A canned test should not make you feel better. This could be the first time they actually passed the test. They might still fail with a cardboard cutout half the size.

Not to defend TSLA, but I don’t think self driving is the reason why Tesla cars sell, it is more about being arguably the best mass produced EV out there.

> more about being arguably the best mass produced EV out there.

In 2018 this would be a really good argument. What does Tesla do better now, compared to another modern purpose built EV, for example a Ford Mustang Mach E, or a Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, etc?

I struggle to identify any particular feature I would say they are better at, much less something that would make it the best mass produced EV. I say this as a two-time Model 3 owner, having just bought the most recent one two weeks ago. I don't quite have buyers remorse yet, but it's nagging at me that I may have just made a foolish choice for the wrong reasons.

The fact that you don’t have to go through a dealership is a huge selling point for me. No markup, no dealing with high pressure sales tactics. Just buy it online.

As someone in the EV market I almost went for a Tesla for this reason.

Polestar (Volvo's EV spinoff) has copied this piece of the Tesla playbook, and their cars are pretty competitive in features and price as well. But the Polestar 2 is also much more "traditional" vehicle than Teslas, and most all reviews rate its closest competitor the Tesla 3 more highly.

I think Tesla's charging network is a nice part of the package. I'm pretty worried about going EV -- I'm not going tesla, because I don't like the way they look -- mostly about dealing with finding charging stations that work (and well) when I need them.

Look at a map of EV charging stations, and quickly realize you will never have a problem

There are no competitive cars on the market in their class that are as efficient and as performant right now.

Afaik, they are not. They have best charging network in United States. They come low in reliability index. And many people like their software.

They are not obvious winner among EV cars currently. They were first to do actual high end EV car and that vision changed the market back then.

They are obvious winner among EV cars based on sales.

The topic was "best EV car now" and not "best selling EV car" nor "best EV car few years back". They used to be the best EV car and Musk used to have huge charizma for many people. They were selling dream too. All of that sells, but is not "how good the car is" metric.

Tesla also used to have reputation of being well build cars few years back. I don't know whether their quality went down due to mass production or whether it was just not known about them.

Will I ever be able to have self driving on a personal vehicle, or is this just centralized automating the work of a taxi driver? IMHO, these are two very different things for the consumer. This is why I actually prefer the Tesla approach, or actually Comma AI. (If it can be made to work robustly…)

It would suck to be in a world where the only way to do self-driving is indistinguishable from the Uber or taxi service we already have (and likely wouldn’t even be cheaper if it’s proprietary to one or two mega-companies who can extract nearly all the productivity surplus from this as monopoly rents).

I do not think the outcome is only Uber / Lyft but with AI, but if that is the outcome I still think it would be a win. Today supply of Uber / Lyft in my area at off hours is spotty, and that makes it unreliable. I have gotten stuck walking home 2+ miles multiple times in the last year because I couldn't get a ride at any price. That's not a problem in Manhattan, but not everywhere is Manhattan. Driverless cars would be on 24/7/365 so wouldn't have that problem. The more reliable these taxi services are, the more viable it is for people to get rid of their cars.

I also expect long term self driving cars will be safer than humans, and as a person that primarily walks around instead of driving that's a benefit to me even if I'm not in the car.

Why wouldn't driverless cars have the exact same problems? A driverless car is pretty expensive, so it needs to be making money a high fraction of the time or it's not economical for a company to invest in it, just like a regular taxi service (I'm really curious how they would handle 'surge' times - have fleets of cars that sit parked and unused 99% of the time??). Uber and Lyft actually have a lot of flexibility in this regard, since the cars already exist for other reasons (and don't cost Uber/Lyft anything when they're not driving). The idea that 'driverless' somehow means 'lots of cars, everywhere, at all times, very cheap' doesn't make any sense to me from an economics perspective.

tbh car ownership for day-to-day is kind of silly, leave it to more commercial use and enthusiasts

i may be biased since i use public transit or bike for everything

Coming from a corn-fed midwesterner who got his license as soon as legally possible, car ownership is totally silly. We are all fleet managers of extremely complicated mechanical objects with huge liabilities from a financial, legal and moral perspective. If self-driving cars do one thing it could at least set people free from personal vehicle ownership, even if they still have car dependent lifestyle.

