I agree; but Autopilot unlike FSD hasn't been updated in several years.
It doesn't contain maps or context of the roads, it is just Auto-Steer + Lane-Change + Full-Range Cruise Control under one brand-umbrella. Mostly useful on the Motorways/Freeways, and commonly found in competitor's vehicles.
It was at some points; I believed it was priced between $2K-4K depending on the point in time and either offered post-purchased or only during ordering, again, depending on which time-period.
- Has legal liability shifted as a result of the system being the driver?
Because I feel like the answer needs to be "yes" for this claim to be accurate. If the answer isn't "yes," then you're still meant to be fully engaged with driving and are liable for any accidents that occur.
A new Tesla, without subscription, now has worse Steering Assist than a $22K Toyota Corolla.
Back when Autopilot launched, in consumer cars, it was pretty unique. But the market has moved on significantly, and basic Steering Assist/Full-Speed-Range Automatic Cruise Control, are pretty universal features today.
My 5 year old Subaru has been able to lane keep and auto follow to the point that a 2h drive on the freeway is me tapping the wheel every ten seconds to keep it enabled while I watch for idiots. It has been able to do this since I bought it, and I haven’t paid a dime extra. Car cost 30k.
I have a 2020 Forester and I've come to describing it as "I no-longer drive on the highway, I manage the car." Sometimes I'll get nervous and take over. But even in stop-and-go traffic, it has behaved perfectly.
My only complaint is that there's an over-eager PID loop with lane keeping. If I want to pass a transport truck and want to kind of edge to the left of my lane when doing so, it will keep trying to compensate, which I can feel in the wheel, so I compensate for as well. And if I let go of the wheel and let it win, it suddenly flings me towards the right side of the lane.
I suspect this is because it isn't programmed to think that I'm making adjustments, it probably just thinks there's some weirdness in the vehicle dynamics/road characteristics that requires extra compensation.
I have a 2023 Crosstrek, my wife has a '21 Ascent. I have the same habit you do - edging away from large trucks slightly - and both of them do the same thing you described to me.
It's essentially that Subaru's lane system actually has two levels: it has lane keeping where it's just trying to keep you inside the lines, and then on top of that it also has lane centering which is pretty much what it says.
Just a note for you or anyone reading who has a recent Subaru and doesn't know already: if you find the centering really bothersome, you should be able to be able to go into the settings on the instrument cluster display (up/down arrows at the lower left behind the wheel, toggle it until you get to the "hold for settings" option), find the Eyesight settings, and turn off lane centering. It will still try to keep you inside the lane markers but won't try to park you right in the center of the lane. In that mode, it's more like the Honda Sensing system I had on my 2016 Civic.
I go back and forth a bit on it but mostly keep it in lane centering mode now - I've gotten used to how it positions the car in the lane, and it lets me focus more on what's going on around me than micromanaging lane position and such.
> It's essentially that Subaru's lane system actually has two levels: it has lane keeping where it's just trying to keep you inside the lines, and then on top of that it also has lane centering which is pretty much what it says.
Same with Hyundai except they call them "Lane Keeping Assist" (LKA) and "Lane Following Assist" (LFA) and I have trouble remembering which one centers you and which one just keeps you from leaving the lane.
To me just based on the names I'd have expected keeping to be the one that actively positions you (it keeps you centered) and following to the one that just reacts when you are going to depart the lane (it keeps you following the lane).
Mostly now I just remember that the one that comes on automatically any time I'm going 40+ mph is the reactive one, and the one that I have to explicitly turn on is the centering one (although both come on automatically on certain highways based on data from the navigation system).
idk whether subaru is exact the same as hyundai but i basically turned lane centering off on my hyundai. when possible i only use radar cruise control, and lane follow. if i want to overtake, turn on my signal and it'll automatically safely increase speed to set cc speed and let the lane follow off. it's pretty seamless.
lane centering is a bit too annoying for me, i need to keep my hands on the wheels anyway.
> I have a 2020 Forester and I've come to describing it as "I no-longer drive on the highway, I manage the car." Sometimes I'll get nervous and take over. But even in stop-and-go traffic, it has behaved perfectly.
I drive an old beater from 2001, but... I really don't think I understand why people want these in-between not-quite-autopilot features? To me it's like, it would be one thing if you could completely turn your brain off, or look at your phone, or rest. But since you can't, it seems like this stuff makes it more difficult to pay the appropriate amount of attention? For me, if I'm already driving somewhere, and have to pay enough attention to know if an emergency is about to happen, I might as well just do the driving.
As a technologist, I like lane-keep assist because it feels fundamentally more right that my car by default follows the road than keeps going with the turn radius I had previously input.
Cruise control with minimum distance helps me keep a sound distance even as other cars keep packing up and reducing distances on a busy highway. My previous car (Mercedes) was great at detecting if a new car coming in front of me was accelerating, if so it didn't adjust the distance as aggressively. Much better behavior than my current Kia.
Auto-break features are sweet as they react really fast. If that can avoid deploying an airbag in my face, I'm all for it.
I agree it's a lot like managing, with six buttons just to do the above, but from a bottom-up approach, each feature has value in its own right.
> For me, if I'm already driving somewhere, and have to pay enough attention to know if an emergency is about to happen, I might as well just do the driving.
