3 ms·

Seriously, this argument is tired. Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested f

Seriously, this argument is tired. Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested financial stake in their failure. That's categorically false. Or are you going to claim that many of the people here in this thread, for but one example, are "Short TSLA"? I'm not. I hold no financial stake in TSLA. > A lot of people simply don't realize that human drivers kill each other by tens of thousands per annum in the US alone According to the EMR system at my job, I've been an EMS responder on 378 fatality MVAs, and several thousand more non-fatality. And I still hold my position that Tesla is reckless. Throwing fixes over the fence for safety issues (phantom braking for one recent example) with 48-72 hours since the last update proves beyond any doubt that there's no ethos of thorough testing.

josephcsible 5y ago
> Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested financial stake in their failure. While you're right in the general case, the presence of "$TSLAQ" in the original tweet means that the author of it almost certainly does have a vested financial stake in their failure.
CamperBob2 5y ago
Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested financial stake in their failure. Is that really a good-faith interpretation of my post? Please consider reading it again, the whole thing this time.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  When the question being asked is "Why do people want to ban FSD from roads", and on an article about unsafe activities from the vehicle, I'd expect that the discussion centers around the technology and implication. In your answer, yes, you do address those things, but (with apologies if that's sincerely not your intent) those are lightly brushed off with a "but people kill in cars, too". What is not brushed off, and is the first response you have, is entirely about people who have a vested financial interest in the failure of FSD, Tesla, Musk, or some combination of the above. And that's the only response you don't brush off with a "well, but". For but one example, in our marketplace, for better or worse, short selling is an entirely valid tool (though I'm not particularly a fan, and don't even start me on naked short selling). So given that it's the first response you have, and it's a common refrain, "oh, people just want to see it fail", then it's not necessarily unexpected that I might express frustration at the discussion not paying much mind to the technology itself. But as said, if that's not really your intent, my sincere apologies.

josephcsible 5y ago

> Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested financial stake in their failure. While you're right in the general case, the presence of "$TSLAQ" in the original tweet means that the author of it almost certainly does have a vested financial stake in their failure.

CamperBob2 5y ago

Cue up those who think that it's fundamentally impossible to see a downside to anything Tesla does without having a vested financial stake in their failure. Is that really a good-faith interpretation of my post? Please consider reading it again, the whole thing this time.

FireBeyond 5y ago
When the question being asked is "Why do people want to ban FSD from roads", and on an article about unsafe activities from the vehicle, I'd expect that the discussion centers around the technology and implication. In your answer, yes, you do address those things, but (with apologies if that's sincerely not your intent) those are lightly brushed off with a "but people kill in cars, too". What is not brushed off, and is the first response you have, is entirely about people who have a vested financial interest in the failure of FSD, Tesla, Musk, or some combination of the above. And that's the only response you don't brush off with a "well, but". For but one example, in our marketplace, for better or worse, short selling is an entirely valid tool (though I'm not particularly a fan, and don't even start me on naked short selling). So given that it's the first response you have, and it's a common refrain, "oh, people just want to see it fail", then it's not necessarily unexpected that I might express frustration at the discussion not paying much mind to the technology itself. But as said, if that's not really your intent, my sincere apologies.