4 ms·

Of course Tesla tests things itself with its own drivers. What they can't do is replicate every single one of the unusual corner cases that people encounter in

Of course Tesla tests things itself with its own drivers. What they can't do is replicate every single one of the unusual corner cases that people encounter in the real world.

hjk05 7y ago
Sure, but that’s true of all companies. Imagine a drug company put a drug on the market that might kill your or leave you crippled if you don’t match the results they had on their 3 test patients, and them telling you “That’s on you, the drug is a beta”.
- kruczek 7y ago
  That's a bad example, because drugs typically have all kinds of warnings about negative effects. They certainly test on more than 3 patients, and they won't tell you the drug is a beta, but I'm sure they will still claim they are not responsible, because they warned you about very small chance of failure.
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  > Imagine a drug company put a drug on the market that might kill your or leave you crippled Taking out of context by cutting off your sentence, but pretty much any drug has a listed side effect like this.
- surrealize 7y ago
  All of us are making assumptions about how much testing Tesla does internally before deploying a feature to customer cars. I think it's way more than the equivalent of "3 test patients", but from the outside of course there's no way to know. From the linked tweet, there's no way to evaluate how unusual the failure case was. And of course we don't know how likely it was to have been a pedal misapplication. We do know that that's not uncommon, though. The original comment I replied to assumed that there was no internal testing, and you're assuming there was very little internal testing. Both of you are jumping to that conclusion with very little support.
bob_doggo 7y ago
you are not wrong. But as I see it, the question here is about the legal status of having an open beta on items where a bug could kill someone.
- sesteel 7y ago
  Not as serious as death; but their argument suggests that the owners are subsidizing Tesla's R&D monetarily when their systems fail. I assume there is some type of legal agreement the owner had to click through to gain access to the feature. That is a pretty crappy situation for Tesla owners; hopefully, there is a way to opt out of agreements once opted in, given new information.
- heyyyouu 7y ago
  Yes, exactly.

Of course Tesla tests things itself with its own drivers. What they can't do is replicate every single one of the unusual corner cases that people encounter in the real world.

hjk05 7y ago

Sure, but that’s true of all companies. Imagine a drug company put a drug on the market that might kill your or leave you crippled if you don’t match the results they had on their 3 test patients, and them telling you “That’s on you, the drug is a beta”.

kruczek 7y ago
That's a bad example, because drugs typically have all kinds of warnings about negative effects. They certainly test on more than 3 patients, and they won't tell you the drug is a beta, but I'm sure they will still claim they are not responsible, because they warned you about very small chance of failure.
NullPrefix 7y ago
> Imagine a drug company put a drug on the market that might kill your or leave you crippled Taking out of context by cutting off your sentence, but pretty much any drug has a listed side effect like this.
surrealize 7y ago
All of us are making assumptions about how much testing Tesla does internally before deploying a feature to customer cars. I think it's way more than the equivalent of "3 test patients", but from the outside of course there's no way to know. From the linked tweet, there's no way to evaluate how unusual the failure case was. And of course we don't know how likely it was to have been a pedal misapplication. We do know that that's not uncommon, though. The original comment I replied to assumed that there was no internal testing, and you're assuming there was very little internal testing. Both of you are jumping to that conclusion with very little support.

bob_doggo 7y ago

you are not wrong. But as I see it, the question here is about the legal status of having an open beta on items where a bug could kill someone.

sesteel 7y ago
Not as serious as death; but their argument suggests that the owners are subsidizing Tesla's R&D monetarily when their systems fail. I assume there is some type of legal agreement the owner had to click through to gain access to the feature. That is a pretty crappy situation for Tesla owners; hopefully, there is a way to opt out of agreements once opted in, given new information.
heyyyouu 7y ago
Yes, exactly.