Where do you draw the line? Would you prefer not having a steering and brake servo? Would you prefer sticking out your arms instead of having flashing lights? Would you prefer feeling every bump in the road to having suspension?
To me these systems just feel like natural evolution of the car concept, something that's been going on for 120 years. What Tesla failed at was putting their heads in the clouds and hoping something awesome would eventually pop out the other end. While the established car makers did incremental improvements.
GP said s/he didn't understand why anyone would want these in-betweens. I gave an explanation as to why.
Based on what you're saying, it seems the divide arises from some drivers classifying these features as physical comfort, and some as mentally disengaging.
The cognitive load is greatly reduced when using these features. Honestly, adaptive cruise control in the city is a godsend. Not having to deal with watching speed . start and stop traffic is also automated for me. Driving on a highway is also great .. You can drive much further without needing a break.
Same. Even cruise control is kind of useless because people in front of you don't necessarily use it and are very inconsistent in their speed.
So you end up constantly having to engage/disengage, rendering the whole thing moot.
I think something like autopilot could be implemented at the infrastructure level (sensors and emitters along the road), but people wouldn't like that because it would mean being unable to set your speed or overtake.
The car exists for "freedom," but it is really an inefficient mode of transportation from both a time-use and energy-use perspective.
What we really need is a mix between rail/train and car/road.
ACC generally has a 3-4 second time interval that it permits between you and the car in front of you. I live in SoCal, so a lot of my driving is on very aggressive routes. The 4-second gap is mechanically safe but it's practically unusable because it creates a void large enough to invite other cars to lane change in front of me. So when that car merges in, the ACC detects a violation of the safe braking distance and decelerates to reestablish the gap. I call it the "cut me off" loop when we're on trips.
And before anyone suggests that I start tinkering around with the settings, I have adjusted it and the damned thing just resets itself constantly.
The beauty of ACC is it lets your disengage mentally. You can be aggro if you want to with it on, but I found it's just not emotionally worth it to get mad at being cut off anymore in a car with ACC. ACC just handles going forwards and I'm not having to touch gas nor brake. If I'm not touching either, I don't have to panic react to getting cut-off, just make sure the ACC is handling it, and if that's all I need to check, vs slam on the brakes, then eh.
Ah yes, I never used that. My car isn't very recent (about 10 years old now), and I drive very little (about 2-3k per year; I take the train to go anywhere far) because I hate it.
But the adaptive part would make it much more useful indeed.
However, something that is extremely annoying in France is that speed limits tend to change very often and abruptly.
I just think that trying to solve the problem solely at the car level is always going to have too many limitations...
I prefer to steer, but radar cruise control takes a lot of the frustration out of minor speed fluctuations in front of me on the highway. I don’t feel as much need to pass all the time.
Have a EX90 I got on a really great deal, we drove it cross-country and it was mind-blowing how little I had to do. If it didn't make you touch the wheel / pay attention we could have basically done the entire trip without incident minus off-ramps.
But there was one thing that was quite bad, similar to yours. While passing a semi I pulled it to the left side and it actually yanked us right so hard and then over-corrected once again. Super scary moment, the only issue of the whole trip, but basically never passed with it on again.
How you like that car? I test drove an early model that was really a pre-release dealer demo. It was a great ride but I also didnt get to do a whole lot with the sales guy next to me and a tight deadline to get back home.
Made me want to invest in Volvo. They fixed most of the software issues, what's left is a shockingly nice experience. Touch screen can be a bit annoying is all, but Google integration and design of the UX in the touchscreen is really good.
My volvo also has a "not perfectly tuned" PID loop. With "autopilot" engaged it keeps weaving constantly left and right inside the lane im in. Have gotten used to keeping a firm-ish pressure on the steering wheel at all times to compensate. But drivers behind me must have thought me drunk before i got the hang of it.
This is lane keep assist not lane centering and dangerous to use as a lane centering feature as it’s not designed to do that hence the ping ponging behavior
Lane keep assist is always enabled, this "copilot" or whatever it's called is an extra feature i can manually enable over the default lane assist. And it will steer and follow the road quite well in most conditions. But sometimes it starts the ping pong behaviour.
Should also be noted that i never take my hands of the wheel. And the volvo is quite fast at beeping at me if it detects that i dont hang onto the wheel.
Don’t most of these systems release the lane-keeping when you turn on the turn signal? Does yours not, or do you not signal until you are trying to exit the lane? (Genuinely asking.)
Same with mine from last year. I don't tap the wheel, but I treat it as 'co-driving' or like the car has its own somewhat fussy opinions on where to be. If I zoom up on another car at a stop it's capable of freaking out and braking, it follows other cars at a good safe distance, and the lane keeping feels like you're holding the car's hand as it goes along, and its attention is generally better than yours. Works for me.
I don't want 'nap in the backseat while it drives me places', I want this. A bit of a personality keeping me on track and tidy. I'll keep my hands on the wheel but yeah, my attention is spared to watch for idiots, and I think that's good.
I appreciate that to the extent that I went into a heavy car payment to be able to have these lane-keeping things. I fully expect the assistance will be able to help me undertake longer drives for exactly that reason.
I find managing the system to be more tiring and stressful than just driving to be honest. I do not like when my vehicle behaves in a way I didn’t anticipate.
