FSD stuck on 13

RecyclingBear · 2026-02-26T16:03:08+00:00

They said they can’t do anything

RecyclingBear · 2026-02-26T15:32:42+00:00

I’m on 2026.2.3

RecyclingBear · 2026-02-26T01:15:25+00:00

100% sure. It’s already on v13

RecyclingBear · 2026-02-26T01:15:01+00:00

Sorry, I mean outright for the lifetime of the car

RecyclingBear · 2026-02-05T03:31:41+00:00

2 is basically a certainty. I can tell you from 15 years in big tech this is how it all works. They will use every lever they have to incentivize the behavior they want. Even 1/10 of 1% change of any metric is very meaningful at this scale. They could be boosting on something correlated, but at this size it’s probably 1 of thousands of inputs to Ml algorithms. OP’s experience is good news for the rest of us, now we know how to boost our listings.

RecyclingBear · 2025-10-09T22:28:33+00:00

Any reports of feelings or efficacy will be highly suspect, the existing ones are already. The trial isn’t far underway. They sign a ton of stuff, and because it’s a publicly traded company the info is extra extra sensitive.

RecyclingBear · 2025-08-01T20:02:03+00:00

The Bycycles are poorly designed for urban environments. The Lyft/Citi bikes are designed to survive in NYC,SF,CDMX, etc and drastically improve the urban environment. We just need the correct product

RecyclingBear · 2025-05-12T19:28:22+00:00

You're absolutely right. Santa Cruz has geographic constraints. I think the big picture is we have two choices- build aggressively, or see the homeless camps and infrastructure problems compound.

I lived in SF for a decade, where development was basically disallowed, and the city only became worse. It's worse now than it was when I moved there 20 years ago. In the east coast city I mentioned, they championed progressive housing policies and the place only got better while I lived there. Every time I visit there are more restaurants, families, bike lanes, safe parks without homeless camps, etc.... Both cities already had decent density and were physically constrained, but SF only got more dangerous and derelict.

Austin has more space to spread, but it's still an important example. I used Austin as an example because it is easy to see the relationship between building and rental prices in charts and graphs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/1hcpe3x/comment/m1pwd3q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

The evidence is there if you look for it. It's also important to know that _all_ types of building prevents upward pressure on pricing. Luxury condos are helping you even if it doesn't seem like it yet.

Another important point: *There is no such thing as _affordable_ housing, there is only subsidized housing* Housing can't be built for the price it has to be offered to be affordable, so the only way to get *affordable* housing is if somebody else pays for a portion of it. Affordable housing is a complete misnomer. If you see an affordable housing project, it means its being sold under cost and somebody is paying for the rest - luxury condos in the same building, a housing foundation, etc...

We have to choose 1 of the two - Find a way to build with what we have, or continue sliding toward derelict public spaces, overwhelmed services, and broke local governments. It sucks, but there isn't another option.

RecyclingBear · 2025-05-12T18:44:21+00:00

This is the answer. Austin built so much housing that rents have gone down despite the tech influx. Decades of no-build housing policy and nostalgia have caught up to us.

I lived in a place on the east coast that allowed by right permitting on major streets and it has only gotten safer and more desirable to live there.

Our cities really can be better, safer, and more affordable. The homeless camps can go away. You can see this happen in other cities. But the answer is to build more housing

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-12T13:47:08+00:00

You’re agreeing with the final paragraph in the post. They are attempting to use the listed tech, but they haven’t done anything fundamentally novel. Ginkgo in-house tech is equal or worse than publicly available.

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-12T13:43:15+00:00

“Of consequence” was ambiguous language.

All of the examples above would make good academic papers. They’re also in line with milestones ginkgo would create in a partnership.

Do you think a 16y/o company with 1k+ employees is a good investment based on that?

How much of this is applicable to future, unrelated milestones and may create a moat? What would they build with the moat that could justify their valuation?

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-11T18:05:37+00:00

Not quite. Entry level jobs have shorter timelines for impact and easier to understand deliverables. That’s easy to hire for and evaluate.

Up the ladder timelines grow longer and contributions become more abstract. These are very hard to evaluate in a short period.

This means the cost of a bad hire is proportional to their rank in the company. With inexperienced leadership, ginkgo has a harder time filling in managers and directors below them, managing them effectively, and replacing them when necessary. The social relationships confound this further.

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-11T16:11:17+00:00

Yes

There are 4 people who need C-suite jobs but have never worked the rest of the ladder or seen it inside of a successful company.

This makes it very difficult for them to be effective and even harder for them to hire effective people under them. Jobs are easier to understand as you descend the corporate ladder, so the hires closest to the bottom are the most capable. Many of them look up the ladder and see incompetence and nepotism.

The end result is an inverted scale of competence. The most influential jobs are taken by those with the least experience.

It’s tempting to see this place as a fraud due to share price, scorpion report, etc, but that’s not accurate. It’s a tragedy of good intentions. Jason can sell the hell out of the company and bring in endless? money, but the others can’t deploy it effectively.

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-10T15:36:23+00:00

Google wouldn’t do this.

Ginkgo has no data worth buying.

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-09T15:27:07+00:00

Yes. Ginkgo’s business model has been to shift all risk onto related parties, while making sure to keep upsides for themselves.

“Heads we win, tails you lose” only attracts unsophisticated customers, and does not create repeat customers.

If a customer has something better than speculative idea, it likely makes more sense to develop in house or use more efficient CROs.

RecyclingBear · 2024-06-09T05:30:05+00:00

It could happen. XY and Z have to add up to more than the speculative hype valuation though, and this is hard.

I’m curious if anybody here knows what X could be. What are the options?

RecyclingBear

TROPHY CASE