Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | w0m's commentslogin

> Why did Tesla work initially?

Becaues they were ~first to market - and honestly, as a tesla driver for the last 6 years - It's the best car I ever owned (including Toyota, Mazda, and domestics).

6 years ago, for the effective price of a Honda Accord, I was able to get a car with excellent AWD for NorEast winters, perfect weight distribution (previously drove a Miata for comparison), could beat ~95% 'super cars' in a straight line, and it got 140MPG.

6 years ago. And I've had 0 maintenance outside of tire / air filter changes since. There was nothing anything remotely like it on the market, and it still holds up today. That's incredibly compelling.

Then PedoDiver, and it's been downhill from there... I'll likely get an R3X when it comes out.


Not even Tesla fans claim that Tesla is reliable.

https://www.motor1.com/news/781164/tesla-used-car-reliabilit...

For a year when we were doing the digital nomad thing, my wife and I didn’t own a car and we rented plenty of EVs. Tesla was by far our least favorite. Not having CarPlay alone is dealbreaker


As an anecdote, the two I've had are fairly reliable. The older one did have more issues (4+ in warranty?, 3 out of warranty), but they've all been small/manageable so far.

Maybe it's up to taste. Maybe the QC fell badly after some time.

It is well known that Tesla went cheapo (in quality) after a while as Elon got greedier

CR notes, though, that Tesla has improved, with its latest models demonstrating "better-than-average reliability." It’s now in the top 10 of the publication’s new car predictability rankings—just avoid those older models.

That said, it's not all bad news for Tesla on the reliability front. According to Consumer Reports, Tesla ranks ninth in new-car reliability with a predicted reliability of 50. That's just behind Buick (51) and Acura (54), but ahead of Kia (49) and Ford (48), as well as luxury rivals like Audi (44), Volvo (42), and Cadillac (41).

You were so blinded by Elon Derangement Syndrome that you didn't even bother reading your own source.


Two thoughts come to mind: First, looking at the data is always a good idea. Thank you for adding that information and correcting the record.

Second, it may be counter-productive to label any criticisms of a person as [person] Derangement Syndrome.

Elon is an objectively awful, awful human being and one could only be called deranged for finding any redeeming qualities in him.

The 'Derangement Syndrome' trope is a cheap tactic to try to shift derangement from the actually deranged person to the people pointing it out.


When we were comparing EVs it was well before Musk went full DOGE.

And you did see the part about the lack of CarPlay being an automatic disqualifier for me didn’t you? What does that have do do with Musk?

Oh and another citation

https://boingboing.net/2026/01/05/new-study-ranks-tesla-as-t...


Not sure which car you compare it to specifically from those manufacturers, but teslas seem much more expensive where I live than most models of those. Comparing it to corresponding BMW would be a more appropriate comparison.

Then comparison of quality of manufacturing and driving experience would end up in very different way (as driver of even older bmw 5 series teslas I've been to feel very cheap, and driving enjoyment goes way further than straight line performance and there teslas just don't deliver).

I agree the pedodirver should have been an eye opener for everybody. People are who they are and they don't change. Circumstances change and thus corresponding reactions, but thats about it.


I bought my LR Model 3 in 2020 for ~42,000, ~15k cheaper than a v6 3 Series at the time. A v6 5 series is another significant jump up in price/market.

> Not sure which car you compare it to specifically from those manufacturers

My comparison at the time was a Honda Civic, BMW 3 Series, and that was kind of it.

I generally consider the Model 3 interior roughly middle between the Honda and the BMW, while having worlds better tech, twice the hp, and - Electric (when they were still rare).

There really was nothing like it at any price point at the time, and i still consider it a great car (though of course not perfect).


This is the archetype I have seen for most fans of Tesla and people who think they make good cars. They assume a $50,000 car (their current Tesla) should compare with a $20,000 car (their previous Honda/Mazda). The Tesla market is also the market with BMWs and Porsches, and dollar for dollar you get a lot more from a BMW than a Tesla.