Maybe I just need more time with it but, my toyota had adaptive cruise and slammed on the brakes one time and I did not like it. On a one lane highway the car a decent ways in front of me slowed down and started moving into the shoulder to take a right turn into a driveway. As i came up on him he was almost all the way over, just his driver side wheels on the line. I moved to the far side of the lane with plenty of room to clear without slowing down and my toyota slammed on the brakes going from 65 to like 40 and it scared the shit out of me. It was a greater level of surprise and fear than I’d experienced in probably the last 20k miles of driving and was completely avoidable had I been using dumb cruise control.
Driving my mom’s Honda insight with lane assist also made me nervous when I would be near the edge of a lane on purpose and it would move the wheel on its own.
I’m not opposed to fully automated driving, but what I don’t want is to be in a situation where I need to remain alert and responsible for managing a system that does the driving. I’d rather just do the driving myself. I’ve driven for almost 20 years now, some of that professionally, and it’s second nature at this point and doesn’t require active thought outside navigating new routes and finding parking. Managing the system requires more effort for me.
I now drive a standard 33 year old truck and it’s bliss. No software updates, no bs, just a machine that takes my inputs and gets me from A to B. That said, without airbags, crumple zones and abs I’d have to get something more modern if there were children in the picture.
> My 5 year old Subaru has been able to lane keep and auto follow to the point that a 2h drive on the freeway is me tapping the wheel every ten seconds
I have a '22 Outback. My Dad has a Tesla of similar vintage. I have to pay about as much attention for FSD as I do with the Subaru, the difference being the Subaru is more predictable.
Can't wait for Waymo to start chopping into the top end of the market.
I have a newer Subaru as my daily driver. The EyeSight system is fine for what it is but it's very limited. The lane keep assist doesn't work on curvy roads. If brakes unnecessarily when the car ahead takes a highway exit. It cuts out completely in heavy precipitation where a human driver can still proceed safely at low speed.
Well... yeah, but the Tesla will do that on an empty road, then approach a slow car from behind and make a lane change decision to pass, then take your next exit and continue on through city streets, through all sorts of traffic conditions, to your destination. And it will monitor your attention with eye tracking instead of making you mess with the wheel.
It's absolutely true that the rest of the industry is rolling out new features. But people are fooling themselves if they genuinely think it's catching up. Tesla is way, way ahead here among consumer auto vendors, and frankly at parity with Waymo in the autonomy space.
They've also made an inexplicably poor pricing decision in this case that is worth talking about. But no, your Subaru isn't a meaningful competitor.
Clearly I needed to be more precise: Tesla's vehicle autonomy features have no meaningful competition in the consumer auto space, period. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is flogging some kind of angle, generally a political one. And I say this as someone who despises Musk's politics. But the cars his company makes are way, way, way ahead on this particular feature.
Is that a joke? Tesla's consumer vehicle autonomy features are ahead in some ways but way behind GM and Mercedes-Benz in others. In particular the Mercedes Drive Pilot system is true SAE level 3 where the manufacturer assumes legal liability for vehicle operation. Tesla has nothing like that available to consumers.
Drive Pilot cannot perform a single one of the maneuvers I listed above.
It's just a stunt. They took a machete to the feature set to find Just One Thing that would meet the requirements. All it does is use radar to follow another car on a selection of fixed, geofenced limited access highways. It can't handle the leader changing lanes, or going too fast (won't even get to the speed limit). It won't navigate, it won't change lanes. It can't even operate on an open road.
But it's "L3V31 THr333", so otherwise rational nerds get to yell about it on the internet. No one actually shows this thing off in their cars, it's not useful for real driving. FSD drives me around literally every day.
> Well... yeah, but the Tesla will do that on an empty road, then approach a slow car from behind and make a lane change decision to pass, then take your next exit and continue on through city streets, through all sorts of traffic conditions, to your destination. And it will monitor your attention with eye tracking instead of making you mess with the wheel.
The point is that it now only does that if you subscribe. If I dont want to pay a monthly fee, an economy car now has a better feature set in this area
> If I dont want to pay a monthly fee, an economy car now has a better feature set in this area
It's... a car. You already pay a monthly fee. Probably several.
I get the marketing angle here, that this is a bad look and will drive away customers.
I was responding to the attempt upthread (which you just repeated) to conflate it with a technical argument ("better feature set"). The feature set is not worse because it costs money. FSD is in fact market leading.
It makes the idea of a putative consumer who refuses to pay ongoing costs for their car a little silly though. Argue about whether the product value is worth the cost, not from a position of "people won't pay any more for their already extremely expensive vehicles".
> The article and the discussion is about autopilot, not FSD.
The fee under discussion is literally the cost of purchasing an FSD subscription.
I'm not repaying for the same fuel, I am paying for new fuel. I'm not rebuying for the same insurance, I pay for the potential accidents in a time frame. With registration I am paying for the wear I am inflicting on the public roads for a time frame. I expect to own the car and it is staying the same. Paying for it again is called renting.
> and frankly at parity with Waymo in the autonomy space.
Waymos have been driving around autonomously for years; meanwhile Tesla taxis have a human in the car ready to activate a kill switch at all times. Therefore, your statement is objectively false.
It's a stunt. If they believed it worked, they wouldn't need somebody dedicated to monitoring it for the entire time it's on the road. Having nobody in the car looks cool, but there is nothing different about the car's self driving capability, and the economics are even worse than having the safety driver in the car.
