Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday June 20, @09:55AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the say-goodnight-elon dept.

While it may not be all that surprising to SN readers, some data on "self driving" cars has now hit the big time, WaPo reports: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/15/tesla-autopilot-crashes/

Tesla vehicles running its Autopilot software have been involved in 273 reported crashes over roughly the past year, according to regulators, far more than previously known and providing concrete evidence regarding the real-world performance of its futuristic features.

The numbers, which were published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the first time Wednesday, show that Tesla vehicles made up nearly 70 percent of the 392 crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems reported since last July, and a majority of the fatalities and serious injuries — some of which date back further than a year. Eight of the Tesla crashes took place before June 2021, according to data released by NHTSA on Wednesday morning.

And 5 of 6 fatalities were linked with Tesla cars, the other was one of the competing Level 2 systems offered by other automakers.

WaPo continues,

The new data set stems from a federal order last summer requiring automakers to report crashes involving driver assistance to assess whether the technology presented safety risks. Tesla's vehicles have been found to shut off the advanced driver-assistance system, Autopilot, around one second before impact, according to the regulators.

The NHTSA order required manufacturers to disclose crashes where the software was in use within 30 seconds of the crash, in part to mitigate the concern that manufacturers would hide crashes by claiming the software wasn't in use at the time of the impact. [Ed: Emphasis provided by the submitter.]


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @10:42AM

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @10:42AM (#1254565)

    It's one of those American robot cars [youtube.com].

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by PiMuNu on Monday June 20, @11:12AM (63 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @11:12AM (#1254569)

    Naively, not considering location and type of accident. For US in 2019, for which I found data quickly

    About 3 million injuries/fatalities per year in US
    About 35 - 40 thousand fatalities per year in US
    About 2M Tesla's delivered to date. Assume all are still in use, assume half in use in US so about 1 M Tesla vehicles on the road
    About 300 M cars registered in US.

    So 5 fatalities -> Tesla autopilot accounts for 1 per 10,000 road fatalities
    300 crashes -> Tesla autopilot accounts for 1 per 10,000 crashes (not clear difference between injury/fatality and crash)

    But 3/1,000 of vehicles on the road. Not bad. The comparison is only relevant assuming folks use autopilot all the time (I guess most do not).

    All I think that can be said is that this article provides no evidence that autopilot is more dangerous than regular driving.

    Refereces:
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/191900/road-traffic-related-injuries-and-fatalities-in-the-us-since-1988/ [statista.com]
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/191521/traffic-related-fatalities-in-the-united-states-since-1975/ [statista.com]
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/ [statista.com]
    https://financesonline.com/number-of-cars-in-the-us/ [financesonline.com]

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @11:44AM (40 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @11:44AM (#1254578) Homepage Journal

      I don't think you're looking at the right statistics. How about accidents per miles traveled? If human drivers have x accidents per million miles traveled, how do self driving cars compare? Any number greater than x is unsatisfactory. Any numbers less than or equal to x are satisfactory. Numbers that are mere fractions of x would be considered excellent.

      That said, I shall never understand why Elon insists that his cars be restricted to a single sensory channel, that is, the visible light spectrum. I'm repeating myself here, but I say give the computer all the sensory input possible. Radar is good, lidar is good, laser is good, sound is good, echolocation might be good, visible light is good, infrared is good, ultraviolet might prove beneficial in some cases. Give the computer three or more channels, don't restrict it to a single channel.

      Elon is just being stubbornly stupid here.

      --
      Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday June 20, @11:55AM

        by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @11:55AM (#1254579)

        I agree - that's why I finished with "there is no evidence for increased danger relative to regular car" or somesuch.

        There are many confounding/systematic biases in this sort of analysis. Another example in addition to yours - one should also look at type of roads travelled; highways are safer than local roads for instance.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @12:05PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @12:05PM (#1254584)

        > Numbers that are mere fractions of x would be considered excellent.

        Not by me. I don't drive impaired, drive stick (engaged with driving), no smart phone in the car, live in a state with an annual vehicle inspection (even older cars are mostly in good working order), and have a number of other things that are, statistically, in my favor. While nothing is a guarantee, I believe I'm roughly 10x less likely to have a serious accident than your "x".

        Thus the target before I consider self driving is x/10.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday June 20, @12:56PM (3 children)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday June 20, @12:56PM (#1254593) Journal

          You are missing one crucial point: You can have an accident which you didn't cause. So the question is not only whether you would be safer when you are using a self-driving car versus driving yourself, but also whether you are safer if the other cars are self-driving versus driven by humans.

