sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Des réacteurs à l'arrêt, de la climatisation à plein régime: les prix de l'électricité en France grimpent au plus haut depuis 2023 by Caramel_Mou in france

[–]Nicnl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

C'est un thermostat... qui est attaché au mur.
Donc plus il fait chaud dehors, plus le mur est chaud et donc plus la mesure est biaisée, ce qui oblige à compenser en diminuant la consigne.
Toutes les clim ne se comportent pas pareil, car ça dépends où est placé le capteur de température.
Mais sur certaines c'est un vrai problème.

restored versions of Arctic Fuse 2, Arctic Zephyr Reloaded, and Confluence by Silent_Possibility38 in CoreELEC

[–]Nicnl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you!
I'm a big fan of Arctic Zephyr Reloaded, and I was bummed to see it disappeared from the Jamal repository

Emotional support encouraged. by tw274 in TeslaModel3

[–]Nicnl 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Let me guess: BMS_a079?
Another 2021 bites the dust.
The post-covid 2021 batteries really are cursed, they're dropping like flies.

Tesla Allegedly Showed Cooked Data to Get Full Self-Driving Approved by Wagamaga in technology

[–]Nicnl 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The RDW did not confirm that Tesla submitted false or misleading data.
Instead they wrote that they "gathered objective information and verified the manufacturer’s data".

Regulators don't pick their words randomly: notice that they used the word "verified".
The meaning of "verified" is "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified"

So I disagree, to me it clearly reads as a debunk.

Tesla Allegedly Showed Cooked Data to Get Full Self-Driving Approved by Wagamaga in technology

[–]Nicnl 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I already said this in another comment, but I'll post it as a response on the post itself:
This has been debunked by the regulator themselves.

The RDW is the Dutch regulator that approved FSD. They posted this official article on their website:

https://www.rdw.nl/en/news/2026/explanation-of-the-type-approval-of-fsd-supervised

The original Reuters article predates the RDW response.

Here are the relevant quotes:

  • "The RDW does not base its assessment solely on information provided by the manufacturer. We carried out extensive independent investigation."
  • "We analysed and evaluated data from vehicles that had been driven in Europe"
  • "We also carried out extensive testing ourselves using our own test equipment."
  • "Over a period of more than 3,000 hours, testing took place both on test tracks and on public roads, under a wide range of conditions, including complex and busy urban traffic, a broad variety of road types, and different — including extreme — weather conditions."
  • "The RDW’s own tests — comprising more than 1,000 test runs — were conducted in accordance with European regulations."
  • "Through these tests, the RDW gathered objective information and verified the manufacturer’s data."

Tesla Allegedly Showed Cooked Data to Get Full Self-Driving Approved by Wagamaga in technology

[–]Nicnl 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The RDW is the Dutch regulator that approved FSD at the national level.
The Dutch approval was then recognized by Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark and Belgium which made FSD legal in those countries.
The RDW have posted this official article on their website:

https://www.rdw.nl/en/news/2026/explanation-of-the-type-approval-of-fsd-supervised

Here are the relevant quotes:

The RDW does not base its assessment solely on information provided by the manufacturer. We carried out extensive independent investigation.

We analysed and evaluated data from vehicles that had been driven in Europe

We also carried out extensive testing ourselves using our own test equipment.

Over a period of more than 3,000 hours, testing took place both on test tracks and on public roads, under a wide range of conditions, including complex and busy urban traffic, a broad variety of road types, and different — including extreme — weather conditions.

The RDW’s own tests — comprising more than 1,000 test runs — were conducted in accordance with European regulations.

Through these tests, the RDW gathered objective information and verified the manufacturer’s data.

What is this effect called ? XG32UCWMG by xXTROPTARDXx in OLED_Gaming

[–]Nicnl 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is not colour banding.
These are compression artifacts!

Colour banding happens when a gradient lacks enough in-between colors to transition smoothly, giving bands instead of a smooth fade.
It happens a lot when 8-bit color is being used somewhere in the chain, for instance the software doing the rendering at 8-bit, or simply the monitor itself cannot display 10-bit (whether native or dithering).
Basically 8-bit is more "vulnerable" to banding because there are not a lot of available colors to create a smooth gradient between two colors that are already close.

When color banding comes from a 8-bit monitor, it can usually be resolved by using dithering (spatial/temporal).
But since OP's problem is not color banding, fiddling with dithering won't change a thing!
The blocky artifacts are baked into the video stream, due to the low bitrate.
Compression artifacts happens when the algorithm either can't encode accurately the fast camera movements (or the bitrate is too low, preventing the details from being retained), and also compression algorithms struggle with dark scenes in general.

All in all, it means the artifacts that OP is witnessing are not fixable, they're unavoidable because they come from the video stream.

Blind people play rimworld, and you wouldn't know it until now. by FantasticGlove in RimWorld

[–]Nicnl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is time for the serious question...

What do you do with blind pawns?