It's no different on a technical level than Waymo using remote operators. Presumably Tesla just hasn't wired that up, or doesn't plan to.
FWIW, your logic works better the other way around anyway: if the system didn't work, there would be easily-accessible proof to that effect showing the resulting hilarity as the operator needed to step in. There isn't.
And... of course there isn't. Because FSD is real and works and it drives a ton of us around every day. Is it possible that there are failure modes? Of course. Thus the safety personnel. But the bar of "if they believed it worked" was crossed years ago. Yes, it works. Duh. Go to a dealer and get a test drive if you don't believe people on the internet.
No it's entirely different on a technical level, because waymos always drive themselves. The human operators don't drive, and in fact can't, they can only make decisions that the car then executes.
Waymos are autonomous vehicles, Tesla has some vehicles which may operate autonomously in certain circumstances. There's a big difference.
Waymo's operators can absolutely control the vehicles directly. I'm not sure what you're trying to cite here. The only effective difference in architecture here is where, physically, the backup operator sits.
I know it's upsetting to think that someone you hate has a good product, but... they do. Arguing on the internet isn't rolling back the launch.
They can't, they don't have a steering wheel or remote controller or anything. And this is supported by the fact that waymos are actually level 4 autonomous, and Tesla's are not.
This has nothing to do with Elon musk. From a purely technical standpoint, no - Tesla DOES NOT have autonomous vehicles to the level of their competitors. It's not a matter of opinion.
Fair enough, but is still a Subaru. So it doesn’t make sense to compare its value to a Tesla just because of auto steer. If it comes to that, there’s a lot of value in a Tesla for which you don’t pay a dime either, like constant and actually useful system upgrades, a reliable charging network and great customer service. It’s also a good looking car with a great user interface that gets better and better with free updates. Now if you are a person dropping 50K on a Tesla, you can likely afford FSD if that’s something important to you. FSD is not comparable to any auto steer I have tried on any car, and I drive a bunch of different rental cars because I travel a lot by road for business. I like the new flexibility of being able to pay for FSD when you are going to use it only, like during a long trip. There’s no point to be on FSD (or autopilot) to run errands in the city.
To be fair, though, the subscription isn't for "Steering Assist", it's for FSD. You don't subscribe to the feature you have on your Corolla, you subscribe to an autonomous navigation solution.
This is a pretty boneheaded business decision on Tesla's part. But their technology remains clearly superior.
To underscore this: the boneheaded decision Tesla is making is forcing customers to choose between a $99/mo subscription for FSD, and no ACC or lanekeeping assist otherwise. It's like letting people buy a subscription to the iPhone Pro Max 17 or not have any phone at all.
By the way, FSD ("full self-driving") is just as inaccurately named as Autopilot. I don't know why Tesla can't call their technology, like, CyberDrive or something else that isn't glaringly inaccurate.
Autopilot is just cruise control/lane keep assist/slow down when the car ahead of you does.
It’s not close to FSD, Tesla wouldn’t call FSD as Auto pilot because auto pilots un the aircraft industry are pretty dumb (the first autopilot was literally a rope tied to the aircraft control stick). FSD used to be the expensive paid add on feature while autopilot was a more reasonably priced upgrade.
You should maybe read the article. Tesla is removing Steering Assist from all new vehicles sold, and your options are now either nothing or FSD for $99/month.
Previously you got the Corolla feature set included with your vehicle purchase, Enhanced Autopilot for a fee which was a step above that, and then FSD subscription which was a step-up again.
Now Tesla has downgraded the base experience to include no Steering Assist at all, and no longer offers Enhanced Autopilot. So you get two choices: No Steering Assist or FSD.
For now, the people that had the feature for free, will get to keep it. Presumably, Tesla advertised the lane assist features when they sold the car, so they cannot legally remove them.
When I was testing vehicles in 2019 I found that a bunch of them had lane keeping but they kind of "bounced" between the lines. I got a Forester because for reason I typed but but aren't really topic relevant, it was far, far nicer and works amazingly. And for years whenever a Teslafriend would tout their lane keeping, I was just, "uhh yeah my base model Subaru does that." "Oh no, no this is better, this does a lot more than just the basic lane keeping you get..." "Nope, that sounds just like my Subaru."
> When I was testing vehicles in 2019 I found that a bunch of them had lane keeping but they kind of "bounced" between the lines
That’s lane keep/lane assist; not lane centering. It’s supposed to bounce between the edges of the lane. (I guess, not supposed to, but that’s what it does as opposed to actually tracking some position in the lane).
The auto industry as a whole did a massive disservice not clearly differentiating “lane keep”/“lane assist” v/s “lane centering”. They are hugely different and trying to use lane keep to stay centered is really dangerous.
Same model car with different trim levels/packages would have lane keep or lane centering making it really confusing to consumers what they had and what safe usage would be.
i have a 2020 outback, and I didnt evaluate the lane keeping as part of the purchase decision. But since then i have rented a ton of different cars for work travel, and have realized surbaru has the best system out there, outside of truly premium cars / software cars like tesla. Some of them (chevvy) are outright dangerous. Its surprising because in every other way subaru's electronic / software sucks :)
9 yo Honda and yes, lane keep assist feels more like ruts on a road - it will steer when closer to the lane, but not always, and won't align car with the lane .