          I don't think privately owned cars will be the primary market for self-driving cars anyway. Rather, self-driving cars will likely mainly replace cars with paid drivers.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @01:19PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @01:19PM (#1254597)

            > You can have an accident which you didn't cause.

            Yes, of course. That's why I normally don't:
            + follow closely behind any car, and Teslas in particular since they are prone to slamming on their brakes for false alarms (automatic emergency braking, AEB)
            + deal with rush hour traffic (have been fortunate to work from home most of my life)

            And generally do:
            + "defensive driving" things--watching for erratic behavior (other vehicles, peds, cyclists, deer, etc) and a variety of other things to avoid.
            + attend advanced driver trainings (multiple times) and even a three day race car school to perfect car control skills.

            These things are also part of my approx x/10 demographic. But none of this is a guarantee, getting complacent is not an option.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:57PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:57PM (#1254663)

              Would you accept x/9.5?

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:15PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:15PM (#1254671)

                Ha Ha, sure! On a bad day my demographic might only be x/8...

                Hint -- all these numbers are approximate and meant to point out that "as safe as the average driver" is not an acceptable target for self driving. Anyone who survives the high-testosterone years, and, doesn't drive impaired (drugs, texting, etc) is much better than average.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @08:35PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @08:35PM (#1254735) Journal

          Everybody thinks they're an above average driver.

          Averages say at least half of them are wrong!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:31AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:31AM (#1254844)

            Actually, that's wrong. Your averages assume that all people are in agreement on what makes an above-average driver. More than 50% of people can be accurate in thinking they're an above-average driver according to their own metrics (it can also be less than 50%).

        • (Score: 2, Redundant) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 21, @08:35AM

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday June 21, @08:35AM (#1254845) Homepage
          x/10 is a mere fraction of x.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Monday June 20, @01:26PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Monday June 20, @01:26PM (#1254599)

        I mostly disagree with runaway on all things, but this time, its a blue moon event - we agree ;)

        you need sensor richness, and fusion is 'hard' but elon has given up and since he hires mostly junior engineers, its just above what they're capable of.

        little known secret, but tesla is one of the worst payers in the market. their starting salaries are 10's of K too low for the bay area. and no one senior that I work with would ever go back to tesla (a lot of people that work in my co. used to be at tesla) and no one who hears stories of that place wants to interview there.

        its because of cost. elon is a cheap bastard. isn't that how it always is? he wont keep parts in stock so you have to wait weeks or months to get your car fixed, he has no one on phones so there's no way to contact people in service other than TEXTING (wut?). you pay $150k or more for a high end car and you still can't call your service center about issues? what a way to treat customers...

        no loaners. if you are lucky you get uber credits when your car breaks down. admittedly they dont break that often but accidents happen and since repair parts are in short supply, and no one makes non-oem parts (yet) for these cars - you better hope you dont need repairs! I avoid driving my car for fun and only drive it when I need to since each drive is a risk I take. someone hits me and I need a new pane of glass or sheet metal and I could be in a rental for months. not a fun car ownership experience.

        and lets not even talk about the regressions in their software stack that has many of us refusing updates. updates remove features. this is tesla, guys..

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Monday June 20, @02:56PM (27 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @02:56PM (#1254619) Journal

        That said, I shall never understand why Elon insists that his cars be restricted to a single sensory channel, that is, the visible light spectrum. I'm repeating myself here, but I say give the computer all the sensory input possible. Radar is good, lidar is good, laser is good, sound is good, echolocation might be good, visible light is good, infrared is good, ultraviolet might prove beneficial in some cases. Give the computer three or more channels, don't restrict it to a single channel.

        I disagree because you vastly increase the maintenance problem. Each additional sensor group is another bunch of failure modes happening. This is the paradox of redundancy. The more redundancy you add, the more likely you are to get failures that impair or disable the system.

        Visual light sensors are already street legal after all.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @04:03PM (16 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @04:03PM (#1254649) Homepage Journal

          So, which is better? Adding $1000 per year maintenance, or being involved in an accident? I would rather replace two or three sensors annually, than to run over some stupid kid who ran out in front of me to fetch a ball, and the car didn't see him because his shirt was the same color as the parked car he ran from behind. Or, whatever other excuse the software engineers came up with.

          Self driving cars have one major selling point: they are supposed to be safer than human drivers. If the computer is not safer than humans, you have no real selling points.

          Put the array of sensors on the vehicle, wait for the maintenance problems to occur, then go about fixing those problems. Given time, someone will create a better sensor, someone will find a way to better integrate all those sensors, someone else will come up with a better driving program, then yet again, someone will improve the sensitivity of the senors to produce fewer false positives, etc etc. Early adopters pay the cost, of course. That's the way it always has been, no need to change now.