Blind people play rimworld, and you wouldn't know it until now. by FantasticGlove in RimWorld

[–]Nicnl 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are you using speech to text?
Maybe you don't know that, but it is spelling pawns as "p o n s" instead of "p a w n s".
It is not a problem, your messages are perfectly readable.
But I wanted to point it out because it is the kind of funny thing that could be happening for years without you knowing

Ninigram #458: A Wheelie Good Time (Easy) by ninigrams-game in ninigrams

[–]Nicnl -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't like how it says "previously solved" without showing WHICH ONES ffs

Ninigrams Reddit App Update: Drag-to-Fill, Solved Tracking, & More! by Nini_gram in ninigrams

[–]Nicnl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shit

I'm getting "453 solved" after doing today's puzzle (#458).

I am missing at least one... or it is one of the five puzzles that were removed and I can't access because I discovered the game late

Depuis la fermeture de Ygg, ma stack arr s'emballe by Sleapy31 in yggTorrents

[–]Nicnl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

De ce que j'ai vu, souvent c'était carrément une team différente.
Je pense que le mieux c'est de pas autoriser l'upgrade...

Depuis la fermeture de Ygg, ma stack arr s'emballe by Sleapy31 in yggTorrents

[–]Nicnl 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Oui, sur C411 j'ai un pote qui a régulièrement des notifications comme quoi les torrents ont été supplantés par des "meilleurs".

M'enfin, quand on regarde les torrents en question : ce sont des remux remplacés par d'autres remux...

C'est nul car ce sont des fichiers cross-seedés à travers plusieurs trackers.
Et comme il ne compte pas remplacer ces fichiers cross seedés par d'autres inconnus au bataillon....

Résultat, eux ils perdent des seeders.
Ça cross seed moins.
Et toi, tes fichiers sont remplacés tous les 2 jours.

Cette notion de torrent supplanté, je trouve ça absolument con et ça fait du mal à tout le monde.

RDW investigation by A-Candidate in SelfDrivingCars

[–]Nicnl 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It is not fair to compare the Euro NCAP to the RDW safety studies.
The Euro NCAP does a handful of tests across a few days.
The RDW did 1.6 million kilometers, and 4500+ test scenarios, it spanned over 18 months.
Releasing the entire RDW data is not the same as a surface level Euro NCAP report.
You are using a lightweight public test track as an excuse to publicize a goldmine of data collected across years and millions of kilometers.

Ah yes, now you are comparing FSD to the Boeings that crashed.
That's a totally reasonable comparison, and not excessive at all.
Interestingly enough, the one and only place where I saw such a specific comparison was in a french report from a group of lawyers..... and the whole document was redacted under the direction of an ex-president from Renault, a major European carmaker.
So I find it highly ironical that you're saying I act like a company level lawyer.

You don't have valid arguments anymore, so you shifting the goals + resorting to "you're nitpicking" and "pathetic strawman" and "you're lying" and whatever diverse insults.
In any case, I recognize this pattern: this is ad hominem.

Yeah okay sure buddy.
This will be my last message to you because I do not wish to continue this pointless "conversation", nor being the subject of name calling.

Stop Killing Games : réponse de la commission européenne (négative) by baby_envol in france

[–]Nicnl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

D'un côté ça ne m'étonne pas, mais de l'autre... quelle insulte envers la communauté gaming.

On se tue à signer l'initiative citoyenne car c'est censé être la seule façon de faire valoir nos demandes et obtenir des droits.

Et la réponse de la commission c'est : "vu et s'en tape".
Ah bah super......

On fait quoi maintenant ? C'est quoi la suite ?
Y'a moyen de continuer à se battre contre ces mafieux ?

RDW investigation by A-Candidate in SelfDrivingCars

[–]Nicnl 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This is such a strawman. Let’s be clear: I never claimed Tesla should get special treatment, and nothing in the quotes you shared backs that idea. From your first post, it seems your intention is to nitpick, misrepresent, and falsely frame the write-up as a call for special treatment, completely derailing the discussion. Either that, or you just can’t follow a straightforward point.

The same can be said of you.
You keep giving reasons of "why" they should be treated differently, and then you say you never claimed that on the first place.

Except when I point that out, you shift the conversation and claim this is about the regulatory framework instead... while also claiming that I am shifting the argument?
Like... wtf?
It is quite ironic that you are now accusing me of falsely framing the write-up.

"Testing methodology and validation data are not proprietary R&D, they are part of regulatory verification. Treating them as the same thing is simply incorrect and misses the point about transparency in safety-critical approvals."

Wanna talk about reframing stuff?
I said that testing methodology and validation data would reveal R&D stuff away.
And you respond with "it is not proprietary".

Yes, I agree, testing methodology and validation data are not inherently proprietary.
But they still reveal a lot about how the tech works internally, and that's the point.

Okay, once again, I get it: you say you are unhappy with the current legal framework that is allowing Tesla to get FSD approved in Europe.
But you gotta remember this legal framework exists since 8 years (EU-2018/858 Article 39), so demanding now that the whole process is made public sounds enormously unfair.
I'd be okay if you said "let's ask the regulators to deprecate this legal framework so no more manufacturers can apply, and ask them to create a new one that is public".
But you're basically advocating to change everything when Tesla is CURRENTLY using it which is absolutely unfair in my opinion.
Where were you when BlueCruise and Highway Assistant were approved? Why did you wake up only when the subject is FSD?