I see a lot of these "this is LLM" comments; but they rarely add value, side track the discussion, and appear to come into direct conflict with several of HN's comment guidelines (at least my reading).
I think raising that the raw Valve response wasn't provided is a valid, and correct, point to raise.
The problem is that that valid point is surrounding by what seems to be a character attack, based on little evidence, and that seemingly mirrors many of these "LLM witch-hunt" comments.
Should HN's guidelines be updated to directly call out this stuff as unconstructive? Pointing out the quality/facts of an article is one thing, calling out suspected tool usage without even evidence is quite another.
LLM generated comments aren't allowed on HN[0]. Period.
If any of the other instances whereby HN users have quoted the guidelines or tone policed each other are allowed then calling out generated content should be allowed.
It's constructive to do so because there is obvious and constant pressure to normalize the use of LLM generated content on this forum as there is everywhere else in our society. For all its faults and to its credit Hacker News is and should remain a place where human beings talk to other human beings. If we don't push back against this then HN will become nothing but bots posting and talking to other bots.
It isn't a baseless witch hunt if the witches are real.
Creating a social stigma against the use of LLMs is constructive and necessary. It's no different than HN tone policing humor, because allowing humor would turn HN into Reddit.
How is randomly branding people without knowing "constructive and necessary?" Seems like it is completely self-defeating; you're going to make the accusations meaningless because if everything is "LLM" then nothing is.
I get the point you're trying to make, but it's worth pointing out that the entire point is that it's not people getting branded but nebulous online entities that may or may not be people. It's a valid criticism that the accuracy of these claims is not measurable, but I think it's equally true that we no longer are in a world where we can be be sure that no content like this is from an LLM either. It's not at all obvious to me that the assumption that everything is from a human is more accurate than the aggregate set of claims of LLMs, so describing it as "branding people" seems like it's jumping to co me conclusions in the same way.
Counterproposal: Let's update HN's guidelines to ban blatant misinformation generated by a narrative storyteller spambot. My experience using HN would be significantly better if these threads were killed and repeat offenders banned.
>Counterproposal: Let's update HN's guidelines to ban blatant misinformation generated by a narrative storyteller spambot.
This will inevitably get abused to shut down dissent. When there's something people vehemently disagree with, detractors come out of the woodwork to nitpick every single flaw. Find one inconsistency in a blog post about Gaza/ICE/covid? Well all you need to do is also find a LLM tell, like "it's not x, it's y", or an out of place emoji and you can invoke the "misinformation generated by a narrative storyteller spambot" excuse. It's like the fishing expedition for Lisa Cook, but for HN posts.
I actually created a review to warn people that most of the reviews were for a different product (even provided photos, showing the old/new; showing the huge downgrade), and Amazon nuked my review because:
> After carefully reviewing your submission, your review could not be posted to the website. It appears your review had feedback on the seller.
Yeah, so Amazon won't let you post reviews warning others about this either. The review itself was about the LISTING not the SELLER.
I think the argument is that commercial recipes in the US are written in proportional notation, e.g. 1:2:3 sourdough, but recipes in countries which use metric give units, e.g. 1kg:2L:3kg. I also note that if you add small proportions of an ingredient, e.g. salt, it might be easier to change units in metric (5g salt) while it would be easier to write proportionally in imperial (0.005 parts salt) if you were then going to scale to to a tonne/ton of dough.
I have no idea if this is true but it sounds like a coherent argument that isn't just volumetric vs mass units.
Only in Imperial/United States customary units. They start with a few unconvincing metric examples, then throw away the pretence and jump right into cups, tbsp, etc.
If you'd stop using Imperial, and started using metric + scales, the entire problem domain no longer exists.
Scales are fine, but you're going to need scoops anyway. However, once you've made a recipe before, you probably won't need the scale to make it a second time. Volume measuring equipment is useful for more than measurement, can be easily multiplied or halved, never needs calibration, charging or changing of batteries, and you're going to be estimating anyway once you've gotten familiar with a recipe. It's also very easy to estimate without any standard measuring equipment at all.
> you're going to be estimating anyway once you've gotten familiar with a recipe
I would disagree slightly for this when it comes to making precise doughs or other things like brines, syrups, candy, and etc. Or at least I would change "estimating" to "adjusting" in your statement above. When it comes to trying something new (whether in baking from a proper source, like e.g. Modernist Bread or Modernist Pizza, or otherwise), a scale is invaluable.
But yeah, once you have some something a few times and have the feel, you can convert to volumes and go based on your senses. There's a baseline science / formula to some cooking, but the rest really is art.
This feels like a nit, because really I am just glad to see someone else pointing out the obvious realities here. While I would be hesitant to try Mr. Slide Rule's cooking, I'd try your cooking without fear!
Bases for cases. One of the advantages of Imperial measurements is that they are divisible by more factors than 2 and 5. This is where metric falls down for cooking. NB: I know the metric system and use it daily, but it's not perfect for every use case.
Cooking is only about proportions in some very narrow fields (e.g. baking), and, even then, adjustment to ingredients, environment, and other contextual factors is paramount, and most adjustments need to be non-linear (whether by mass, volume, or surface-area). If the proportions are anything other than guidelines, you are doing mediocre cooking, at best.
I'm actually a huge fan of "unlimited slow speeds" as a falloff, instead of a cliff.