          --
          Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
          • (Score: 1, Funny) by khallow on Monday June 20, @04:38PM (5 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @04:38PM (#1254658) Journal

            Adding $1000 per year maintenance, or being involved in an accident?

            That's a lot of maintenance. I'm going with the accident.

            I would rather replace two or three sensors annually, than to run over some stupid kid who ran out in front of me to fetch a ball, and the car didn't see him because his shirt was the same color as the parked car he ran from behind.

            That's not much of a scenario.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:13PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:13PM (#1254669)

              Externalized costs, not my problem. The kid was probably a dumbass anyway, it's not like we lost a cure for cancer here.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @06:26PM (2 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @06:26PM (#1254694) Homepage Journal

              That's a lot of maintenance. I'm going with the accident.

              Why did I already know your answer to that question?

              That's not much of a scenario.

              We can draw and paint real life scenarios all day long. Snowy day, heavy snowfall, gusting winds blowing the snow around at random. An infrared sensor is almost certainy going to "see" a warm, glowy, human body in all that cold. But, your visible light sensors don't see the guy who just stepped (or even slipped) into the street ahead of you, because the snow is swirling in an opaque wall. But, you don't care about him, as much as you care about replacing a faulty sensor or two.

              That is precisely why I find fault with Elon, as well as yourself. Give the car as many senses as reasonably possible. Without those added senses, the cars can't become any safer than a good human driver.

              --
              Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
              • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday June 20, @07:56PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:56PM (#1254717) Journal

                But, your visible light sensors don't see the guy who just stepped (or even slipped) into the street ahead of you, because the snow is swirling in an opaque wall. But, you don't care about him, as much as you care about replacing a faulty sensor or two.

                You can kill more people with defective transportation systems than you can with sensor edge cases.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @07:58PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @07:58PM (#1254718)

                  Indeed, of the visibility is that bad, you shouldn't be driving. Sensors don't change that, they just change what constitutes as so bad that you're going to run into it over something if you drive.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:13PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:13PM (#1254668)

            Yep, and I'm sure before too long that they'll have the cost of any sensors that need be replacing down to something reasonable, or that it would be covered by not needing to spend so much on insurance. Yes, the example $1k a year is a lot compared with the cost of insurance, but insurance covers potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses when something does happen.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @06:59PM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @06:59PM (#1254702) Journal

              Yes, the example $1k a year is a lot compared with the cost of insurance, but insurance covers potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses when something does happen.

              Does that $1k per year reduce liability or increase it? Consider this all-too-common scenario. The manufacturer's vehicle is involved in a collision. It is found that prior to the crash the lidar system (one of the three sensor channels) had a couple of defective sensors. The owner of the vehicle was ignoring the sensor warning light and the hardware engineered slower speed of the vehicle. They (and the drivers of the other vehicle) argue that they aren't at fault. Everyone sues the manufacturer, arguing that they allowed a malfunctioning vehicle to be auto-drived.

              Consider a second scenario. There's a couple of sensors out in the visual light sensors, the only sensors on the vehicle. Auto-driving is outright disabled with suitable warnings. Since the owner was driving the vehicle, they are deemed at fault. The manufacturer isn't sued.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:45PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:45PM (#1254744)

                > There's a couple of sensors out in the visual light sensors, the only sensors on the vehicle. Auto-driving is outright disabled with suitable warnings. Since the owner was driving the vehicle, they are deemed at fault. The manufacturer isn't sued.

                Except: I've heard of cases where manufacturer A was sued for not providing something that manufacturers B & C did supply. For example, if B & C supplied redundant cameras, or camera-cleaning systems, A could be sued for not supplying said feature(s). The problem is that the manufacturer usually has the deepest pockets, so they are always sued by product liability lawyers (aka ambulance chasers), along with other parties that are closer to the accident.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:24PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:24PM (#1254675)

            Are all sensors perfectly capable of telling the computer their broken/failing? The more sensors there are, the more combinations of uncommon/hard-to-predict-in-testing failure cases it runs into. Sure the care will be safer when everything's working, but it will be expensive to figure out how it fails when X sensor is in degraded state Y and sensor Z is in state W ... and it doesn't sound like Tesla will be spending that money in closed laboratory testing paid out of their pockets alone.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @06:32PM (5 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @06:32PM (#1254696) Homepage Journal

              It would be nice if failing sensors inform the computer of that fact.

              But, we don't even need to experience failures for the system to fail. All we need are common occurrences that cause people to fail. Glare off of windows or ice, for instance. Fog, blowing snow, torrential rainfall, even blowing leaves might obstruct your view, and likewise, a visible light sensor's view. Or a dazzling sunrise/sunset. In each case, the sensors may be working perfectly within specs, but they fail to report an obstruction because the environment has gone out of spec.

