Instances of "slamming into a jersey barrier" are on highways and by definition involve the legacy Autopilot stack and not the FSD beta vision stack. I agree that the tesla bros are extremely cringe, but I'm equally unimpressed with criticisms that rely upon ignorance of basic facts about the thing being criticised. Tesla is deserving of a lot of criticism for a lot of things, but they are clear about the distinction between Autopilot and FSD. Eliding this distinction in one's criticism gives the appearance of being uninformed.

Also your claim about contrast adaptation seems awfully specific, enough that I'm interested in a citation. There's plenty of evidence that their imaging sensors do adapt well in high dynamic range circumstances.

humans don't crash into shaded jersey barriers, as a tesla famously did. contrast adaptation of CCDs pale in comparison to that of the retina. there a ton of literature on contrast adaptation in the retina and in neuroscience in general, i would suggest you look there

> humans don't crash into shaded jersey barriers

They literally do, which is why jersey barriers are literally designed with vehicular impact in mind.

> contrast adaptation of CCDs

You can't just mix terminology like that. Contrast adaptation describes behaviour in biological systems which isn't analogous to anything a CCD does. There's a reason why literally nobody uses the term to describe digital systems, because it's not relevant.

If you were trying to say that the CCD doesn't have sufficient dynamic range, then just say that instead of using a term which doesn't describe dynamic range.