Aside from the fact it allows you to work with Starlink to buy more fast speed, it also allows core stuff to continue to function (e.g. basic notifications, non-streaming web traffic, etc).
I would kill for a web renaissance to return to this format of webpages, as least as an option. Not only loading improves, but also navigation and accessibility.
Indeed. That's why, when they finally kill old.reddit, I may legitimately stop using it entirely. They've already banned most of the good apps, forcing the pretty terrible official one.
Recently the old reddit szopped working for me even after going to account settings and opting out of new design again (it was already marked as being opt out) across all my devices. Even after manually navigating to old.reddit.com, clicking any link would take me to new again. I had to install special extensions to reroute to old reddit everywhere.
It's very frustrating whenever this topic comes up that people see no middle ground between "the website as it is right now" and "some bloated JavaScript monstrosity". There is lots of room for improvement that would not turn it into "a bloated JavaScript monstrosity". How about bigger touch targets? Half the time when I go to vote on a comment on mobile I vote in the wrong direction and have to undo it. Same goes for using the search feature: I constantly fat-finger the drop-down search options on mobile.
Even though I usually prefer mobile websites to apps, most of the time for HN I browse using Octal instead of the website because the website is such a pain. And it wouldn't take very much to make it better, which makes it so annoying that people have knee-jerk anger to the prospect every time the subject comes up.
And lose even more precious space for reading? No thanks. Zoom in before you vote if it's a problem for you. You might say "how about drag up/down?" but then you can't scroll reliably on the page.
There's all this blank space to the left of the comment. Some of that could be used for bigger arrows.
Or some of the buttons on a comment could be hidden until you tap the comment. (And you can do it in CSS if div toggle is an offensive amount of javascript.)
There are some low-hanging fruit that would make the experience better. It's fine but it's not great.
The Octal app has better touch targets on mobile and manages to show more text at the same time. Here’s a pair of screenshots from my iPhone of the top of the “Is Rust Faster than C” comments. [0] is mobile Safari, [1] is Octal. The app shows more text.
This is exactly what makes me nuts about this whole debate: the complete lack of empiricism or nuance. People would rather just have their knee-jerk outrage about JavaScript or web design fads, instead of actually checking whether the things they’re saying are true.
The font is bigger in your first example, the text uses twice the space (or your screenshots are different resolutions?). I greatly prefer it because it's easier to read. You could zoom out if you want, I guess.
But you could move the arrows to be to the right of the [-] and space them out a bit, sure, so they're easier to touch.
Anything that would introduce any amount of unneeded Javascript would make HN worse. It's the cancer of the modern Web. The current design shows that it isn't needed at all.
So is Manifest v2 ad blocking and plenty of people are screaming about killing that one.
For a proper HN technical-solutions-only response, have the rewrite functionality reside in a WASM module cached locally and run in the browser, with a transparency ledger proving everyone sees the same WASM modules. This way any MitM attempts by the service are reproducible and undeniable.
v2 is not a MitM concern (but it is a malicious code concern). Before quibbling about this consider that if v2 qualifies as a MitM concern then pretty much every other piece of software also does. That isn't in keeping with the spirit of the term.
The outrage is threefold, because there is no viable alternative, because it infantilizes users, trampling their agency, and because it clearly serves corporate interests at the expense of the user.
As to your proposed solution - the rewriting needs to happen on a separate device in order to avoid pushing extra data across the network. If you're already self hosting that service then there's no need for a transparency ledger.
One more realistic option could
be to have an "LLM browsing proxy" where you chat with an LLM via text, and it does the browsing and parsing and extracting, with links etc.
2G speeds are awful, and cell companies clearly want it that way since 3G plans throttled to "2G speeds" and 5G plans still usually throttle to "2G speeds".
Starlink is offering 1Mbps here, which is enough for a normal internet experience. It's enough to stream video at 480p or 720p depending on the exact content and encoding settings.
I've been listening to 32kbit radio streams while on a 64k falloff. It used to be an important feature for me, the 64k up and down. Sounds like nothing, but is usable.
Telegram Messenger works fine at 2G (bar photos/videos, obviously). I was surprised by it. This is an upside of "building your own crypto" or the MTProto protocol, in their case.
Yeah I know. I think it's becoming somewhat of a problem though, people commenting without reading, or only skimming.
My thinking is that we're getting tons of bad articles now that it's so easy to make a bad article that, when skimmed, looks good, and is a good jumping off point for comments.
I think in the past it was somewhat high effort to make such an article, so most articles that look good when skimmed actually WERE pretty good. But now it's trivially easy to make an article that looks good when skimmed, and so we're getting a lot of articles whose only value is a jumping off point for comments.
My mobile data plan is like this. It’s funny because when I’m “out of data” my provider sends an SMS suggesting I upgrade to more gigabytes, but then it still continues to work. And yes I checked my bills to make sure that they are not charging me for any usage excess of what’s included in the plan. It’s not even particularly slow. I can still browse the web, send and receive WhatsApp messages, images and videos, watch videos on TikTok etc.
My current plan is 2GB with rollover. Last month I used 2.5GB, and somehow this month has 2GB included + 2GB rollover = 4 GB available which by itself is also weird. Maybe most of the 2.5 GB I used last month was rollover from the month before that or something.
