i went through the article .. read the paper it was based on ... saw the data they sited .... saw the conclusion they reached ... was severely worried of the s

i went through the article .. read the paper it was based on ... saw the data they sited .... saw the conclusion they reached ... was severely worried of the state of academia and what qualifies as "research" >> the only significant conclusion this paper had was a driver was more than 22% likely to look at the "down and center stack" when on AP >> the paper was based on data found on this https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8751968 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8751968 paper author by none other than my favourite podcaster D Lex Friedman . the study is conducted on 25 cars all either model S/X from 2016-2019 AKA pre fsd hardware and driver monitoring. >> now tesla has a big screen on the center console and i would find it natural to see the navigation when im not driving. BUT all other aspects of driving were not that far from normal ... turns out people do all sorts of dumb stuff with or without AP >> this took me less than 15 mins of googling and i was baffled by how something so stupid could go past even the most bare bone peer review . and then i found about "The Advanced Vehicle Technology Consortium (AVT)"https://agelab.mit.edu/avt https://agelab.mit.edu/avt the sponsor of some of the co-authors . Which curiously has major car companies and suppliers listed as partners except for tesla . i dont have the inside info on how money changes hands in academia ... but the whole thing looks pretty bad personally i am biased towards Tesla (aka tesla fanboy) . But i feel there is enough wrong here to justify my case that this was a academia sponsored hit piece not to different from climate change deniers or tobacco companies.