3 ms·

> So the software that is called 'FSD' (Full Self Driving) doesn't actually mean what is says or was advertised then? There is no FSD today the capability you'

> So the software that is called 'FSD' (Full Self Driving) doesn't actually mean what is says or was advertised then? There is no FSD today the capability you're paying for is a future update, it used to be entirely that - now they include some extra features under FSD that aren't in base autopilot (lane changes, etc.). They've always been pretty explicit about this - the language on the site today reads: > The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates. They've also shipped more features toward this goal over time which is what they said they'd do (including a free hardware update if you had paid ahead for FSD). > We are in 2021. Where are the robotaxis then? [0] I already conceded he was wrong about timelines. > Irrelevant. Stay on point. Not irrelevant - this is the comparison we're talking about the nature of the difference between Trevor Milton and Elon Musk. If you ignore contradictory evidence because it doesn't support your position that's just cherry picking. > So I am not allowed to say they are billionaires? >> Ah yes. A certain billionaire promises... >> This billionaire in 2019, surely... Do the above quotes sound like some neutral descriptor to you?

rvz 5y ago
> Not irrelevant - this is the comparison we're talking about the nature of the difference between Trevor Milton and Elon Musk. If you ignore contradictory evidence because it doesn't support your position that's just cherry picking. What difference? Unless of course, the case of Tesla's deceptive advertising of its beta FSD system putting the lives of drivers at risk and killing them or others [0] is 'far more serious' than Nikola's deceptive advertising of their whole business. Then yes, I agree on that difference and both must be under very close investigation by the regulators. More specifically, I'm sure you should also realize that I was criticizing both of them from the start and not 'cherry picking' or siding with any company or person, unlike you mentioning Musk's other companies which that is completely irrelevant. > They've also shipped more features toward this goal over time which is what they said they'd do. Despite this, it is still unreliable [1] and the safety risks still stands, even when the driver is behind the wheel and is attentive of what is in front of them. Highlighting these risks is extremely important such that it is the difference between life or death and it can be from a malfunction in the software that controls the car. > Do the above quotes sound like some neutral descriptor to you? Excuse me? It is an objective fact. Isn't it? [2] [3] Why do you feel offended of this fact? I'm sure the customers will listen to them because they think they know what they are talking about? Don't they? >>> Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit. [4] Remember this? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/business/tesla-autopilot-lawsuits-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/business/tesla-autopilot-... [1] https://twitter.com/JordanTeslaTech/status/1418413307862585344 https://twitter.com/JordanTeslaTech/status/14184133078625853... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Milton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Milton [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999706
- fossuser 5y ago
  You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong. None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong. It is both as I have always said. So you think it's worth putting the lives of other drivers at risk whilst using beta software that was deceptively advertised as "Full Self Driving" (FSD) by Tesla Inc. even when it is shown to be still not ready, than a company (Nikola Motors Corp.) and their CEO that is also deceptively advertising their entire products and technologies to investors? What is the difference exactly on the lies and fraudulent claims made by both of them? There are none. So your claim that: > Elon Musk is obviously different. [0] Is false. There are no exceptions. Perhaps the only difference is that one involves a risk of death which that is irreversible and 'far more serious' than the other which I believe that both companies and their CEOs should be under serious investigation over their claims in their products. Read all the comments again, since at this point you have ignored all of them since you are still defending the indefensible. > None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion. Are you now able to admit that the advertising of the FSD system and the fact that it is no where near 'Full Self Driving' capability which was bought in by Tesla customers also does not work or function as advertised? On top of that, using a beta product that may get confused of malfunction poses a serious risk of death and has killed drivers or other passengers in the past, needs to be under through serious investigation by the regulators? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998552
BlissWaves 5y ago
I am dumbfounded how you don't find it bothersome to call it Full-Self Driving today when they are not even remotely close to creating FSD. FDS is beyond a difficult problem. The margin of error so low that you simply don't get there by tweaking some settings.
- fossuser 5y ago
  They're not just 'tweaking some settings': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc What they have today isn't FSD (which they state explicitly), but I'm happy to give them extra money early given the work they're doing on the chance that it works in the future. I think they have the best chance of success of actually shipping something real.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    >I'm happy to give them extra money early given the work they're doing on the chance that it works in the future. You're a good mark, FSD is a mug's game.

rvz 5y ago

> Not irrelevant - this is the comparison we're talking about the nature of the difference between Trevor Milton and Elon Musk. If you ignore contradictory evidence because it doesn't support your position that's just cherry picking. What difference? Unless of course, the case of Tesla's deceptive advertising of its beta FSD system putting the lives of drivers at risk and killing them or others [0] is 'far more serious' than Nikola's deceptive advertising of their whole business. Then yes, I agree on that difference and both must be under very close investigation by the regulators. More specifically, I'm sure you should also realize that I was criticizing both of them from the start and not 'cherry picking' or siding with any company or person, unlike you mentioning Musk's other companies which that is completely irrelevant. > They've also shipped more features toward this goal over time which is what they said they'd do. Despite this, it is still unreliable [1] and the safety risks still stands, even when the driver is behind the wheel and is attentive of what is in front of them. Highlighting these risks is extremely important such that it is the difference between life or death and it can be from a malfunction in the software that controls the car. > Do the above quotes sound like some neutral descriptor to you? Excuse me? It is an objective fact. Isn't it? [2] [3] Why do you feel offended of this fact? I'm sure the customers will listen to them because they think they know what they are talking about? Don't they? >>> Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit. [4] Remember this? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/business/tesla-autopilot-lawsuits-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/05/business/tesla-autopilot-... [1] https://twitter.com/JordanTeslaTech/status/1418413307862585344 https://twitter.com/JordanTeslaTech/status/14184133078625853... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Milton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Milton [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999706

fossuser 5y ago
You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong. None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion.
- rvz 5y ago
  > You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong. It is both as I have always said. So you think it's worth putting the lives of other drivers at risk whilst using beta software that was deceptively advertised as "Full Self Driving" (FSD) by Tesla Inc. even when it is shown to be still not ready, than a company (Nikola Motors Corp.) and their CEO that is also deceptively advertising their entire products and technologies to investors? What is the difference exactly on the lies and fraudulent claims made by both of them? There are none. So your claim that: > Elon Musk is obviously different. [0] Is false. There are no exceptions. Perhaps the only difference is that one involves a risk of death which that is irreversible and 'far more serious' than the other which I believe that both companies and their CEOs should be under serious investigation over their claims in their products. Read all the comments again, since at this point you have ignored all of them since you are still defending the indefensible. > None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion. Are you now able to admit that the advertising of the FSD system and the fact that it is no where near 'Full Self Driving' capability which was bought in by Tesla customers also does not work or function as advertised? On top of that, using a beta product that may get confused of malfunction poses a serious risk of death and has killed drivers or other passengers in the past, needs to be under through serious investigation by the regulators? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998552

BlissWaves 5y ago

I am dumbfounded how you don't find it bothersome to call it Full-Self Driving today when they are not even remotely close to creating FSD. FDS is beyond a difficult problem. The margin of error so low that you simply don't get there by tweaking some settings.

fossuser 5y ago
They're not just 'tweaking some settings': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc What they have today isn't FSD (which they state explicitly), but I'm happy to give them extra money early given the work they're doing on the chance that it works in the future. I think they have the best chance of success of actually shipping something real.
- rhizome 5y ago
  >I'm happy to give them extra money early given the work they're doing on the chance that it works in the future. You're a good mark, FSD is a mug's game.