3 ms·

Not to be an apologist for Tesla here, while Elon has made some pretty explicit statements here the ordering page for cars has always said "equipment capability

Not to be an apologist for Tesla here, while Elon has made some pretty explicit statements here the ordering page for cars has always said "equipment capability" and pretty accurately described it was the required equipment for when the capability was available. And yes, there is an implicit problem there where you can't definitively know this is all of the equipment you need until the capability is released, but I suspect Tesla would have provided any additional upgrades for free if and when they release "auto-drive." I thought of it kind of like "cable ready" TVs (not that most people reading this would have heard of those :-)) that were TVs that could, in theory, use cable. However, the cable standard wasn't finalized and there was a chance that what came out in the standard would not be compatible with these TVs.

JamesSwift 6y ago
Isn't this argument of "technically correct" semantics exactly what Milton argued for the nikola truck rolling down the hill? Why pillory him and not Elon for the same?
- valuearb 6y ago
  Because there is a difference between misleading people that an empty shell is a functioning truck, and perpetually claiming you are on the verge of fully autonomous driving, when you only achieve mostly autonomous driving.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  Milton was absolutely, "technically correct": the Nikola truck was in motion (the video was announced as "The Nikola Truck in motion). What you take away and what was said are 2 completely different things, and the message is specifically crafted to do just that.
FireBeyond 6y ago
> Not to be an apologist for Tesla here, while Elon has made some pretty explicit statements here the ordering page for cars has always said "equipment capability" and pretty accurately described it was the required equipment for when the capability was available. Right, and he's also made explicit statements that you could FSD "by the end of 2016", "by the end of 2018", "by the end of 2020", coast to coast.
- ChuckMcM 6y ago
  I was trying to distinguish between what Elon said vs what the company said in its corporate communications. In Tesla's case the corporate comms types seem to be more honest. In the Nikola case both the CEO and the company comms were misleading.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > I was trying to distinguish between what Elon said vs what the company said in its corporate communications. The problem with that is that Tesla has declared to the SEC that @elonmusk on Twitter is an "official company communication channel". That's why he's gotten in trouble for past tweets.
- jryle70 6y ago
  > Right, and he's also made explicit statements that you could FSD "by the end of 2016", "by the end of 2018", "by the end of 2020", coast to coast. That isn't out or character for Musk. He's always set and communicate unrealistic timeline. That doesn't make him a fraud. Take Falcon Heavy: > By 2008, SpaceX had been aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, while "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years". Speaking at the 2008 Mars Society Conference, Musk also indicated that he expected a hydrogen-fueled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (which would have been around 2013) - [0] Of course Falcon Heavy didn't fly until Feb 2018, and hydrogen-fueled upper stage never materialized. Still, nobody care about that today. FH is a resounding success and are qualified to be used for NASA's Lunar Gateway and Space Force's National Security Space Launch program, which are as good as stamps of approval can get. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    I never said he was a fraud, though I am cynical. But you can't hand wave away his statements on Twitter as "Oh, that's just Elon, all Tesla's corporate statements have very explicitly (in at times very fine print) said it's contingent on 'capability' and 'regulation'" when Tesla have literally said "Elon's Twitter _is_ a Tesla corporate statement".

JamesSwift 6y ago

Isn't this argument of "technically correct" semantics exactly what Milton argued for the nikola truck rolling down the hill? Why pillory him and not Elon for the same?

valuearb 6y ago
Because there is a difference between misleading people that an empty shell is a functioning truck, and perpetually claiming you are on the verge of fully autonomous driving, when you only achieve mostly autonomous driving.
sangnoir 6y ago
Milton was absolutely, "technically correct": the Nikola truck was in motion (the video was announced as "The Nikola Truck in motion). What you take away and what was said are 2 completely different things, and the message is specifically crafted to do just that.

FireBeyond 6y ago

> Not to be an apologist for Tesla here, while Elon has made some pretty explicit statements here the ordering page for cars has always said "equipment capability" and pretty accurately described it was the required equipment for when the capability was available. Right, and he's also made explicit statements that you could FSD "by the end of 2016", "by the end of 2018", "by the end of 2020", coast to coast.

ChuckMcM 6y ago
I was trying to distinguish between what Elon said vs what the company said in its corporate communications. In Tesla's case the corporate comms types seem to be more honest. In the Nikola case both the CEO and the company comms were misleading.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > I was trying to distinguish between what Elon said vs what the company said in its corporate communications. The problem with that is that Tesla has declared to the SEC that @elonmusk on Twitter is an "official company communication channel". That's why he's gotten in trouble for past tweets.
jryle70 6y ago
> Right, and he's also made explicit statements that you could FSD "by the end of 2016", "by the end of 2018", "by the end of 2020", coast to coast. That isn't out or character for Musk. He's always set and communicate unrealistic timeline. That doesn't make him a fraud. Take Falcon Heavy: > By 2008, SpaceX had been aiming for the first launch of Falcon 9 in 2009, while "Falcon 9 Heavy would be in a couple of years". Speaking at the 2008 Mars Society Conference, Musk also indicated that he expected a hydrogen-fueled upper stage would follow 2–3 years later (which would have been around 2013) - [0] Of course Falcon Heavy didn't fly until Feb 2018, and hydrogen-fueled upper stage never materialized. Still, nobody care about that today. FH is a resounding success and are qualified to be used for NASA's Lunar Gateway and Space Force's National Security Space Launch program, which are as good as stamps of approval can get. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  I never said he was a fraud, though I am cynical. But you can't hand wave away his statements on Twitter as "Oh, that's just Elon, all Tesla's corporate statements have very explicitly (in at times very fine print) said it's contingent on 'capability' and 'regulation'" when Tesla have literally said "Elon's Twitter _is_ a Tesla corporate statement".