6 ms·

But Full self Driving isn’t the same as saying fully autonomous. The beta makes it clear you are still the primary driver of the vehicle. Really we are decidin

• short_sells_poo 5y ago
  Those other marketing terms are not trying to mislead people into behaving dangerously in an environment where people can get killed. Perhaps I'm a minority, but I absolutely don't want companies to use marketing weasel words when it comes to self-driving capabilities. Let's not beat about the bush, it's clear that some drivers are already abusing the current "self-driving but not really-self driving" autopilot features. This steps up the bullshit saying "oh this time it is full self driving (but not the total absolute hands off autonomous driving". So which is it? If it's not fully autonomous, don't bullshit saying it's full self driving. In other words, if there's no blue in Blue Motion, no count of 4 in a quattro and no mach in Mach-E, that's not likely to get people killed. But if there's no full self driving in something called "Full Self Driving", that can and will get people killed.
  • onethought 5y ago
    How will it kill people exactly? You mean the people that (despite the countless warnings and explanations) still think that they can completely ignore their surroundings… then what? The very cautious auto driving car that follows the speed limit and is criticised for being “too conservative” will… do what exactly?
    • jdlshore 5y ago
      You seem to think Tesla’s system is perfectly safe. I’ve seen nothing that indicates that—just the opposite, in fact.
      • onethought 5y ago
        Could you reference an FSD safety incident? I know there have been some autopilot accidents but that’s not this system.
        • jdlshore 5y ago
          Do a web search for “Tesla fsd beta scary” for video examples.
          • onethought 5y ago
            The only examples I could find were of people uncomfortable with the automation, but not scared of an accident. Also no actual accident. Do you have a direct link?
            • short_sells_poo 5y ago
              My contention is only indirectly with the safety of the system, and mostly with the labeling and messaging. A cruise control system that is unsafe to leave unattended but isn't called "Fully Self-Driving" or even "Autopilot" is fine. There's no ambiguity. Everyone knows that cruise control is a dumb system that will happily crash you into the wall. However, I have issues with calling and marketing something "Fully Self-Driving" and then adding paragraphs of text to explain that it's actually not fully autonomous, in fact it's not supposed to be autonomous at all and the driver has to have their full attention on the road and hands on the wheel and any other operation is dangerous. If this was something benign, I'd just consider it disingenuous and shady marketing (that seems par for the course for corporations), but in case of a 2 ton vehicle it's not just their own customers at risk, but everyone around them. Yes, you and me know what this system really is and can approach it responsibly. But we see so much evidence that there are many people who have no scruples about ignoring this (willfully or not) and assuming that the system must be good enough if it's called "Fully Self-Driving" to unpack a lunch on their lap.
• sturza 5y ago
  there is no “quattro engine”
  • Ekaros 5y ago
    It's marketing term for AWD. In which case it really is perfectly good name standing for number four.
    • sturza 5y ago
      “quattro” is that term. there is still no “quattro engine”
      • onethought 5y ago
        Why don’t they call or 4WD - that is the accepted term for a car that drives on all 4 wheels?
        • Ekaros 5y ago
          Why do we name things? Why do we have names for anything?
          • onethought 5y ago
            Agree. So FSD for something that drives a car for you. Is as valid as Quattro for a car that drives on all four wheels.
            • Ekaros 5y ago
              Full self driving means something. FULL SELF and driving something that fully self drives. Quattro, is just word for four... And there is 4 things that do things. Other one is currently absolutely total lie which should result termination of company, other is not in anyway misleading.
              • 5y ago
• d3nj4l 5y ago
  Alright, let me just go to market with my “Cure For Cancer”. It doesn’t actually cure anything, but what’s that got to do with anything?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • ctdonath 5y ago
    If it cures most instances of cancer, nobody will complain that the moniker isn’t totally correct in all cases. If FSD can handle >90% of my driving, I’ll not quibble.
    • kube-system 5y ago
      By definition, the driver is in control of the vehicle 100% of the time when using a level 2 driver assistance system. These systems assist the driver with some of the steering wheel, accelerator, and brake functions, but ultimately, the human driver is always driving.
  • FireBeyond 5y ago
    You won't get to market. The Susan G Komen Foundation will sue you into oblivion, first. Apropos of anything else, they have trademarks on anything resembling "for the cure" when it comes to cancer. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Controversy_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Co...