In total I have used 4.6 GB of mobile data so far this month, which is more than the 4 GB (2+2) I have available for this month and it’s still working.
That's kind of my point, ISPs use that max speed in their advertising when it isn't really relevant, especially if it hits your cap in a minute or two.
It is relevant, though. I have 1.2 Gbps down with a 2 TB monthly cap. I've never hit the monthly cap even once, but by your standard I have "1.2 Gbps down for 3 hours, 42 minutes".
But that doesn't change the reality that it matters to me that a 20 GB video that a friend took at my wedding downloads in just 2 minutes rather than the ~30 minutes it would take if I had a 100 Mbps connection.
Shockingly to some, the level of network development, especially wireless network, is not the same everywhere. Even population density varies greatly. I just checked our operators, the cheapest mobile plan comes at 1 GiB of data per month. Prices climb really fast after that, making 10-15 GiB (or more) too expensive for many, though you can get 5 GiB/mo subsidized for cheap if you have some sort of disability.
Speed isn’t great, but that’s about 25% of “full speed” use over the course of a month, 600k seconds. Considering sleep is about 30% of a month as well, and assuming you’re not on a phone all day while working, it might be hard to hit that cap. Speed isn’t great, to reiterate. The cost is 30x cheaper than what I pay, and my speed, at my house, is 10mbps. No cap, but I use like 5gb/month.
More datapoints in USD (Chile) from checking various companies:
150GB-200GB ~15 USD
400GB-450GB ~19-20 USD
Unlimited (without throttling) ~21-27 USD
This is the price after the new client ~20% discount expires (generally 6 months). The unlimited and higher tier usually include stuff like Amazon Prime Videos subscriptions, local IPTV or roaming gigs. All plans obviously include calls and texting.
Data point: I'm in the US on an old pre-paid plan that gets me 5GB per month at fast speed, dropping down to unlimited "2G" speed after that cap is hit, which I've done only twice in the past 12 years. $30 per month, and I always "bring my own device" (ie, I only buy unlocked phones, not through the carrier). I haven't shopped around for a while.
You should shop around! Some of the MVNOs are offering unlimited fast data at a similar price these days, and something similar to what you have now for cheaper.
Visible here, as well. I've been paying $25.00 per month, flat (no extra fees/taxes) for years.
It's perhaps worth noting for others that there are 3 different tiers of service with Visible, ranging from $25 to $45 -- although all 3 are "unlimited."
(I can't tell the difference between them, myself, with my phone in my use.)
I second this! I switched to mint recently. They are offering unlimited data including hotspot for $15/mo for up to a year if you prepay. I think then it goes to their standard rate which is $30/mo for unlimited, or $15/mo for 5gb.
Yeah, I feel like the major providers must be coasting on people who just dont bother looking into it and ares till on the same $100 plan they've been on forever (this was me until recently) and people who really want new flagship phones all the time but can't afford them outright, so they finance with a postpaid plan.
I'm in WA - I pay $20/mo for 15GB on Mint Mobile. I used to do $15/mo for 5GB but kept sometimes bumping into it (tethering and stuff) so I just bit the bullet and upgraded.
I got Connect by T-Mobile a few years ago when it was $10/mo prepaid ($11.03 with tax), and I am grandfathered in. It has a hard cap of 1GB/mo, then nothing. Then I got Hello Helium with a physical SIM on my exercise phone (out in the rain, at the gym) and it is completely free with ... wait for it ... 3GB/mo of data. Go figure. The Hello Helium app used to require location permission on at all times, but they eliminated that.
Even ChatGPT struggles to compare prices between local power providers. Partly because TOU differences, but a lot of time because providers straight up won't provide kWH rate. Add solar, battery and ability to shift patterns (solar charging EV, hot water automation) and it's a huge mess.
I spend 90% of my time at home working (WFH) or relaxing or doing hobbies or sleeping, so most of my Internet use is via the WiFi. I chose one of the cheapest mobile data plans because I don’t need all that much mobile data when I already have Internet at home.
As long as I can still browse a little bit on the go, use WhatsApp to send and receive messages, photos, and videos, and I can watch a few TikTok and YouTube videos on the go, I’m happy.
My 2GB/month mobile data plan costs 179 NOK per month (~17.71 USD/month), plus I pay an extra monthly charge to use eSIM instead of physical SIM.
And I thought Swedish prices was bad. I got in on Fello (Telia MVNO) triple data offer, for like 1 weekend only, that's why it's so cheap.
Chilimobil seems to be the cheapest in Norway looking around, 1GB for 119, 2GB for 139, 6GB for 199 20GB for 249. Also unlimited plans capped on speed.
I have been using 5-10GB a month on my plan. (Cant use WIFI at work)
Years ago, I picked cell carrier because of this. When I ran out, it switched to O(200kbps), which is fine for email, basic web search, etc.
It was actually a bit ironic that, at the time, you could burn through the whole high-speed quota in seconds or minutes, if you went to the wrong web page. Most carriers would stop or bill you an arm-and-a-leg after.
5G data roaming is hilarious for this. Verizon offered 500MB of high speed data roaming per day in Canada before throttling down to ~128kbps. I ran one single speedtest in the middle of Ottawa on Rogers 5G, didn't even finish the speedtest (hitting an error at the end that it failed), and got the text message going "You've run out of high speed data today. Do you want to buy another 500MB for $5?"
