4 ms·

Hmm I don't want to defend Tesla, but I do want to push back on this a bit! Facebook made "move fast and break things" famous, which was Zuckerberg's way of pr

Hmm I don't want to defend Tesla, but I do want to push back on this a bit! Facebook made "move fast and break things" famous, which was Zuckerberg's way of presenting a tradeoff. Everyone company says they want to move fast, but Zuckerberg made it clear that the company should care more about velocity than stability. I don't believe that's Tesla's attitude. Rather, I think their attitude is more "move fast and ignore regulations". It's not that things won't break, but rather that the tradeoff Tesla is making is around regulation rather than things breaking.

andi999 6y ago
Also I think it was just to cover the backs of FB engineers. Like you implement a new feature and you are afraid you get scolded because it broke something. You know you are covered. So you dare to change things. Actually was there even a handful of cases where things broke? (And I am sure FB will get rid of the engineer who breaks too many things)
- gkoberger 6y ago
  Yup, that's exactly it! So, the culture was "it's okay to break things as long as you're moving fast". I don't think Telsa explicitly would say "it's okay to break things" to their engineers, but I do think they'd say "it's okay to ignore regulations". In the end, they may have the same results, however it's all about what employees know they're safe getting away with.
  - WA 6y ago
    Tesla might actually say: "Everybody, we need to push end of quarter sales. You gotta release the FSD as it is. App team, you gotta implement some butt purchase button for FSD that has no undo. Thanks."
lazyasciiart 6y ago
But things have literally broken.
- spicybright 6y ago
  You have to kill a few people to make an omelette, as they say.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  Sure, but I think you're missing my point.
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
Regulations are all we have to keep things from breaking...ignoring them about something like a self driving car should be a criminal offense.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  >all we have to keep things from breaking...ignoring them about something like a self driving car should be a criminal offense. I think it would potentially be a manslaughter charge.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  I don't disagree! I just think people misinterpret "move fast and break things" and use it anytime something breaks. I realize it's a nuanced point.
- dtech 6y ago
  The other side of the coin as that they hobble 5-20 years behind tech possibilities. If you want to push boundaries, you sometimes have little choice. Self-driving cars in the next 10 years have been a serious possibility for the last decade or so, yet governments and insurers don't have a policy ready and won't until a couple of years after the first self-driving cars are available.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    Tesla, Google et all are not little startups but huge corps with plenty of cash and the ear of any politician or CEO. If they can't get a policy enacted, maybe there's a reason for it.
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    Pushing boundaries is fine when there are no life-threatening implications. Self driving is all about convenience and costs[1] and as such it's not necessary, nor is it advisable, to inflict the bleeding edge on the general public. Waymo's geofenced approach is less bad than Tesla's, and it's something that regulators can readily work with also. 1. But teh safeties!1! No. Just no. ADASes (advanced driver assistance systems), particularly autonomous emergency braking, remove the safety argument for self driving. With ADASes you have 95% or more of the (asserted) safety of self driving, and ADASes are available today, on a large and increasing range of cars. There are even retrofit kits.
hef19898 6y ago
Safety critical regulations, it seems. That gets close enough to "brake things" if you aks me.

andi999 6y ago

Also I think it was just to cover the backs of FB engineers. Like you implement a new feature and you are afraid you get scolded because it broke something. You know you are covered. So you dare to change things. Actually was there even a handful of cases where things broke? (And I am sure FB will get rid of the engineer who breaks too many things)

gkoberger 6y ago
Yup, that's exactly it! So, the culture was "it's okay to break things as long as you're moving fast". I don't think Telsa explicitly would say "it's okay to break things" to their engineers, but I do think they'd say "it's okay to ignore regulations". In the end, they may have the same results, however it's all about what employees know they're safe getting away with.
- WA 6y ago
  Tesla might actually say: "Everybody, we need to push end of quarter sales. You gotta release the FSD as it is. App team, you gotta implement some butt purchase button for FSD that has no undo. Thanks."

lazyasciiart 6y ago

But things have literally broken.

spicybright 6y ago
You have to kill a few people to make an omelette, as they say.
gkoberger 6y ago
Sure, but I think you're missing my point.

JohnJamesRambo 6y ago

Regulations are all we have to keep things from breaking...ignoring them about something like a self driving car should be a criminal offense.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>all we have to keep things from breaking...ignoring them about something like a self driving car should be a criminal offense. I think it would potentially be a manslaughter charge.
gkoberger 6y ago
I don't disagree! I just think people misinterpret "move fast and break things" and use it anytime something breaks. I realize it's a nuanced point.
dtech 6y ago
The other side of the coin as that they hobble 5-20 years behind tech possibilities. If you want to push boundaries, you sometimes have little choice. Self-driving cars in the next 10 years have been a serious possibility for the last decade or so, yet governments and insurers don't have a policy ready and won't until a couple of years after the first self-driving cars are available.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Tesla, Google et all are not little startups but huge corps with plenty of cash and the ear of any politician or CEO. If they can't get a policy enacted, maybe there's a reason for it.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  Pushing boundaries is fine when there are no life-threatening implications. Self driving is all about convenience and costs[1] and as such it's not necessary, nor is it advisable, to inflict the bleeding edge on the general public. Waymo's geofenced approach is less bad than Tesla's, and it's something that regulators can readily work with also. 1. But teh safeties!1! No. Just no. ADASes (advanced driver assistance systems), particularly autonomous emergency braking, remove the safety argument for self driving. With ADASes you have 95% or more of the (asserted) safety of self driving, and ADASes are available today, on a large and increasing range of cars. There are even retrofit kits.

hef19898 6y ago

Safety critical regulations, it seems. That gets close enough to "brake things" if you aks me.