• Ekaros 5y ago
  Tesla has nothing to do with the person? Not founded by anyone named such, clearly dubious marketing too?
  • onethought 5y ago
    Sure. My point exactly was… no one seems to care about the countless meaningless terms automotive industry uses. But suddenly we are dissecting the possible Meanings of a feature that actually is pretty close to what it says. Autopilot keeps your heading and velocity and is aware of objects in its path… so that’s extremely similar to autopilot in a plane. Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving. I don’t see the issue. It does what it says.
    • sidibe 5y ago
      > It does what it says. > Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving. Full directly contradicts most
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • onethought 5y ago
        Again, it’s closer to what it does than Blue Motion. Or Toyotas latest “Safety Sense” (even though it sense hazards aka forward collision detection…) I can reel out examples all day, that no one bats an eye at. But Tesla so something… it’s a whole different ball game.
        • sidibe 5y ago
          Uh neither of those even suggest what it does while Tesla's says it does something it doesn't do
          • 5y ago
• tsimionescu 5y ago
  You're either being facetious or ignorant. The marketing name of a model, especially nonsensical terms such as "blue motion", are clearly recognized by anyone as being pure marketing terms chosen for aesthetic reasons. By contrast, car features generally have non-misleading names - "anti-lock breaking system", "cruise [speed] control" etc. "Full self driving" goes beyond the pail any way you look at it. It is a very explicit name: it means very specifically that a car can drive itself, with no human intervention whatsoever. Even more, Elon Musk, the CEO of the company, has repeatedly claimed to buyers that FSD will allow the cars to work as robo-taxis that can be allowed to work for their owners while their owners are otherwise occupied. This again very explicitly says that FSD doesn't require any human intervention whatsoever. The fact that, after realizing that it obviously is nowhere near close to such a thing*, they started putting in warning that Full Self Driving is in fact not full self driving in any way shouldn't excuse them. They have obviously repeatedly lied and misled buying customers, and the name has to be changed. *(and won't be in the next 50 years, most likely, until we actually start seeing AGI or something)
  • onethought 5y ago
    You think there are consumers out there who are being tricked by Tesla? Like they buy FSD and are like “what!?” This isn’t what I expected!? You lied to me! Also FSD is offered as a subscription so you can “try it out” if you are cautious. Do people really see this as an issue? There are MUCH worse things on the road than FSD driven Teslas - what consequence do people think will occur?
    • nikau 5y ago
      How long are you going to hold to your disingenuous argument? "Full self driving" is an explicit term - "self driving" means the car drives itself. "Full" means it does it fully. It couldn't be any clearer what the term means. Terms like "blue motion", "quattro", "mach-e" are just made up branding terms that would mean nothing to anyone without knowing about them before hand.
      • onethought 5y ago
• FireBeyond 5y ago
  So explain to me why Tesla themselves put out a video that featured the text: > The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself. and talk to me about "it's only marketing, you should understand". Oh, and as the owner of three Audis over my life, there is NO material from Audi that calls it a "Quattro Engine". It's the "Quattro all wheel drive system".
  • onethought 5y ago
    So it’s Audi using a confusing name for 4WD (the accepted term). What’s the accepted term for level 5 autonomy? What’s the accepted term for level 2? Do you think there are tesla consumers being tricked by FSD capabilities? Right now it highlights that it auto drives on highways but not on streets… which is pretty accurate in my opinion. Where is the dishonesty?
    • FireBeyond 5y ago
      You’re really grasping at straws with the Audi thing. First it was something that has never been said, and now a word for “four” is confusing for naming a four wheel drive system. Full Self Driving would be acceptable and accurate for level 5. Now for level 2 advanced driver assistance. “The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself” is a current Tesla statement. That’s inaccurate. “The car is driving itself until it can’t, or it does something it shouldn’t. But you’re in charge, and we legally disclaim any responsibility for failures of the car to drive itself” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, I admit.
      • onethought 5y ago
        Not clutching at straws. Using a direct comparison to a competing car company on marketing terms. If we are okay with companies calling features whatever they want. Then FSD is fine. If we aren’t, then let’s get the outrage train going on the entire car industry.
        • FireBeyond 5y ago