At least it's 2GB/day now. And my 5G roaming is off...
Roaming in some countries is like $10,000/gigabyte...
At that price, I dunno why they offer it at all. Are they just hoping to sue someone to get their whole house because they once watched some netflix overseas and forgot to use wifi?
They were deals that were made back in the WAP days where spending $1 a few times a day to check your business email made some semblance of sense, that then got neglected.
Companies should be required by law to nominate an explicit "credit limit" for every account, and customers should be allowed to reduce it to whatever they want. Morally there's no difference between a credit card with a $5,000 credit limit, and a cell phone plan where you can rack up $5,000 in charges if you do the wrong thing.
Thing is, the heaviest users are often the ones with some malware on their machine using up 100% of the bandwidth. When you limit that to 512kbps, thats still 129 gigabytes a month, on top of the 100 gigabytes a month you let the user use at high speed. When a typical user might use just 10 gigabytes a month, it seems dumb to let one user use 23x what everyone else is paying for/using, especially when that user is most likely just malware infected and not even personally benefiting!
A better limit I think is to limit the user to 10 kbps over a rolling 24h window, 100 kbps over a rolling 1h window, 1Mbits over a rolling 1 minute window, and 10 Mbits over a 1 second window. That way they can quickly check an email or load a web page... But it quickly slows down if they try to (ab)use it for hours on end.
It's not like 100GB is some huge amount of data. It's easy to hit, so if we're judging the overage amount we should be comparing it to the full 100GB, not some made up guy that only uses 10GB. There are users on unlimited consuming many terabytes, and they're not paying all that much more. It's not unfair to anyone if the cheaper plan is able to slowly reach 200GB or 300GB in a minimal-impact way.
Also dropping all the way to 10kbps with enough use would just suck. It's effectively unusable and it would be extreme penny-pinching to make sure the maximum 24/7 user can't squeak out more than 3GB extra on their 100GB plan. You get more variance than that from different month lengths.
> it seems dumb to let one user use 23x what everyone else is paying for/using
Bandwidth is use-it-or-lose-it. If nobody else was using it, then it doesn't hurt anything. And during high demand traffic shaping hopefully gives their traffic even lower priority.
> If nobody else was using it, then it doesn't hurt anything.
On networks I manage, there are clients who pay for large quantities of super low priority capacity - eg. for moving scientific data around, or backing up stuff that only needs to complete sometime in the next 30 days.
That means there is no such thing as unused bandwidth - almost every link is 100% full of paying customers data, and anyone using more displaces one of those low priority customers.
Starlink’s plans vary between markets, but in Australia they have a dirt cheap ($8 AUD per month or something) standby plan that gives you unlimited data capped at something like 500Kbps. If you’re going on a trip and need faster data, you can upgrade to a bigger plan for the rest of the billing month, charged on a pro rata basis, and then revert to the standby plan afterwards.
I used to use Inmarsat BGAN. BGAN would top out at around 250Kbps on a good day, and cost a few bucks per MB on a terminal that cost almost ten times as much as a Starlink Mini.
I leave my Starlink Mini in Standby Mode, which is $5/mo and is capped at 500KB/sec. I got the dish for free because I'm already a subscriber at home, so adding the $5/mo really isn't a big deal. It's perfect to go camping, because I might want to let my friends know that I had to move campsites, but I don't want to sit there and surf all day long and watch YouTube. Though 500KB/sec is more than enough to do all of that...
As a residential customer Starlink gave me the unlimited slow speed with a free mini for $60/year, as a tease to promote the full speed at $300/year. But it does everything I need it to, so I'm not incentivized to upgrade. I can listen to YouTube audio, make voip calls, download map tiles or talk with a chatbot without limitations. It's a large quality of life improvement for me because in my rural area there is no cellular connection during most of my driving.
I do think it's vastly superior to preferential treatment for some traffic, which seems to be the most popular alternative. The one caveat is that ISPs need to be forced to be transparent about this. Often, with cell providers, it's "Unlimited 5G" advertised, with a tiny asterisk pointing to even tinier disclaimer text at the bottom explaining that they throttle your rates once you hit a (fairly low) cutoff. That type of misleading marketing undercuts the fairness of the offer.
My internet providers (both home wifi and cellular) do this. The problem with unlimited slow speed is that it's too slow. I am sometimes unable to open the carrier's own app and pay for a recharge. Either the app just doesn't open or the transaction in the payments app fails.
Mobile has been like this for me for like a decade or so. But in the before times it was just barbaric and ridiculous to either be cut off or absolutely ravaged by fees.
Have they quantified the slow speed? Because when I had Viasat the slow speed so so unbelievably slow it had a hard time loading a regular SPA page in 2-3 minutes.
Judicial, i.e. the courts. What isn't judicial is law enforcement determining/imposing sentences on their own, at the scene of 'crime'.
One is a system of laws and justice.
The other, which you are arguing in defense of, is a police state with unchecked authority given to police/no system of balance.
What you are defending is an un-American policing system. Something more in line with the Judge Dredd comics (the point of which is that sort of thing is bad, in case you miss it).
It doesn't contain maps or context of the roads, it is just Auto-Steer + Lane-Change + Full-Range Cruise Control under one brand-umbrella. Mostly useful on the Motorways/Freeways, and commonly found in competitor's vehicles.
reply