              --
              Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @07:01PM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:01PM (#1254703) Journal

                In each case, the sensors may be working perfectly within specs, but they fail to report an obstruction because the environment has gone out of spec.

                Sorry, in that case, they should detect said obstruction, report that the environment has gone out of spec, and the vehicle should modify its driving behavior appropriately - just like a human driver would in the same situation.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @11:16PM (2 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @11:16PM (#1254777) Homepage Journal

                  Likewise, if a gust of snow laden wind obstructs your view for a critical 2 seconds, you should still detect the obstruction that has moved in front of you, and you should take the appropriate action to avoid the obstruction.

                  You're completely failing to make sense today. People frequently have accidents in inclement weather. You can expect sensors to also have accidents more frequently in inclement weather. And, once again, redundant sensors of different types should overcome some of mankind's failings.

                  Put visible light, lidar, and one other sensor type on the vehicle, even if it costs khallow an extra thousand dollars.

                  --
                  Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 21, @02:09AM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 21, @02:09AM (#1254800) Journal

                    Likewise, if a gust of snow laden wind obstructs your view for a critical 2 seconds, you should still detect the obstruction that has moved in front of you, and you should take the appropriate action to avoid the obstruction.

                    Indeed. It doesn't take me that long to determine my vision has been blocked. And I would slow down from an already slow speed.

                    You're completely failing to make sense today. People frequently have accidents in inclement weather. You can expect sensors to also have accidents more frequently in inclement weather. And, once again, redundant sensors of different types should overcome some of mankind's failings.

                    Except when they don't because they fail so often that they are worse than useless.

              • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Monday June 20, @11:05PM

                by ChrisMaple (6964) on Monday June 20, @11:05PM (#1254776)

                Sensors of the sorts used in self-driving cars don't "report", they sense. That means they convert light, or other electromagnetic radiation, or sound, into electrical signals. A processor evaluates those signals to produce what could be called a report, which is then either used in the same processor to initiate action or sent to another processor to do that.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 20, @04:57PM (3 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 20, @04:57PM (#1254664)

          The more different kinds of sensors all talking to the computer, the higher the odds of them disagreeing with each other too, I would think. So when the radar says "there's a semi stopping in front of you" and the LIDAR says "I don't see anything", you have to reconcile the readings.

          Which gets us back to the old issue "do we play it safe and maybe your car comes to a screeching halt when a squirrel runs across the road, or do we play it looser and maybe you rear-end the semi".

          On the other hand, airliners have to be pretty damn complicated with the number of sensors and instruments, and they (usually) work quite well.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 20, @05:05PM (2 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Monday June 20, @05:05PM (#1254665)

            On the other hand, airliners have to be pretty damn complicated with the number of sensors and instruments, and they (usually) work quite well.

            Although now that I think about it, probably 97% of those instruments are concerned with the aircraft itself, since you're not worried about heavy traffic most of the time.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @07:19PM (5 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @07:19PM (#1254709)

          This is a paradox of perception... A system with visual + LIDAR can be as safe as a system with visual only, even when the LIDAR is dysfunctional, and possibly even when the LIDAR is working but there's a bug-splat across all the cameras. But: what good lawyer would stand up and say "it's safe enough if you just have one." No, we must immediately recuse ourselves from responsibility when even one input channel is partly impaired.

          And, yet, we license deaf drivers, drivers who require corrective lenses, drivers with cataracts...

          --
          Україна не входить до складу Росії.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @07:54PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:54PM (#1254716) Journal
            This is a huge part of my argument. Risk and liability are poorly handled in today's societies. But even in the absence of that, redundancy doesn't automatically increase reliability or reduce risk.

            It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @09:13PM (3 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @09:13PM (#1254755)

              >redundancy doesn't automatically increase reliability or reduce risk.

              If you handle the information poorly, no.

              >It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.

              This must make more sense to conservatives. Making decisions is certainly easier when your input information is limited, but wearing blinders doesn't enable better decision making - except to reduce confusion on the part of the decision maker, and that's more of a fault in the decision maker than anything else.

              I might suggest that a little maturity, training, learning how to deal with the additional information, learning how to tell good information from bad, all these things are apparently hard for a lot of people, but constructed decision making systems are not people - they can be taught how to use multiple input channels to check each other, and make at least as good of a decision as a single input system would all the time, but make better decisions when the additional information is available and valuable.

              As long as it's not like my robot lawnmower that packs it up and refuses to move when one sensor is detected out of expected range, but cheerfully mows along when a sensor is stuck in mid-range. Yes, constructed systems can be made like befuddled people, but it's not an actual required property of the constructed system.

              --
              Україна не входить до складу Росії.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @09:31PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @09:31PM (#1254759) Journal

                It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.

                This must make more sense to conservatives. Making decisions is certainly easier when your input information is limited, but wearing blinders doesn't enable better decision making - except to reduce confusion on the part of the decision maker, and that's more of a fault in the decision maker than anything else.

                Which watch has the right time? And reducing confusion on the part of the decision maker does sound helpful, even if that were the only reason to do this. Let's keep in mind that was the actual purpose of wearing blinders historically - horses and other draft animals could be distracted by stuff happening in their peripheral vision. Blinders helped with that.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:50PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @08:50PM (#1255452)

                  > It reminds me of a classic quip: a man with two watches doesn't know what time it is.

                  A man with two watches has a choice.
                  ftfy

                  Reminds me of the wall clock at a popular college hangout (1970s)--it was set ~10 minutes fast on purpose. Even had a sign to that effect taped next to the clock. Was a big help in getting to classes on time!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @02:14AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @02:14AM (#1255181)

                I think it is the classic fallacy of mistaking an absence of evidence with evidence of absence. If a person has two watches and they disagree, all that adds is provide evidence that one or both of the watches is wrong. With just one watch, you have no such evidence even if it is wrong. The person with one watch doesn't have that additional evidence as to the accuracy of his watch. Consequently, they can't ever know what the time is now thanks to the Gettier Problem. Instead the single watch makes it so they can act as if they know, or believe in the belief as Dennett put it.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @08:42PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @08:42PM (#1254740) Journal

        Correct, incidents per mile would be the best metric to compare. NHTSA would likely provide that data if they had it but according to the article they do not have it.

        FTA

        The data does not lend itself easily to comparisons between different manufacturers, because it does not include information such as how many vehicle miles the different driver-assistance systems were used across or how widely they are deployed across carmakers’ fleets.

        So we need more data to make a proper comparison.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:57AM (#1254846)

        You also need to account for highway-miles driven vs city-miles driven. It's well-known that more accidents happen on complex city streets than on simple, relatively straightforward highways. I'm guessing that autopilot miles are predominantly "easy" miles, rather than the difficult kind.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:57AM (#1254580)

      This page attempts to separate out the Autopilot miles from all miles driven in Teslas,
          https://lexfridman.com/tesla-autopilot-miles-and-vehicles/ [lexfridman.com]
      But it's a couple of years old, not directly comparable to this recent NHTSA data which covers the last year plus a bit more.

      I describe how I got the estimates below, but before that, let’s look at the numbers. The following is a plot of total Autopilot miles and Autopilot miles on the first and second generation of Autopilot hardware. Key mileage estimates to-date are:

              Estimated Autopilot miles to-date: 3.3 billion miles
              Estimated miles in all Tesla vehicles: 22.5 billion miles

      Now the numbers for Autopilot don't look so good, if it's only on 15% of the time(?)

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @12:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @12:10PM (#1254585)

      assuming folks use autopilot all the time (I guess most do not).

      Your guess is right. Otherwise we'd be seeing moar deaths.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @02:36PM (17 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @02:36PM (#1254610)

      >The comparison is only relevant assuming folks use autopilot all the time (I guess most do not).

      a) most Teslas have not been delivered with autopilot activated (correct me if I'm wrong...)

      b) if autopilot is used in less than 3% of Tesla miles driven, then it is on-par with human drivers

      c) the people who have access to the "real" data know figures for crashes per mile driven, and can probably break those down between high and low crash areas / times of day. If they wanted to share, they would - I'm going to guess that puts the Tesla autopilot at more or less equivocal standing with human driver performance, possibly +/- a factor of 2 which is within the error bars of the available data. If it were dramatically better Musky would be all a tweeter about it. If it were dramatically worse, Musky's detractors would be pounding out press releases on an hourly basis, just after shorting TSLA stock.

      d) there are few enough autopilots on the road that autopilot on autopilot interactions are quite rare. Most accidents are caused by one party, and assignment of blame in the official reports can be motivated by all kinds of arbitrary things having little or nothing to do with the correctness of operation of the involved drivers. All this to say: you wouldn't expect autopilot accident statistics to be too much different (factor of 2) from human drivers, because they are out there in a sea of human drivers with the same (thankfully rare, but not rare enough) bad actors that all drivers deal with putting them in the same unavoidable circumstances that human drivers find themselves in in most accidents.

      --
      Україна не входить до складу Росії.
      • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20, @03:01PM (14 children)

        by legont (4179) on Monday June 20, @03:01PM (#1254621)

        In addition, most folks are actually sane enough to use autopilot in better conditions while taking over in difficult ones.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday June 20, @03:13PM (13 children)

          by ikanreed (3164) on Monday June 20, @03:13PM (#1254623) Journal

          What experience have you had with human beings that leads you to believe that to be true of most of them?

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @03:32PM (12 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @03:32PM (#1254634)

            The remarkable thing about people is that the vast majority of them are relatively good. The bad actors make the news, cause the damage, but if you pick a random cross sample of 100 humans from most populations, you'll find 99% of them are pretty O.K.

            Think of it this way: sit yourself in a "high crash" area and count cars passing by between crashes. Even if you're in a remarkably bad spot that gets 3 crashes a week, you'll probably see tens or hundreds of thousands of cars pass without significant incident between crashes.

            --
            Україна не входить до складу Росії.
            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday June 20, @04:35PM (1 child)

              by ikanreed (3164) on Monday June 20, @04:35PM (#1254656) Journal

              "Relatively good" doesn't mean concerned about others, sensible, and aware of relevant facts to their choices. It just means the first one.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @05:29PM

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @05:29PM (#1254680)

                Oh, hell yeah. Saints are rare. But, by and large, people aren't out to screw each other, especially at potentially high cost to themselves - a fair number want to screw with others, but most of them stop short of causing serious harm.

                And: are the other drivers paying attention? I will say this, before the "no texting while driving" laws passed here, you could watch passing traffic and over 60% of drivers would be holding a cellphone while driving by. After the law passed, that number is down under 5% - but the number of people staring at their lap has increased from about 2% to maybe 5%. Still, remarkably, even so impaired, most of these good people still keep it in their lane and stop before rear-ending the car in front most of the time. I say most, one fine rainy morning a neighbor rear-ended me on the main road very hard. My 77 GMC actually came out slightly improved from the collision, it straightened a kink that had been recently put in the rear bumper. Her SUV was totalled, and she had to take off her seat belt to climb over the steering wheel to retrieve her cellphone from the windscreen (90s cab forward style huge dashboard). I also have had a couple of near misses where the driver who slammed their brakes at the last moment simultaneously lost grip on their phone and it flew into the windshield-dashboard meeting point. But, that's one rear-end collision and maybe three near misses in a million miles of driving... they usually get it right.

                Oh, and I love classic cars, but I will NEVER drive one without headrests in traffic. It only takes one rear-end collision in a 1960s style seat without headrests to end up paralyzed for life - or, slightly better, dead.

                --
                Україна не входить до складу Росії.
            • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @08:45PM (9 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @08:45PM (#1254743) Journal

              The remarkable thing about people is that the vast majority of them are relatively good.

              Well driving is basically the most dangerous thing you could possibly be doing at any given point in time so "good" isn't exactly how I would describe our performance!

              If you have the most dangerous job in the world you're still more likely to die driving to it than working on it!

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 20, @09:16PM (8 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 20, @09:16PM (#1254756)

                >If you have the most dangerous job in the world you're still more likely to die driving to it than working on it!

                Almost: try deep ocean construction welder.

                --
                Україна не входить до складу Росії.
                • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @09:50PM (6 children)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @09:50PM (#1254763) Journal

                  Commercial diving has a fatality rate of 3.4 to 4.2 deaths per 100,000 divers. [marineinjurylaw.com]

                  Driving resulted in 11.7 deaths per 100,000 people [iihs.org]

                  So driving a vehicle is about 3x more fatal than commercial diving, per capita.

                  • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Tuesday June 21, @12:44PM (1 child)

                    by pvanhoof (4638) on Tuesday June 21, @12:44PM (#1254875) Homepage

                    Non-professional Scuba diver here: the reason why there are fewer accidents with diving is because more passionate people will train harder to be good at what they are passionate about. Diving requires passion. Similarly, open source software development used to yield better programmers on average. As you had to be passionate about it to get involved. Let average people, who do drive a car, do daily diving: most of them will die within a month. At around their 100th dive. The 100th dive is in the diving community considered as your most dangerous dive. That's because then you feel like you can do it fluently.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 21, @06:18PM (2 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday June 21, @06:18PM (#1254972)
                    --
                    Україна не входить до складу Росії.
                    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 21, @06:48PM (1 child)

                      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday June 21, @06:48PM (#1254996) Journal

                      15% of what? Incident rates aren't usually communicated in percentages so I'm not even sure what they're referring to. I did see that link though when I was looking for the fatality rate.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 21, @09:38PM

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday June 21, @09:38PM (#1255076)

                        Birth 100% ends in death, so scope matters.

