• nxdefiant@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m saying larger sample size == larger numbers.

    Tesla announced 300 million miles on FSD v12 in just the last month.

    https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/2001/tesla-on-fsd-close-to-license-deal-with-major-automaker-announces-miles-driven-on-fsd-v12

    Geographically, that’s all over the U.S, not just in hyper specific metro areas or stretches of road.

    The sample size is orders of magnitude bigger than everyone else, by almost every metric.

    If you include the most basic autopilot, Tesla surpassed 1 billion miles in 2018.

    These are not opinions, just facts. Take them into account when you decide to interpret the opinion of others.

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      That’s not how rates work tho. Larger sample size doesn’t correlate with a higher rate of accidents, which is what any such study implies, not just raw numbers. Your bullshit rationalization is funny. In fact, a larger sample size tends to correspond with lower rates of flaws, as there is less chance that an error/fault makes an outsized impact on the data.

      • nxdefiant@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        No one’s talking about rates. The article itself, all the articles linked in these comments are talking about counts. Numbers of incidents. I’m not justifying anything because I’m not injecting my opinion here. I’m only pointing out that without context, counts don’t give you enough information to draw a conclusion, that’s just math. You can’t even derive a rate without that context!