> i may be biased since i use public transit or bike for everything

It is good to recognize this. A very large portion of the population does not live somewhere that makes good sense for pervasive public transit, walking, or biking for regular transportation needs. And many of those people actively don't want to live somewhere like that. Personal vehicles have a use case, and that does not become invalid just because it does not match your own preferences.

Having just had to get around quite a bit via walking and scootering, I’m definitely not excited about a future totally without personal cars. This works very well if you’re childless or if you live in a place like Manhattan (loved the subway there) or with excellent weather, but it’s just not the same as the personal room and safe area with your personal belongings that a personally owned car provides.

What's the difference from a (better maintained) taxi service? Especially one that in this hypothetical future, would be driverless.

In general I think the trend of personal car ownership is something that will become somewhat of a hobby rather than a daily necessity, even outside of cities as long as Waymo (and others) are able to actually achieve their ambitious goals. The only way I see that reversing is if people are forced to live out of their cars due to absurd home costs, which is a very very bleak future.

Because you don’t have your personal belongings in the taxi, you have to take them in and out. A personal car is a little room, like a little part of your home, that you bring with you when you travel. With kids especially (diapers, wipes, books, toys, car seats, snacks, a place to change diapers or change clothes or breastfed in privacy or nap, etc… protected from the elements and climate controlled), this is really helpful.

I extensively use car sharing services in Europe and it covers almost all of my use cases, the only exception being long distance trips, those are just too expensive when you’re paying by the minute or kilometer at todays prices.

There’s options with fixed parking spots, and services that allow pick up and drop off anywhere.

You tend to structure your life a little different once you don’t own your own car anymore, you start to think twice about little trips you would’ve done otherwise. On the flip side I now have access to 5 different types of cars ranging from small to big (vans) from my phone. It doesn’t even require that much more planning considering it’s reached critical mass around here and there’s a ton of cars available.

The biggest player around is profitable too, so it’s not going away any time too. It’s saved me thousands and spared me from so much hassle surrounding car ownership. I consider myself an enthousiast but I just got a motorcycle for the weekend instead, pennies on the dollar compared to a car.

All in all I notice I’m just happier not being in a car all the time anymore, you might consider it your safe area but it might as well be a golden cage at times.

I understand it’s different once your throw small children in the mix so it might make sense there, but the reality is that a lot of people could do with a lot less car at most points in their life.

Something that seems to happen a lot on HN is the pervasive assumption that everyone lives in an urban area, or wants to. It is totally fine that some people choose that life, but it makes for these one-sided conversations where someone explains in detail why they have the right answer, while describing things that largely do not even exist outside of a relatively dense urban environment.

I'm addressing the GP who references Manhattan, obviously all of the above does not apply to more rural areas. I'm merely providing an anecdote of a city dweller, I figured that much was obvious. Please live your best life and if that means living outside of the city and owning a car, I wish you all the best.

Usable public transport is not limited to urban centers. GP mentions Europe and there, you have rural areas connected by good bus or railway system people use to get to school or work.

Kids can use bicycles from when they are very young, and until then you can put them into a little thing you can drag behind your bicycle.

If you are doing longer travel, using the train is actually awesome. Those trains have actual places for children to play in.

If you cities and that goes for small cities as well are properly designed its very possible. Its just that in the US cities are literally designed so as to make it impossible.

> That's just a different way of saying that you never have any cargo (children, groceries, etc) to move.

We have plenty of cargo (children and groceries) and do not own a car.

You can buy puts.

The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

If you're buying puts you have bounded risk (the amount you invested), albeit with a more cliff-like risk profile than other strategies.

In this case replace "you can remain solvent" with "the put remains valid".

As well as a time/volatility element added so its not necessarily "TSLA went down a lot, so you profit a lot".

The argument literally everybody always makes and 99.99% they are simply wrong and don't want to admit it.

Options are gambling, which is not how I play the market. Aside from some lucky YOLOs, you are far more likely to lose money in that game.