparison. Still haven't replaced the brakes on my Y after over 6 years, and they keep telling me I've got plenty left.

@SawyerMerritt @Tesla I used to think Joe was intentionally obtuse with some nefarious intent. But it turns out he's just a moron.

@TheMrChoww @SawyerMerritt 🤦🏻 I am continually shocked by the lack of comprehension of my fellow humans.

@MissingEgo @Cyber_Trailer What?!? The revenue and margins on FSD licensing would be insane... And they're in perpetuity.

@itsjustyasir @LawrenceMoebius Yeah that's really just a temporary "fix" regardless. It's nowhere near enough, plus if they get a less favorable admin in the coming years new NHTSA regulators aren't going to go easy on them in their attempts to circumvent the rules.

But there is the 2500 federal cap for the I think it's 555 exemption, where they essentially say yeah we know the car is missing required hardware but it's still safe, so we should be allowed to have 2500. That's obviously not how many they have now, and it doesn't seem like they even attempted to file for the exemption. They're essentially trying to argue that it's a category error to apply these standards for driverless cars. It's essentially an easier to ask for forgiveness and try to force the hand of the NHTSA rather than wait for permission and form them to formerly updates their rules around brake pedal and side mirror requirements etc situation

If you think those elements are relevant then you're obviously a moron. I can just count how many seconds the lanes in front are clear, and leading off into the intersection and making one of those gaps would be not only incredibly easy in a Y, but also a perfectly legal maneuver. I'm saying I can, and do make turns like this given the gaps and timing in the video. You obviously don't because you drive like a little old lady.

@WorldlyReviewer Than FSD in this scenario? Absolutely

@defectivetesla @JoshMurrah @Tesla @Tesla_AI In fairness we'd be equally upset if you blew through a red light by mistake driving in your own. If you can't be trusted to control your vehicle safely then you can't be trusted to drive, let along be a beta tester for an unproven system.