I compare my $41.5k Model Y with a Rav4/Highlander.

The Rav4 costs the same, but has far worse performance, technology, and ongoing maintenance costs.

The Highlander is slightly better, but costs $10k to $20k more, and still has far worse performance, technology, and ongoing maintenance costs.

Plus, I avoided spending hours at a dealership, and I must know at least a couple dozen Tesla owners that report no issues in the previous 5 to 10 years.

I thought I would miss Carplay, but it’s a non issue. Toyota wanted $15 to $25 per month for remote start, I pay Tesla $0 per month for remote start and remote climate control.


humans are naturally slimy. Anything you touch for 8h/day will be slimy in turn. Some of us are slimier than others.

> Would the world be safer (or more endangered) if Iran had a nuclear weapon

Is there any chance this invasion has ~anything to do with Iran having nuclear weapons?


The point the OP is making is not about the justification used by the US Admin, but instead a point about how when a country has nuclear weapons, they are typically not invaded, because you risk those weapons being used. NK developed a weapon and has some degree of safety from direct invasion.

NK is safe from invasion because of conventional artillery pointed at Seoul.

That's why they were able to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.


Israel has been invaded multiple times while having nuclear weapons.

Ukraine has invaded Russia here and there during the war even though Russia has nuclear weapons.

The argument is weak, because in general the countries that have nuclear weapons wouldn't be invaded even if nuclear weapons did not exist.


Since it developed nuclear weapons, Israel has never been invaded by a foreign country. Israel launched the 1967 war, and in 1973, Egypt only attacked occupied Egyptian territory. Same for Syria.

Does October 7th count?

that's trying to move the goalposts. You are trying to make it a moral argument while the argument is a practical one.

It shouldn't matter if a country's territory is occupied or not if nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent.


The fact that the 1973 war only occurred in Egyptian and Syrian territory actually had a major impact on how other other countries reacted to it.

Even the US - Israel's main backer - basically treated Egyptian and Syrian war aims as legitimate.

There is a widespread belief that Israel would have used nuclear weapons if the Syrians and Egyptians had broken through to Israeli territory, and that this was one of the major American motivations for resupplying the Israelis during the war.


You moved the goal posts, at least on what I inferred the point to be. Nothing is an “ultimate deterrent” to war.

Edited my post above to clarify that I do not believe Iran has WMD.

However, there is now messaging (on social media and on the NYT) from the US far right about how Iran has WMD. Take us back to 2003...


Obviously yes in the form that the comment you replied to refers to--US would be much more careful stringing a country with nuclear weapons. So while the invasion may not be caused by proximity it can be allowed bc Iran doesn't have one.

If you talk to your Asian and South Asian colleagues, the broadly held view among a lot of foreign "non aligned" nuclear countries is that Iran's regime is dumb and stupid because they didn't go nuclear first and instead tried to use it to squeeze the west by threatening to get nukes. The smarter states like India and China sprinted towards getting nukes before forcing the West to the negotiating table.

The middle eastern states are somewhat unique (and perhaps this is what inspired the end of history Western convergence school of thought in the late 90s geopolitical theory) in that they cannot survive without trade/exchange with the West. Your Asian powers like India/Pakistan/China/DPRK are all perfectly happy to be isolationist states to pursue autarchy and nuclear freedom but all of the middle eastern countries (including those like Syria/Libya) want to cosy up and trade with the West instead of going full autarchy. My theory is that it's because they are stuck in the oil resource trap and its just too easy to print money with oil than having to work and innovate.

Then again Iran is fractured internally, there's a lot of traitors within selling out the country to foreign powers. If you have Persian colleagues, ask them about the Iranian "Mossad jokes". They have a lot of funny jokes about the regime and Israeli intelligence.


That doesn't make sense for America to care about this much, given that Iran has no way to deliver nuclear weapons to it.