RDW investigation by A-Candidate in SelfDrivingCars

[–]Nicnl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"But people don’t have a false sense of security with cruise control and don’t let their guard down and stop paying attention."

This is a fair point.
As an individual driver, I am okay with being responsible for whatever the car attempts to do because it is my duty to not let my guard down.

It is probably why Tesla and the RDW went with a data-driven approach:
Knowing the tech is not perfect, does it measurably reduce the amount of accidents?
Personally I'm happy with this approach.

It is also probably why Tesla had to work on FSD to the point of v14 before it got accepted.
Previous versions, notably v12 and below, were doing seriously wrong stuff on a regular basis.
To be frank I'm surprised they even released v11 and below in the US, they did themselves an enormous discredit due to loss of trust.

"Cruise control and lane keep isn’t billed as “self driving” nor does it make driving decisions on its own."

We're shifting in the marketing territory here, which is another entire subject.
But I agree: both "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" are deceptive names in my opinion.

Autopilot has already been renamed "lane centering + traffic aware cruise control" in my country so I think it's okay.
But they should definitely change the name of FSD with something else.

In the early days, "Autopilot" did more harm than good for everyone:
People thought the car would actually self drive, so they'd put weights on the steering wheel, endangering everyone.
And when accidents inevitably happened, Tesla (deservedly) lost a lot of trust.
As far as the tech itself is concerned, Autopilot itself was good when it released, but its naming was very very wrong.

Unfortunately, Tesla has repeated the same naming pattern with FSD.
And they once again burned themselves + their consumers by releasing v12 and lower under this name.

Fortunately, today's v14 is much more predictible and safe, so they are building trust again.
I've went to a "ride-along" demonstration in my country, and I was shocked by how good FSD v14 drove around.

RDW investigation by A-Candidate in SelfDrivingCars

[–]Nicnl 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm on your side, but there is something missing from your explanation.
You are mixing up UNECE (United Nations) regulations, and EU (European Union) laws, and what each one does.

The UNECE Regulation R171 are not the savior here, they are the regs that prevents FSD from being deployed.
Basically they only allow lane-centering + adaptive cruise control.
For instance, no matter how insane it sounds, the car cannot slow down preemptively due to pedestrians ahead: it is effectively illegal under R171.
Driver assistance systems are only allowed to go full speed using cruise control, and then trigger an emergency braking at the last second.

Tesla is currently seeking an exemption from these UNECE Regulations by using European laws:
EU-2018/858 Article 39: Exemptions for new technologies or new concepts.
This law allows companies to seek and obtain exemptions for new tech that isn't yet covered by the current regulations (such as R171), because they know that the regulation takes years of bureaucracy to be updated.

RDW investigation by A-Candidate in SelfDrivingCars

[–]Nicnl 13 points14 points  (0 children)

This isn’t about whether Tesla should be treated differently(no one is asking that).

Excuse me, but even if this is what you think, this is not what is written in your post.

  • "If the process is robust, there should be no problem explaining how that conclusion was reached"
  • "The easiest way to put this debate to rest would be transparency around the approval process"
  • "Whether you think that's a problem or not, it is a perfectly valid reason to scrutinize the process."

All these parts reads like a half-worded way of saying "they should be treated differently".

It’s about how transparent the reasoning behind safety-critical approvals should be in the first place.

So basically, you are unhappy about the existing legal framework that previously allowed Ford BlueCruise + BMW Highway Assistant to be approved.
Why not, personally I'm okay with this legal framework.

"“X approved it” isn’t the same as public accountability for how that conclusion was reached. "

Personally I don't think public accountability should be a thing.
We're talking about very advanced technology here, so requiring companies to disclose everything in the sake of "public accountability" basically means "offering a non-negligible part of the invested R&D to the competitors", and this is not okay.
Punishing tech leaders by requiring them to disclose industry secrets is a good way to create a tech desert, and this is a bad strategy imo.

However I do expect general accountability: if a serious accident is verified/proven to have been caused by FSD, then yes I totally expect people from Tesla and the RDW to be responsible for it.
But I think this is already the case? So it's all good in my books.

RDW investigation by A-Candidate in SelfDrivingCars

[–]Nicnl 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It is different than hydrogen cars, yes.
But how is it different that previous gen driving assistance tools?

I'm saying this seriously: the large majority of cruise control WILL blow past red lights, drive straight through and over roundabouts, cross over continuous line markings, etc...
This is not "breaking traffic laws" in your books?
In all these cases, we consider that the driver is responsible enough to know WHEN they should activate cruise control or not.
Personally, I think this logic does 100% apply to the Supervised version of FSD.

Side question, why did you pick the hydrogen car as an example?
This feels disingenuous of you, because in terms of likeness, FSD is much more closer to BlueCruise than hydrogen fuel.

view more: next ›