3 ms·

If a driver uses a system based on information from advertisements instead of reading the manual that comes with it, they might not be suited to drive any car e

If a driver uses a system based on information from advertisements instead of reading the manual that comes with it, they might not be suited to drive any car either because using a safety-critical system without knowing what its limitations are is reckless and irresponsible.

romwell 7y ago
>If a driver uses a system based on information from advertisements They would be just like all the consumers who expect that misleading advertisement is illegal. Nobody is reading the small print, especially on the "accept this long text to use your thing" kind. Not you, not me, not anyone, really; and everyone knows it, including the courts. In fact, for that reason EULAs aren't even enforceable in all legislatures (like Germany, IIRC). And putting critical information into the small print that you have to accept just to use the device is plain sleazy.
- _Microft 7y ago
  If there is a ruling that actually exonerated a driver from their duty to be familiar with functions of their car based on prior knowledge of (misleading?) advertisements, then I'd really like to see it. It would be surprising at least.
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    It'd be surprising that you're not expected to somehow reverse engineer your car to find out how the features really work? Is that a joke? You think lay people are supposed take apart their Teslas and find out that AP1 was using radar and research that to find out that can't be used to detect static objects because of confusion with things like overhead signs? What's next, you'll be expected to reverse engineer ML models to find out your self-driving car doesn't recognize red bicycles at sunset?
    - _Microft 7y ago
      [T]o be familiar with functions of their car means that they should have had a look into the manual. Edit: You might wanna read the comment guidelines by the way. Snarky comments are actually discouraged in favour of more thoughtful and substantive ones -> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - BoorishBears 7y ago
        That's obviously not ok either, you can’t advertise the car as being able to do whatever you want to, then not deliver what you advertised because the manual says otherwise. That’s not a car specific concept, that’s the definition of false advertising. And I’m perfectly familiar with the guidelines, a comment can be thoughtful, substantive, and contain a little well-earned snark.
BoorishBears 7y ago
If that's what you got was the problem out of everything that I said, Tesla should extend you an offer. They've fostered this culture of setting up a fundamentally inadequate system, getting the user to use it with criminally optimistic language, then blaming the user when the inadequacies, which they knew about, result in death. Before the accident Musk will say: "Your hands are only on the wheels for regulatory reasons" To imply your hands are not on the wheel for safety reasons. After the accident Tesla will say: "Their hands were not on the wheel as they should have been to safely use our product" Rinse and repeat. - Honestly what's impressive is how many people on here condone this. Imagine a plane's autopilot suddenly banked into a mountain. It wouldn't matter if both pilots had been sitting in the back of the plane chatting up passengers, no one would hesitate to ground hundreds of planes until the cause was fixed. The NTSB would not release a report saying "As long as autopilot kills less people than manual flying it's fine!" Yet every time this happens apologists come pouring out of the woodwork to parrot this stuff. It's honestly getting a little disturbing.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  totally not a cult"

romwell 7y ago

>If a driver uses a system based on information from advertisements They would be just like all the consumers who expect that misleading advertisement is illegal. Nobody is reading the small print, especially on the "accept this long text to use your thing" kind. Not you, not me, not anyone, really; and everyone knows it, including the courts. In fact, for that reason EULAs aren't even enforceable in all legislatures (like Germany, IIRC). And putting critical information into the small print that you have to accept just to use the device is plain sleazy.

_Microft 7y ago
If there is a ruling that actually exonerated a driver from their duty to be familiar with functions of their car based on prior knowledge of (misleading?) advertisements, then I'd really like to see it. It would be surprising at least.
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  It'd be surprising that you're not expected to somehow reverse engineer your car to find out how the features really work? Is that a joke? You think lay people are supposed take apart their Teslas and find out that AP1 was using radar and research that to find out that can't be used to detect static objects because of confusion with things like overhead signs? What's next, you'll be expected to reverse engineer ML models to find out your self-driving car doesn't recognize red bicycles at sunset?
  - _Microft 7y ago
    [T]o be familiar with functions of their car means that they should have had a look into the manual. Edit: You might wanna read the comment guidelines by the way. Snarky comments are actually discouraged in favour of more thoughtful and substantive ones -> https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - BoorishBears 7y ago
      That's obviously not ok either, you can’t advertise the car as being able to do whatever you want to, then not deliver what you advertised because the manual says otherwise. That’s not a car specific concept, that’s the definition of false advertising. And I’m perfectly familiar with the guidelines, a comment can be thoughtful, substantive, and contain a little well-earned snark.

BoorishBears 7y ago

If that's what you got was the problem out of everything that I said, Tesla should extend you an offer. They've fostered this culture of setting up a fundamentally inadequate system, getting the user to use it with criminally optimistic language, then blaming the user when the inadequacies, which they knew about, result in death. Before the accident Musk will say: "Your hands are only on the wheels for regulatory reasons" To imply your hands are not on the wheel for safety reasons. After the accident Tesla will say: "Their hands were not on the wheel as they should have been to safely use our product" Rinse and repeat. - Honestly what's impressive is how many people on here condone this. Imagine a plane's autopilot suddenly banked into a mountain. It wouldn't matter if both pilots had been sitting in the back of the plane chatting up passengers, no one would hesitate to ground hundreds of planes until the cause was fixed. The NTSB would not release a report saying "As long as autopilot kills less people than manual flying it's fine!" Yet every time this happens apologists come pouring out of the woodwork to parrot this stuff. It's honestly getting a little disturbing.

hi5eyes 7y ago
totally not a cult"