Plan B secure survival on another planet.
Why? Because:
Plan A Is to make max profits, and don’t give a shit about the only planet that sustains human life.

WTF? How can a CEO walk from responsibility by claiming puffery? Which is the same as admitting to lying!
In civilized countries CEO is a position of responsibility, you can’t just talk up stock or sales with false claims. The requirements for a CEO are higher than usual, exactly because everything they say can have a financial impact.
I’m pretty sure that judgement is not according to normal practices. It’s disgusting they let that pedo walk again and again.

neither are your eyes

That’s a grossly misleading statement.
We definitely use 2 eyes to achieve a 3D image with depth perception.

So the question is obviously whether Tesla does the same with their Camera AI for FSD.

IDK if they do, but if they do, they apparently do it poorly. Because FSD has a history of driving into things that are obviously (for a human) in front of it.

Good question.
The Mars base should be started years ago according to what Musk claimed, and they should have manned flights to Mars by now. And all he has is half failed tests just to do one orbit around earth! 🤣🤣🤣

For 8 years he has claimed Fully autonomous driving will be ready next year. He even claimed years ago, that a car picking you up and driving you across the country was something we can do today!

Enron Musk is a conman, he is obviously a liar, and there are people who still believe him?!

So far Tesla seems to be achieving this just fine by using cameras alone.

Funny, last I heard, Tesla FSD has a tendency to run into motorcycles.
With lidar there would be no doubt that there is an actual object, and obviously you don’t drive into it.

I’m not sure the approach Elon Musk has to developing self driving will ever work.
From what I’ve heard about how they “teach” the AI, it probably won’t, because loading massive amounts of new data is rewarded, but there is no proper qualitative control.

I’m curious why you are downvoted?
When searching “wireless charging efficiency” on Google, Google offer this short explanation:

The efficiency rate of inductive chargers usually falls between 70% and 80%, though some newer models boast efficiencies closer to 90% under optimal conditions. This is slightly lower than the 90% to 95% efficiency rate often seen in traditional wired charging.

Not too far off from the statement above that 93% is already available, and apparently progress is being made.

this could actually work out

No it won’t, Elon Next year Musk has promised Fully autonomous driving next year since 2016. He has sold his cars with subscriptions for FSD for years, despite it doesn’t work. It’s even illegal to call it FSD now, so Tesla has to call it assisted FSD, which is an oxymoron.

With this move, Enron Musk will more likely ensure the continued decline of Tesla. The Cybercab most likely will not be a moneymaker, and the focus on developing it, will detract from Tesla developing much needed new EV models, for a market with increasing competition.

Tesla is far from #1 in developing autonomous driving, so the chances are very slim that they would be even close to be first to market.

AFAIK this is pretty much the current rank:
-1 Waymo (Google)
-2 Mercedes
-3 Mobil Eye
-4 GM (Cruise)
-5 Baidu
-6 Tesla

Possibly Nissan-Renault (WeRide) and Nvidia can match Tesla too.

Notice that Tesla used MobilEye originally up to 2016, but MobilEye ended the partnership after a Tesla model S had a fatal crash. I suspect the irresponsible claims implementation and practices by Elon Musk were too much.

Elon Musk is insane and a con man, to believe anything he claims about the future of his companies is naive.

Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.

I agree, I just find it strange that that is the perception of medicine that is a knockoff of an original, because that’s very common, is widely sold, and generally has the exact same effect as the original.
A knockoff is also used for a cheaper copy of an original. Cheaper as in price, not necessarily quality, although that is often the case, it doesn’t have to be. As is usually NOT the case when it regards medicine. The cheaper copy (knockoff) can usually be used interchangeably.

There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
But disregarding how close it comes, it will always be considered cheap because it’s a knockoff and not an original product.

A knock off is a copy, a cheap knock off is a cheap copy.
There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.
In medicine it’s quite common that cheaper copies or knockoffs are identical to the original product, and those are very common to become available when patents have expired.

This is usually not the case for imitations

So what? That doesn’t make them not imitations or copies, and it’s called an exact copy and is not unusual, and it’s still a copy. No matter how accurate good and efficient, doesn’t change that it’s a copy of an original heavily researched product.
These new weight loss medicines are Nobel Price material, no doubt it’s not the knock offs that will get the Nobel Price for copying what someone else did.

A distro is way more than just package managers, it’s also the level of testing before deployment, and a shitload of configuration and design decisions.

That said, everything from one distro can generally be configured to work like it does in another distro, but it’s not always easy.

If you want to try Linux, jump right into it, if there’s something you don’t like, maybe another Distro or DE has fixed that exact thing, and it’s easy to swap.

They are absolutely 100% imitations copied from an original. Just because the imitation is good or even perfect, doesn’t make it any less an imitation or knockoff.

Edit2:
There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
But disregarding how close it comes, even if it’s identical it’s still a knockoff, and it will always be considered “cheap” because it’s not an original product.

I find it strange that the perception is that these medicine copies are not knockoffs because they are well made??? Because in medicine that’s very common, is widely sold as cheaper alternatives, and generally has the exact same effect as the original. And it’s perfectly legitimate once the patents expire.

they’re the same drug,

Of course they are, that’s what it means, it’s copied from the original.

There are also fakes that do not contain real medicine, those are not knockoffs, because they do NOT copy the medicine, only the packaging. The knockoffs are not decidedly fake because they actually work.

Exactly, and Christ the Apple vs Samsung on Samsung copying the iPad “design” was ridiculous!
I don’t know if that was what you meant, but that’s what I immediately thought of.

I can understand that having your own copy is nice, especially if the service is closed for some reason.
I just don’t bother doing that anymore, I prefer browsing my library on GOG instead of a file-manager.

Some companies are just scumbags, and the bigger they are the worse it gets.

Cool, digital photography is an area that has had insane development IMO.
I’m absolutely flabbergasted by the digital photography capabilities of modern phones. high res, image stabilization, and of course color mapping/filtering.
The processing power needed is insane. 4K movies are 8 megapixel at 3 colors 30 fps, and it’s 750 million sub pixels, that need to be processed per second, and we do that on a cheap tiny handheld device! The better ones can handle 8K and that’s 3 Billion sub pixels per second!

It’s impressive that you have been part of it. 👍 😎

I have a friend who works for the city and invented a brilliant system to remove weed from pebble driveways, without using weed killers. They wrote an article in the local paper, and he was even awarded by the mayor.

Several people recommended to him to patent his system, and he contacted a patent lawyer to do just that.
The lawyer praised his idea, and stated he could make the paperwork to get the patent, for the small fee of some insane amount.
Luckily he pulled out, and did not go forward.

It turns out that his idea was already in production in Germany. The money to the patent lawyer would have been a complete waste.

The moral of the story is, that the only sure winners on patents, are the lawyers.

Edit PS:
Another story, a guy had some patents he found out were being used by a really big company.
He contacted the company to make an agreement on the use of his patents, and the response he got back was basically: “Sue us”.
Those big companies have lawyers on their pay role, patent cases are insanely expensive, in part because patent lawyers are among the most expensive, and it’s near impossible to predict the outcome of a case. His chances of even affording the case were slim, and the chance of winning even if he was obviously right were even slimmer. Because the big company will just hire “experts” to claim non violation. And the little guy can’t afford to match it.

So again the patents didn’t help the little guy.

The original idea with patents is to help protect small inventors from being run over by bigger corporations.
But the result is more often the opposite, where small inventors that have a genuinely profitable novel product, is quickly forced to bankruptcy by frivolous patent suits, even when the new product is patented, and when bankrupt bought for peanuts by the bigger corp.

The other main basis for patents is that the technology should not be lost, in case of the inventors death.
But the way tech works today, that is no-longer relevant.

5 year patent would absolutely be better than what we have IMO.