6 ms·

It didn't have to be on any pitch decks for safety to be downplayed. Its presence or absence on pitch decks is quite irrelevant. You can tell how seriously the

It didn't have to be on any pitch decks for safety to be downplayed. Its presence or absence on pitch decks is quite irrelevant. You can tell how seriously they took human lives by their default reaction a plane crash. It's always "pilot error": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blame https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/sd9LGK2S9m/battle_over_blam...

anon1m0us 7y ago
Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong. So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.
  - didbdidnd 7y ago
    I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is. Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided. Could be a fiefdom for all I care. But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”. But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      I'd love for Tesla to be transparent about this as well, but the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works. Maybe we need higher standards for getting a driver's license.
      - salawat 7y ago
        Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print? Hell, both Boeing and Tesla can be said to have indulged in the same sin: not accurately communicating the nature and capabilities of their product to the end user Taking the viewpoint that caveat emptor absolves the manufacturer of any complicity in mass producing and delivering for use dangerous systems without clearly communicating the underlying implementation details to a reasonable operator is just beyond naieve to the point of asking bad actors to take these types of risks in the least responsible way possible. In fact, the only reason Boeing is getting slammed so hard and Tesla isn't is entirely due to extra regulatory burden that aircraft manufacturers have to deal with that automotive don't. Now, I personally take the onus of understanding my vehicle seriously, but not everyone does, and nevertheless, they still must be able to drive. Therefore I personally hold manufacturer's responsible for being good corporate citizens and not indulging in deceptive practices. Not that that gets me or anyone else anywhere. It's the principle of the thing though.
        OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        > Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print? Because we're talking about legality, not morality. I have said in my original comment I hate how Tesla markets this, but that does not absolve the driver of responsibility for piloting their multi-ton metal box at high velocity on public roads. What you're effectively saying is you want some entity, likely the government, to hold Tesla accountable for their claims. Except you will never find an official statement from Tesla saying you can drive without paying attention (there are numerous unofficial statements, and even a video of Elon Musk personally demonstrating the technology without paying attention on national TV) - so it's a question of proving fraud at that point. And proving fraud is an insanely difficult process, because you have to prove intent. Even proving neglect in this instance is challenging. I do wish there were more stringent regulations about advertising for driver-assist systems, but currently they do not exist. Yes, in a perfect world, I would love for Tesla to not get away with this shit. But rather than only blame Tesla, perhaps we should recognize that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to pass a test to get your driver's license. You are responsible for the car so long as you are driving. If you are so easily duped that you can be dissuaded otherwise, you are likely not fit to be a safe driver. Ultimately what I care about is how safe the roads are. I care much less about pointing the finger. Tesla deserves criticism for their disingenuous marketing, but so do lazy drivers who literally fall asleep at the wheel without even checking to see if that's okay.
    - bigiain 7y ago
      Agreed. And when it's the marketing department saying "X" in big print in flashy brochures and ads, and the legal department and their small print saying "not X in ways that kill purchasers expecting X", I'd expect company officers to be facing jail time. I'm old fashioned that way too.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - turk73 7y ago
    Should not have called it "autopilot," then and any marketing using that term should be removed. Why the NHTSA is not up Tesla's ass makes no sense to me at all other than their silence has been purchased.
  - ulfw 7y ago
    "Marketing" being "different" from "legal" is the definition of corporate lying if I've ever seen one.

anon1m0us 7y ago

Interesting. I see the same default response to accidents in self-driving cars. It's because the driver didn't have their hands on the wheel. It's because the driver fell asleep.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
If you're referring to Tesla's Autopilot, Tesla's legal stance has always been very clear - you are driving the car and it is your responsibility to pay attention. Now their marketing is very different and confuses people and I can understand why people would think otherwise, but Tesla has never waivered from "it's your fault, not ours" when something goes wrong. So yes, if you fall asleep or don't have your hands on the wheel while driving, it is your fault for being a shitty driver. I hate how Tesla has marketed Autopilot, but I cannot feel bad for the people stupid enough to fall asleep at the wheel.
- didbdidnd 7y ago
  I don’t care what is the name of your company’s department that lied to me is. Matter of fact, I don’t even care how your company is subdivided. Could be a fiefdom for all I care. But if you sell me something saying it does “X” I bloody expect “X” to mean “X” and not “not X”. But that just me, I’m old fashioned that way.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    I'd love for Tesla to be transparent about this as well, but the onus is on the driver to understand how their car works. Maybe we need higher standards for getting a driver's license.
    - salawat 7y ago
      Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print? Hell, both Boeing and Tesla can be said to have indulged in the same sin: not accurately communicating the nature and capabilities of their product to the end user Taking the viewpoint that caveat emptor absolves the manufacturer of any complicity in mass producing and delivering for use dangerous systems without clearly communicating the underlying implementation details to a reasonable operator is just beyond naieve to the point of asking bad actors to take these types of risks in the least responsible way possible. In fact, the only reason Boeing is getting slammed so hard and Tesla isn't is entirely due to extra regulatory burden that aircraft manufacturers have to deal with that automotive don't. Now, I personally take the onus of understanding my vehicle seriously, but not everyone does, and nevertheless, they still must be able to drive. Therefore I personally hold manufacturer's responsible for being good corporate citizens and not indulging in deceptive practices. Not that that gets me or anyone else anywhere. It's the principle of the thing though.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        > Why does Tesla get a pass in terms of pitching that their system is something that it isn't except in the obligatory fine print? Because we're talking about legality, not morality. I have said in my original comment I hate how Tesla markets this, but that does not absolve the driver of responsibility for piloting their multi-ton metal box at high velocity on public roads. What you're effectively saying is you want some entity, likely the government, to hold Tesla accountable for their claims. Except you will never find an official statement from Tesla saying you can drive without paying attention (there are numerous unofficial statements, and even a video of Elon Musk personally demonstrating the technology without paying attention on national TV) - so it's a question of proving fraud at that point. And proving fraud is an insanely difficult process, because you have to prove intent. Even proving neglect in this instance is challenging. I do wish there were more stringent regulations about advertising for driver-assist systems, but currently they do not exist. Yes, in a perfect world, I would love for Tesla to not get away with this shit. But rather than only blame Tesla, perhaps we should recognize that driving is a privilege, not a right. You have to pass a test to get your driver's license. You are responsible for the car so long as you are driving. If you are so easily duped that you can be dissuaded otherwise, you are likely not fit to be a safe driver. Ultimately what I care about is how safe the roads are. I care much less about pointing the finger. Tesla deserves criticism for their disingenuous marketing, but so do lazy drivers who literally fall asleep at the wheel without even checking to see if that's okay.
  - bigiain 7y ago
    Agreed. And when it's the marketing department saying "X" in big print in flashy brochures and ads, and the legal department and their small print saying "not X in ways that kill purchasers expecting X", I'd expect company officers to be facing jail time. I'm old fashioned that way too.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- turk73 7y ago
  Should not have called it "autopilot," then and any marketing using that term should be removed. Why the NHTSA is not up Tesla's ass makes no sense to me at all other than their silence has been purchased.
- ulfw 7y ago
  "Marketing" being "different" from "legal" is the definition of corporate lying if I've ever seen one.