It would be great to have some useful information about the failure condition for FSD in this situation but the author provides essentially nothing.
> The car was making a turn. Something felt off—the steering wheel jerked one way, then the other, and the car decelerated in a way I didn’t expect.
I use the latest FSD in an M3 and I have noticed it behave indecisively when changing lanes, not so much when turning, but I believe the author's account.
> I turned the wheel to take over. I don’t know exactly what the system was doing, or why. I only know that somewhere in those seconds, we ended up colliding with a wall.
The author disengaged FSD (reasonable when concerned) and ran into a wall.
I almost never let go of the steering wheel when FSD is driving. I want to be able to take over with the minimum delay. I don't know that I'll ever trust it to drive unsupervised.
It's an unbelievable driver-assistance system. But you need to treat it as such. Tesla may market it, and name it, otherwise, but anybody using FSD should quickly realize it has limits.
Also have your same concerns / complaints with lane change hesitation on the latest FSD in a Juniper Model Y; the car puts the blinker on and then acts super-duper nervous, almost as if it were driving for the first time.
That said, I only notice this behavior in the "Standard" FSD profile. When I bump it up to "Hurry" or "Mad Max" the confidence is 100x. Not sure why, exactly, but this may help you. The only downside is that "Hurry" loves to speed and "Mad Max" even more so.
> The 26% abandonment rate, the error cascade patterns in the first 2 minutes — these are behavioural signals, not just performance metrics.
> When Claude Code gets stuck in a loop, tries an unexpected tool chain, or produces inconsistent outputs under adversarial prompts — those aren't just UX failures, they're security surface area.
Twice in one paragraph, not even trying to blend in.
Management called him up on the sick days. he responds by saying that there's no policy for sick days, and to show him in the handbook where it says he has a limited number of sick days, or that he needs to notify someone. They can't, because we don't have one. When he's told this isn't acceptable, he pushes back saying that he's being singled out.
That sounds like the real problem was the lack of an employee handbook. They're not strictly required by law, but 30 employees is well above the level where you should really expect to have one in place.
The "just wing it and hope no-one takes the piss" approach is fine if you've only got a handful of employees, but is increasingly risky beyond that - it was probably only a matter of time before that organisation got into a difficult HR situation one way or another.
It's not even going to have been much of a time-saving, since all the legally-mandated bits (eg. equal opportunities, grievance procedures, anti-harassment, modern slavery, and consultation process) will still have been needed at that size, just without a central place to track and manage it all.
> That sounds like the real problem was the lack of an employee handbook.
That's my point - we didn't have one because we didn't need one. 30 people is still small enough that you can be on first name terms with every single person in the company and know what everyone is doing day-to-day. Anecdotally, I'd say one in every 30 people I've worked with in my career are like this - so that's probably the point you do need one.
Poor performers get put on PIPs, right? Did that person's poor performance "ruin it for everyone" and put the rest of the working plebs (the entire company or department or whatever) on PIPs? No, of course not. The poor performer gets singled out, which is just fine.
So instead of punishing everyone for some lying asshole's poor judgment, I propose management puts that lazy jerk on their own SDIP (sick day improvement plan).
EDIT: As an alternative, sure, update the handbook's sick policy while that liar is working for you. Since there's now precedent for handbook updating, should be an easy thing to revert it back to the normal, "no sick day policy" after they leave (by whatever means).
> The poor performer gets singled out, which is just fine.
he's not a poor performer, he's just an asshole. And you can't fire someone for being an asshole
> So instead of punishing everyone for some lying asshole's poor judgment, I propose management puts that lazy jerk on their own SDIP (sick day improvement plan).
You're missing the point. You can't single the person out for violating a policy that you didn't have written down. The only reason that policy is now written down is because that person violated the policy. Singling out someone for being (genuinely) ill is likely to end up with you on the wrong end of an employment tribunal who will ask you "what is your sickness policy"
In the USA, unless they have a contract, you can definitely fire someone for being an asshole.
If you have any sense whatsoever, you'll simply say "we've decided not to continue your employment" and offer them a month of paid COBRA and two weeks of pay in exchange for an agreement not to sue.
I think it's okay to complain about the design and presentation of the ads even on a free service. It's unreasonable to expect sites not to have some form of monetization of users that are not going to pay for the content, but that monetization should be reasonable and thoughtful. Of course, we can simply avoid that site altogether.
Any recommended learning materials/resources for basic binary reverse engineering? I'm imaging a resource that teaches the common tools/concepts and provides binaries in increasing complexity.
Tesla has geofenced self-driving taxis operating in Austin as of Jan 2026. I wouldn't say they have a long way to go to achieve functional parity with Waymo. They do, however, need to prove reliability and safety, which comes with time and rides.
The rest of these Roku/Amazon/Google devices are full of advertising and underpowered hardware that results in cluttered and laggy interfaces. The Apple TV interface is completely free of advertising, responsive, and easy to navigate.
Of all the current US conspiracy theories, the UFO/UAP conspiracy is still the most interesting and fully developed/ongoing conspiracy space. Just check out the recent 'Age of Disclosure' documentary from this year.
I'm not arguing a position on the theory, just saying it's very active and has the old-school qualities that were present in the 90's.
There's some genuinely weird shit unexplained, I'll give you that. Unlike Bigfoot, where you can look at a map of the historical range of bears and see it exactly matches where all the Bigfoot sightings are.
I dunno. I think the fact that these sightings are always from sleep deprived individuals describing things at the far end of their range of detection (whether that's 5 miles away with the Mk 1 eyeball or 500 miles away with classified superradar) suggests a pretty clear pattern.
There are some outliers (like Hawaii, or the 2 sightings in my local forest preserve) which cannot be bears, but what you will find is there is way more bear populations wandering around than you realize.
Pilots from the Eastern Bloc and NATO countries have had sightings. It's not just a US thing. People have been claiming to see them for longer than the USA has existed.
Not to be that guy, but if the majority of sightings coming from nations capable of producing advanced military aircraft... well perhaps the aliens thought the F-15 was badass and wanted a closer look?
US sightings get publicised best due to the nature of international media (wide distribution of US films, TV and books)... But there certainly are other places claiming to see them. There are a lot of supposed sightings in Chile for example, which doesn't have a huge air force.
IMHO, the whole social/psychological aspect of the "conspiracy" or phenomenom or whatever you want to call it is at least as interesting as the phenomenon itself.
I'd really like to see it disclosed by a government that isn't panicking about epstein files/being impeached and trying to cover up other stories before I'm fully convinced
I would be more interested in the former USSR or China, maybe Iran and Latin America. The Eastern Bloc must have covered up a lot of stuff but would have wild stories.
I mean this is a meta-conspiracy in itself. I don't think you're incorrect/wrong, but using one conspiracy theory to hide a conspiracy with lots of evidence is interesting.
> The car was making a turn. Something felt off—the steering wheel jerked one way, then the other, and the car decelerated in a way I didn’t expect.
I use the latest FSD in an M3 and I have noticed it behave indecisively when changing lanes, not so much when turning, but I believe the author's account.
> I turned the wheel to take over. I don’t know exactly what the system was doing, or why. I only know that somewhere in those seconds, we ended up colliding with a wall.
The author disengaged FSD (reasonable when concerned) and ran into a wall.
I almost never let go of the steering wheel when FSD is driving. I want to be able to take over with the minimum delay. I don't know that I'll ever trust it to drive unsupervised.
It's an unbelievable driver-assistance system. But you need to treat it as such. Tesla may market it, and name it, otherwise, but anybody using FSD should quickly realize it has limits.
reply