Nor does Iran have nuclear weapons.

Are we really back in "trust me they have WMDs" territory? How many times we gonna fall for this?


> That doesn't make sense for America to care about this much, given that Iran has no way to deliver nuclear weapons to it.

A nuclear armed Iran could hold oil and gas shipments in the Straight of Hormuz hostage indefinitely. It could also threaten U.S. bases and warships in the area. It could threaten regional allies with a nuclear attack.

> Are we really back in "trust me they have WMDs" territory?

Irrespective of everything else going on, it’s well established that Iran has a nuclear program in the advanced stages of development. There was a whole UN program around inspecting it.


> A nuclear armed Iran could hold oil and gas shipments in the Straight of Hormuz hostage indefinitely. It could threaten regional allies with a nuclear attack.

Personally, I don't care about the profit margins of oil and gas companies, and I will vote against any politician that partakes in sending my fellow citizens to die for the profit margins of oil and gas companies.

I also don't particularly care about the plight of regional allies, particularly ones that have a bizarre tendency to constantly poke the bears around them.


> (ive got a thinpad and the platic build is just terrible. The screen bends when pulling it to open the laptop).

Which thinkpad? Typing on a loaded P16s currently; it's not metal like old MBP or even my travel surface pro, but it feels... fine.


yea... I would consider it a ux regression to do the OPs tweaks.

To each their own; glad it's an option :)


NeoVim w/ render-markdown.nvim

(not to poo on OP - I dig a clean TUI renderer, I have BAT installed for a reason)


Bat is nice. Oh dang now i have to try this plugin. I remember trying a couple of similar ones that got me so frustrated that i abandoned the idea of markdown viewers in nvim... Here we go again XD


render-markdown.nvim is very nice and works with GitHub Flavoured Markdown, even down to some of the newer features like INFO, IMPORTANT, etc. quotes.


I used opencode happily for a while before switching to copilot cli. Been a minute , but I don't detect a major quality difference since they added Plan mode. Seems pretty solid, and first party if that matters to your org.


This just reads like Elon trying to leverage the AI bubble to prop up SpaceX stock to me.


SpaceX stock needs no propping.

That said xAI might need a bit of a rescue.


It's going to be really funny if this ends up killing SpaceX in the long run.


I believe his argument is that now that you've defined the limitation, it's a ceiling that will likely be cracked in the relatively near future.


Well, hallucinations have been identified as an issue since the inception of LLMs, so this doesn’t appear true.


Hallucinations are more or less a solved problem for me ever since I made a simple harness to have Codex/Claude check its work by using static typechecking.


But there aren’t very many domains where this type of verification is even possible.


Then you apply LLMs in domains where things can be checked

Indeed I expect to see a huge push into formally verified software just because sound mathematical proofs provide an excellent verifier to put into a LLM hardness. Just see how Aristotle has been successful at math, and it could be applied to coding too

Maybe Lean will become the new Python

https://harmonic.fun/news#blog-post-verina-bench-sota


  "LLMs reliably fail at abstraction."
  "This limitation will go away soon."
  "Hallucinations haven't."
  "I found a workaround for that."
  "That doesn't work for most things."
  "Then don't use LLMs for most things."


    "Autocomplete is great!"
    "It doesn't work in bash"
    "Then don't use it in bash."
I don't see what's wrong with this argument, and I certainly don't see it as a proof that the particular technology is actually useless, as you seem to be suggesting.


Um, yes? Except ‘most things’ are not much at all by volume.


I mean, Hallucinations are 95% better now than the first time I heard the term and experienced them in this context. To claim otherwise is simply shifting goalposts. No one is saying it's perfect or will be perfect, just that there has been steady progression and likely will continue to be for the foreseeable future.


I'd just do it over a Docker mount (or equivalent) to keep it a bit more lightweight. Can keep the LLM running local; and teach it how to test/debug via instruction files.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: