<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>oblio</author><text>The thing is, you don&amp;#x27;t even need Tesla &amp;quot;self driving&amp;quot; for that.&lt;p&gt;Adaptive cruise control, tech we&amp;#x27;ve had for what, 20+ years? is more than enough for most highways, it takes out ~80% of the stress&amp;#x2F;boredom of driving, especially since lane changes are minimal and curves are gentle.&lt;p&gt;The hard parts of driving (aka not highways) are the real problem, as expected. We solved the easy parts in 2000 and who knows if we&amp;#x27;ll solve the hard parts by 2050.</text><parent_chain><item><author>RyEgswuCsn</author><text>So it sounds like it&amp;#x27;s Simpson&amp;#x27;s paradox [1] at work.  I had always wondered why many people are slow to accept self-driving cars despite the claims of them being statistically safer.  I think that explains it --- to make consumers confident about the self-driving technologies, it is not enough for them to be able to handle the &amp;quot;easy&amp;quot; kind of driving (e.g. on highway and under relatively good visibility conditions) better than humans; they need to demonstrate that they can drive better than humans in the most challenging driving environments too.&lt;p&gt;I guess this is the classic scenario where human intuition is defeated by carefully presented statistics.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Simpson%27s_paradox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Simpson%27s_paradox&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>gnicholas</author><text>Underlying study is here. [1] Full disclosure, I co-wrote the piece for The Daily Beast [2] that originally suggested that Tesla&amp;#x27;s methodology was seriously flawed. I am not a Tesla-hater though — I just thought it was odd that the company was playing quite so fast and loose with their safety claims.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;engrxiv.org&amp;#x2F;preprint&amp;#x2F;view&amp;#x2F;1973&amp;#x2F;3986&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;engrxiv.org&amp;#x2F;preprint&amp;#x2F;view&amp;#x2F;1973&amp;#x2F;3986&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;2: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thedailybeast.com&amp;#x2F;how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exaggeraged-safety-claims-about-autopilot-and-cars&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thedailybeast.com&amp;#x2F;how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exagge...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims</title><url>https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>wilde</author><text>I think traditional auto makers have done a much better job of communicating to consumers what the tech can actually do. We don’t have self driving cars (which implies that they can drive in those harder conditions). We have cars that are good at lane keeping on freeways.&lt;p&gt;I wish Tesla would celebrate that victory rather than double down on lies.</text><parent_chain><item><author>RyEgswuCsn</author><text>So it sounds like it&amp;#x27;s Simpson&amp;#x27;s paradox [1] at work.  I had always wondered why many people are slow to accept self-driving cars despite the claims of them being statistically safer.  I think that explains it --- to make consumers confident about the self-driving technologies, it is not enough for them to be able to handle the &amp;quot;easy&amp;quot; kind of driving (e.g. on highway and under relatively good visibility conditions) better than humans; they need to demonstrate that they can drive better than humans in the most challenging driving environments too.&lt;p&gt;I guess this is the classic scenario where human intuition is defeated by carefully presented statistics.&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Simpson%27s_paradox&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Simpson%27s_paradox&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>gnicholas</author><text>Underlying study is here. [1] Full disclosure, I co-wrote the piece for The Daily Beast [2] that originally suggested that Tesla&amp;#x27;s methodology was seriously flawed. I am not a Tesla-hater though — I just thought it was odd that the company was playing quite so fast and loose with their safety claims.&lt;p&gt;1: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;engrxiv.org&amp;#x2F;preprint&amp;#x2F;view&amp;#x2F;1973&amp;#x2F;3986&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;engrxiv.org&amp;#x2F;preprint&amp;#x2F;view&amp;#x2F;1973&amp;#x2F;3986&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;2: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thedailybeast.com&amp;#x2F;how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exaggeraged-safety-claims-about-autopilot-and-cars&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thedailybeast.com&amp;#x2F;how-tesla-and-elon-musk-exagge...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Normalized crash data shows Autopilot is much less safe than Tesla claims</title><url>https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1488673180403191808</url></story>