                        I think what the shock tactic is trying to say is: 15% of workers in deep ocean welding end up dying on the job - how many years do they do the job? Or, maybe they've stretched it to assume a 30 year career would end in death 15% of the time, one death per 180 man-years. Or maybe they pulled the number out their ass - I'd give better than 50% odds that's the case.

                        Anyway, commercial diver ranges from the guy who scrubs the bottom of my boat in the marina every 60-90 days up to these nutjobs who saturation dive ALONE for weeks on end at insane depths while they do underwater welding on seriously heavy stuff. If you focus on the nutjobs, the death rate is certain to rise.

                        --
                        Україна не входить до складу Росії.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:28PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:28PM (#1255072)

                    It's elevator mechanics, all the way down:
                        https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/18054-elevator-related-fatalities-in-construction-industry-increasing-cpwr [safetyandhealthmagazine.com]

                    Workers installing or repairing elevators had the highest fatality rate, at 14.9 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers.

                    I'm one of the lucky ones that got shafted and survived...

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:00AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @09:00AM (#1254847)

                  If a deep ocean construction welder were to drive to work, they'd still be more likely to die (drown) during their commute.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:52PM (#1254662)

        > ... because they are out there in a sea of human drivers with the same (thankfully rare, but not rare enough) bad actors that all drivers deal with putting them in the same unavoidable circumstances that human drivers find themselves in in most accidents.

        I don't think you've been looking at the data? Yes, there are bad actors on the roads, but that's NOT "most accidents". Most accidents are single vehicle, here's a page from PA on that topic (which subtly looks at different slices of the data), but you won't have to look far to find similar data,
            https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/types-of-accidents/single-vehicle/single-vehicle-statistics.html [edgarsnyder.com]
        I've copied the text from that page --

        2017 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                There were 36,953 crashes in which a single vehicle hit a fixed object
                21,887 passenger cars were involved in these fixed object accidents - almost 60 percent

        2014 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                More crashes involved a single-vehicle hitting a fixed object that any other type (37,668).
                46% of all crashes in 2014 (55,726) involved a single-vehicle crash.

        2013 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                655 total deaths occurred in single-vehicle crashes in Pennsylvania in 2013.
                More crashes involved a single-vehicle hitting a fixed object that any other type (39,479).
                47% of all crashes in 2013 (57,920) involved a single-vehicle crash.

        2012 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                455 Deaths occured in single-vehicle accidents.
                52% of lethal car accidents in PA were single-vehicle.
                The most common causes of single-vehicle accidents were tire blowouts and fixed-object collisions.

        2011 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                More crashes involved a single-vehicle hitting a fixed object that any other type.
                Between 2010 and 2011 crashes where a vehicle hit a fixed object in a one-car crash increased from 36,709 to 39,208.

        2010 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                In Pennsylvania, there were 36,709 crashes where a single-vehicle hit a fixed object in a one-car crash.
                There were 54,819 single-vehicle crashes in Pennsylvania in 2010.
                Young drivers (ages 16-21) accounted for 39.5% of the single-vehicle crashes in PA - 12,436 crashes.

        2009 Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics (National and Pennsylvania)

                In 2009, 61 percent of fatal crashes across the nation involved only one vehicle (18,745).
                Nearly 57,000 (56,894) crashes in Pennsylvania involved only one vehicle (47 percent).

        2007-2008 National Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                In 2007, 59% of fatal crashes involved only one vehicle, as compared with 33% of injury crashes and 31% of property-damage-only crashes.
                Among drivers ages 16-19 involved in fatal crashes in 2008, 49% were involved in single-vehicle crashes.

        2008 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Stats

                43% of all accidents in 2008 were single-vehicle accidents in Pennsylvania.
                In Pennsylvania, young drivers (16-21) got into 14,651 single-vehicle crashes in 2008 compared to mature drivers (65-74) who were in 2,061 single-car crashes the same year
                61% of Pennsylvania's single-vehicle accidents in 2008 involved passenger cars colliding with a fixed object. 34% involved a light truck, van, or SUV doing the same

        2007 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle One Car Accident Statistics

                In 2007, Pennsylvania had 42,653 one car accidents.
                Passenger cars accounted for 26,793 - or 62.8% - of all single-vehicle crashes.
                Light trucks accounted for 32.6%.
                The remainder of these accidents were accounted for by heavy trucks (2.2%), school buses (0.1%), and other (0.5%).

        2006 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Accident Statistics

                In 2006, 57,684 one-vehicle crashes occurred in Pennsylvania.
                25,981 - or 66% - of all single-vehicle crashes were accounted for by passenger cars.
                29.2% were accounted for by light trucks.
                The remainder of these accidents were accounted for by heavy trucks (2.3%), motorcycles (1.9%), school buses (0.1%), and other (0.5%).

