4 ms·

> Tesla still insists their cars have fully self driving capabilities on www.tesla.com/autopilot No they don't. They say they have the hardware for it, but th

> Tesla still insists their cars have fully self driving capabilities on www.tesla.com/autopilot No they don't. They say they have the hardware for it, but the functionality will only become available once it passes software validation and regulatory approval.

IanCal 8y ago
While accurate, I don't think it's surprising (and therefore Tesla know) that people would assume >Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars As a massive headline and > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. As the rest of what I see on one screen- means that it's self driving and safer than a human. More from the page > Full Self-Driving Capability And only towards the end does it say > Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available Which even then isn't clear if it's self driving or not yet. Frankly, if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving, I expect it to be able to do that. I'm sure they're technically correct but I think they're wildly misleading.
- notahacker 8y ago
  It's also questionable whether even the "full self driving hardware" claim is true, since "full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" is not yet a thing which exists, and the closest vehicles we have to full self-driving capability rely on vastly superior hardware to that fitted to the Tesla.
- JimDabell 8y ago
  You've misquoted them the same way as the other guy. They aren't saying the car has that capability. > if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving As I pointed out, they haven't said that. They've said it's got the hardware needed for it. Compare: This iPhone is capable of 16-way FaceTime calls. …to: This iPhone has the hardware necessary for 16-way FaceTime calls. When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls. Hardware support is necessary but not sufficient. What Tesla are saying on that page is that when you buy the car, you've got all the hardware needed, but the software that is needed is yet to come, at an uncertain future date. Right now, Tesla are saying that you've got all the hardware, you just need the software, and the software isn't ready yet. This isn't at all the same thing as saying that the car has this capability right now. Those are two quite distinct claims and I think that page is clear on saying the former not the latter. If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support? Does this apply to other manufacturers like Apple as well?
  - neotek 8y ago
    >If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Less dishonestly. Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". There's a very good reason why the language used in marketing is regulated in just about every country on the planet.
    - JimDabell 8y ago
      > Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". No, my argument is as follows: 1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality. 2. It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale. 3. Other vendors do this without people complaining. Do you disagree with any of those?
      - neotek 8y ago
        I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality, the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving, which is absolutely not the case. Tesla are misleading consumers, their intention is thoroughly irrelevant.
        JimDabell 8y ago
        > I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. I understand that, but I get the impression that no way of saying it will satisfy you. This is why I asked how you think they should describe it. This is why I asked if you actually disagree with any of those points. Do you? > the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. A drunk person using awful judgement does not qualify as "demonstrably and indisputably" in my view. Has anybody actually demonstrated this is actually misleading to the average person?
thoman23 8y ago
That is a way of winking to buyers and saying,”pssst...it works but we just can’t legally say it works yet.”
- JimDabell 8y ago
  I disagree, and I think holding Tesla accountable for something they haven't said is ridiculous.
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    How about holding them accountable for something they’ve strongly suggested?
    - JimDabell 8y ago
      But they aren't doing that. They are explicitly telling people it's not ready yet. If you interpret that to mean that it is ready, you're the only one to blame for that.
      - close04 8y ago
        I take it you’d be ok if someone called you a pedophile on the front page of a major newspaper without offering any evidence and then putting a tiny footnote on the last page saying they might be talking about a different Jim or that maybe it’s not kids but definitely consenting adults. I picked a shocking example because you seem to be completely unwilling to understand the point multiple people struggle to drive home, no matter how clear those methods are ;).
        JimDabell 8y ago
        Between this and your other comment, it seems you're not interested in discussing this rationally, you just want a fight. Not interested.
      - temac 8y ago
DanBC 8y ago
Luckily regulators don't look at only the precise meaning of a sentence, but how the average person in the street understands that sentence.

IanCal 8y ago

While accurate, I don't think it's surprising (and therefore Tesla know) that people would assume >Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars As a massive headline and > All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver. As the rest of what I see on one screen- means that it's self driving and safer than a human. More from the page > Full Self-Driving Capability And only towards the end does it say > Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available Which even then isn't clear if it's self driving or not yet. Frankly, if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving, I expect it to be able to do that. I'm sure they're technically correct but I think they're wildly misleading.

notahacker 8y ago
It's also questionable whether even the "full self driving hardware" claim is true, since "full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver" is not yet a thing which exists, and the closest vehicles we have to full self-driving capability rely on vastly superior hardware to that fitted to the Tesla.
JimDabell 8y ago
You've misquoted them the same way as the other guy. They aren't saying the car has that capability. > if you sell me something you say is capable of full self driving As I pointed out, they haven't said that. They've said it's got the hardware needed for it. Compare: This iPhone is capable of 16-way FaceTime calls. …to: This iPhone has the hardware necessary for 16-way FaceTime calls. When iOS 12 was released, one was true but the other wasn't. It wasn't until Apple released iOS 12.1 that iPhones were capable of making 16-way FaceTime calls. Hardware support is necessary but not sufficient. What Tesla are saying on that page is that when you buy the car, you've got all the hardware needed, but the software that is needed is yet to come, at an uncertain future date. Right now, Tesla are saying that you've got all the hardware, you just need the software, and the software isn't ready yet. This isn't at all the same thing as saying that the car has this capability right now. Those are two quite distinct claims and I think that page is clear on saying the former not the latter. If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Do you think they should be banned from mentioning the hardware support? Does this apply to other manufacturers like Apple as well?
- neotek 8y ago
  >If you're saying that Tesla claiming hardware support is tantamount to claiming full functionality, then how do you suggest they describe the situation? Less dishonestly. Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". There's a very good reason why the language used in marketing is regulated in just about every country on the planet.
  - JimDabell 8y ago
    > Your entire argument boils down to "people should be expected to parse Tesla's (intentionally, I might add) obfuscated language". No, my argument is as follows: 1. It is reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality. 2. It's necessary for them to make this distinction in order to offer the hardware upgrades for pre-sale. 3. Other vendors do this without people complaining. Do you disagree with any of those?
    - neotek 8y ago
      I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's reasonable for Tesla to distinguish between having hardware capability and actual functionality, the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving, which is absolutely not the case. Tesla are misleading consumers, their intention is thoroughly irrelevant.
      - JimDabell 8y ago
        > I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really don't understand that the way you say something is different from what you're saying. I understand that, but I get the impression that no way of saying it will satisfy you. This is why I asked how you think they should describe it. This is why I asked if you actually disagree with any of those points. Do you? > the way they are describing it is demonstrably and indisputably leading consumers to believe their cars are actively capable of full self-driving Is it? I mean, there's obviously going to be idiot outliers for any product. A drunk person using awful judgement does not qualify as "demonstrably and indisputably" in my view. Has anybody actually demonstrated this is actually misleading to the average person?

thoman23 8y ago

That is a way of winking to buyers and saying,”pssst...it works but we just can’t legally say it works yet.”

JimDabell 8y ago
I disagree, and I think holding Tesla accountable for something they haven't said is ridiculous.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  How about holding them accountable for something they’ve strongly suggested?
  - JimDabell 8y ago
    But they aren't doing that. They are explicitly telling people it's not ready yet. If you interpret that to mean that it is ready, you're the only one to blame for that.
    - close04 8y ago
      I take it you’d be ok if someone called you a pedophile on the front page of a major newspaper without offering any evidence and then putting a tiny footnote on the last page saying they might be talking about a different Jim or that maybe it’s not kids but definitely consenting adults. I picked a shocking example because you seem to be completely unwilling to understand the point multiple people struggle to drive home, no matter how clear those methods are ;).
      - JimDabell 8y ago
        Between this and your other comment, it seems you're not interested in discussing this rationally, you just want a fight. Not interested.
    - temac 8y ago

DanBC 8y ago

Luckily regulators don't look at only the precise meaning of a sentence, but how the average person in the street understands that sentence.