At the time of this post, I was told by one of the moderators on GitHub that people who felt the same could upvote my comment (linked above).
Since then my comment has clearly ratioed the OP. The OP's own PR has clearly gotten more community rejection than acceptance.
I'm out of energy on this. Bitcoin Core is lost. It's one thing to fail to act in the face of an attack on the network.
It's another to embrace it and swing the doors wide open for it.
I'm not going to go into all of the details again as to why this marks the death of Bitcoin. See my comments on that PR.
It's sad to see the death warrant for a project I've been involved with for nearly 15 years signed and sealed, though. Just waiting on delivery.
The only hopes left:
This isn't actually merged at the last second;
or, once its merged, people immediately reject Bitcoin Core and move to something like Bitcoin Knots or at any code that rejects this clear madness.
Bitcoin is dead otherwise. Not hyperbole.
To that end, I call on @digitalfoundry, @AntPoolofficial, @luxor, @SpiderPool_com, @ViaBTC, and all other miners/pools to step up.
Reject this nonsense.
Move away from Bitcoin Core.
I don't care what you move to as long as its a codebase that doesn't outright kill Bitcoin. 😭
I'm the worst politician ever, and I really don't have the energy to combat the FUD around this.
Don't accept others claiming it'll be fine. Don't accept appeals to authority on this. Do your own research, come to your own conclusions.
If you believe Bitcoin is better money after it's flooded with gigabytes of non-Bitcoin content that all users have to store and give no incentive to use Bitcoin as money... then by all means lemming your way along with Bitcoin Core.
If you have at least two brain cells to rub together, then you'll quickly come to the conclusion that, hmm... maybe making it difficult or impossible to use Bitcoin as money will make it not be the best money.
@digitalfoundry @AntPoolofficial @luxor @SpiderPool_com @ViaBTC Seems in my sleep deprived state, I accidentally tagged an innocent gaming page instead of @foundryservices ...
Sorry about that!
Well, seems they couldn't take the community heat and started a new PR that effectively does the same thing as the originally linked one.
Except this time they're not allowing any comments, and even moderating direct contributors. 🤦♂️
If your changes can survive debate, maybe you shouldn't make them?
Still at a loss to as to how some can say Tesla FSD is so amazing.
I've now tried this on 10+ diff vehicles, in different areas (including areas people claim it works well in), and it's still pretty much useless for me.
It does *NOTHING* well EXCEPT lane centering.
Simple right turns are probably < 25% success. Protected lefts < 50%. Unprotected lefts < 10%. Correct lane selection < 50%. Proper yielding to traffic < 50%. General navigation < 75%.
For example: I have a spot it will make a left, but just aim for the median. 9/10 times.
Another left from a 4-lane to a 2-lane has a sloped concrete divider in the intersection we're turning towards. I've let it jump it twice just to see if I was overreacting when intervening. It drives right over it like it's not even there, and it IS in the visualization!
I want to drive home how impossible "Sudden Unintended Acceleration" is in a Tesla, why any issue with the autopilot/FSD system can't do this, and a few other myths and technical aspects of this whole thing in a thread.🧵 (Which ended up longer than expected.)
Claim: The brakes get disabled and the driver can't stop!
Reality: False. The brakes are still a completely mechanical system in all Teslas, and function even with no power if you press the brake pedal. The brakes are also more than strong enough to overpower the motors...
... and the brakes can't be "disabled." The self-driving features can only command to apply braking. They can't command to "unapply" braking. Brake return is a spring mechanism, as all FSD/AP can do is press the pedal just like you can as the driver. Return is 100% mechanical.
My prediction:
Gov't + VW funds for already under-maintained NA CCS station deployments dry up;
CCS keeps its horrible reliability track record as folks stay frustrated;
Tesla wins this before the end of the decade.⚡️
🤷♂️
There's just insufficient incentive for any company to truly invest in a NA CCS network. Pretty much everything so far is subsidized substantially one way or another because it's not a profit driver. The ROI on a 350 kW CCS station is nonexistant in any realistic time period.
Legacy auto folks have little business incentive to invest in these networks. EVs are just not their business, despite some neat models emerging. They don't have the volume or motivation to really dump the money and effort into a charging network here in NA like Tesla has done.
I have a customer who's the ~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60.
At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack. It wasn't software limited. It was effectively made into a 90 by Tesla.
Years went by.
(1/*)
Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.
He has the car for a few months, goes in and does a paid MCU2 upgrade at Tesla after the 3G shutdown.
All goes well. The upgrade is done, car is working fine.
(2/*)
Later on, while the car is parked in his driveway, Tesla calls him to tell him that they found and fixed a configuration mistake with his car.
They remotely software locked the car to be a 60 again, despite having been a 90 for years.