        2005 Pennsylvania Single-Vehicle Car Accident Statistics

                41,901 one car crashes occured in 2005.
                Passenger cars accounted for over 27,553 - or almost 66% - of all single-vehicle crashes.
                Light trucks accounted for 29.7%.
                The remainder of these accidents were accounted for by heavy trucks (2%), motorcycles (1.9%), school buses (0.1%), and other (0.5%).

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by steveg on Tuesday June 21, @07:57PM

        by steveg (778) on Tuesday June 21, @07:57PM (#1255028)

        What are we talking about when we say "autopilot"? Maybe I should ask about what the original article is talking about when they say "autopilot".

        What Tesla calls autopilot is the cruise control system. It's (slightly) more sophisticated than most cruise control systems, but not not hugely. It's basically an adaptive cruise control with lane-keeping. That's all it does, and it is enabled on every Tesla car.

        It's NOT the same was what they call FSD (Full Self Drive) which is a *very* expensive add-on.

        If the stats in the report are misreporting FSD as Autopilot, then the total number of cars (and miles driven) are at least an order of magnitude (or two) lower than the number of cars and miles that would be involved if they really mean Autopilot.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday June 20, @02:46PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Monday June 20, @02:46PM (#1254615)

      All I think that can be said is that this article provides no evidence that autopilot is more dangerous than regular driving.

      You can rarely conclude anything from the number soup that gets reported in the press. Comparing the accident rates between competing ADAS systems might be interesting but "70 percent of the 392 crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems reported" - for example - means nothing without data on what proportion of ADAS systems in use are Teslas (I'd guess a pretty high proportion!)

      I think the "story" is that there were more crashes than had previously been reported, due to Autopilot not technically being engaged at the moment of impact. One of the big questions that needs answering is whether the whole concept of expecting drivers to be ready to take over at short notice when the driver assist bails out is viable (of course it bloody well isn't, but it would help to be able to back that up with data).

      The comparison is only relevant assuming folks use autopilot all the time (I guess most do not).

      Well, a lot of "driver assist" usage will take place on long freeway/motorway trips which are relatively safe c.f. urban/country lane driving anyway (it's just that when high-speed crashes happen they tend cause high levels of casualties). Also, not every driver is a moron who will blindly trust autopilot when conditions are dangerous - so that's going to skew the stats in favour of driver assist.

      I think at the moment, the priority should be to make these systems as safe as they can be by learning from the details of each accident, rather than falling back on stats. AFAIK "my accident stats over the last 3 years have been 37.3% below the national average" has never been a very solid legal defence against a dangerous driving charge :-)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:30PM (#1254733)

      More useful would be if you could somehow narrow the comparison down to just those vehicles similar to Teslas. Say, high-performance, high-priced.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:28AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:28AM (#1254573)

    See Original Submission https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=55634 [soylentnews.org]
    for a link to the NHTSA press release.

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:31PM (#1254982)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:39PM (#1255045)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @11:41PM (#1255128)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @03:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @03:42AM (#1255209)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com] (INTEZER's now owned by Microsoft iirc as well).

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well)?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @06:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @06:55AM (#1255252)

    Guess what Dalek? YOU LOSE, hosts work vs. Symbiote C2 server(s) per this line from a MUCH better article than the one used here from bradley13 per "configuration in the binary that used the git[.]bancodobrasil[.]dev domain as its C2 server" from https://www.intezer.com/blog/research/new-linux-threat-symbiote/ [intezer.com]

    & did I block that in my original posts here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1253504#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] on this BOGUS sockpuppet upmodding yourselves shithole website (which also noted FIREWALLS are invaluable here too, per wildcards (or even IP address use, URL domain/subdomain too in many as well))?

    YES I DID! I was correct...

    & YES, hosts work vs. this threat too stupid!

    FACT: hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication.

    FACT: Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either.

    FACT: Orders come from C2 servers!

    So YOU LOSE chump... a BETTER ARTICLE than what I used proves it for me!

    * THANKS FOR LOSING TO ME yet again, as always for you... try me again? THIS COMES UP AS PROOF (as well as another I have on YOU regarding using sources where YOU contradict yourself - want quotes of that too? ASK!)

    HOW ESPECIALLY EMBARASSING FOR YOU with your NO-DOUBT self-upmodded by sockpuppet accounts of YOURSELF too - now that YOU have EGG ON YOUR FACE fucko!

    APK

    P.S.=> Do yourself a FAVOR - don't ever, EVER try me ever again OR I WILL MAKE SURE YOU SHIT ON YOURSELF yet again as always, easlly... apk

(1)