3 ms·
The difference is that Theranos's tech _never_ worked whereas there is a lot of positive movement in the FSD solution. I've had several near-zero intervention d
by nunez 4y ago
The difference is that Theranos's tech _never_ worked whereas there is a lot of positive movement in the FSD solution. I've had several near-zero intervention drives so far.
The problem here is defining what "full" means and debating what "full" _should_ mean.
Worst case is that Tesla refunds a lot of people's money, FSD gets a name change, and shareholders will find a way of dethroning Elon.
- rsj_hn 4y ago> The problem here is defining what "full" means and debating what "full" _should_ mean. Exactly. Do you mean "we can get rid of the drivers and save on labor expenses" or do you mean "We can upsell this feature to make driving easier". A lot of investors, for example Uber investors, were promised the former. That's the fraud angle. But there are a lot of satisfied car owners who are enjoying the latter right now.
- sschueller 4y agoElon promised robotaxies years ago and that they would make 30k a year paying for the car eventually. He even said it would be financially insane not to buy a Tesla. This was so long ago those people probably don't even have their Tesla's anymore. Are they going to get refunded?
- rsynnott 4y agoEh? I mean, theranos’s tech was useless, but it was arguably a lot closer to existent than Tesla’s magic intelligent cars. Theranos’s magic box did something, it just did it so poorly that the results weren’t usable. Some Theranos-y devices have since been built successfully by competent companies (particularly small automated PCR systems)