4 ms·

Musk is a charlatan, but why do people act like it is common to buy $40k+ cars like picking up some gum in the checkout aisle? What the features name sounds lik

by slg 4y ago

Musk is a charlatan, but why do people act like it is common to buy $40k+ cars like picking up some gum in the checkout aisle? What the features name sounds like is not the only factor here. People don’t buys cars with that lack of thought. What the salespeople say, what the marketing material says, what the manual says, what the CEO says in public, what the feature feels like during a test drive should all matter more. This isn’t a defense of Tesla. I think it still leaves an argument for fraud, but we really need a better argument than the same “the name sounds misleading when you first hear it” argument that has been repeated for years now. If that was all it took, we all would have sued cellphone companies for their “unlimited plans”.

crote 4y ago
This isn't a "9 out of 10 dentists recommend using our product" situation, and cellphone companies have been sued for failing to deliver true unlimited plans. It is being marketed as "Full Self Driving", and the CEO is publicly saying it is "in beta", "coming next year", and "just waiting for regulatory approval". In reality it needs constant driver supervision, is still primitive enough that it is directly linked to multiple fatalities, has been coming "next year" for over 6 years, and is clearly not even remotely finished. Customers have paid thousands of dollars for a feature they are not able to use, half a decade down the line. They may never be able to use it as advertised at all. The product as delivered is substantially different from anything the company says. It's like saying your car can do 0 to 60 in less than ten seconds and then delivering a car without an engine - while putting a statement in the small writing that the car currently only reaches this in freefall from a mountain top, but pinky promise that they will install the engine in a few years.
- slg 4y ago
  Your comment helps prove my point because you didn’t stop at just the name. It takes more than “the name is a misleading” to be considered fraud. Tesla is guilty of more than just giving the feature a bad name. If you are arguing fraud, mention those other things. Because people don’t spend $40k+ based off a name of a feature. I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans so the name clearly wasn’t the problem in whatever lawsuits they might have been involved in. And to reiterate, my point is not that Tesla is innocent. My point is that the most common argument used to point to their guilt is a stupid argument, especially considering there are better arguments available to argue the same underlying point.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    I'm sorry, it's a scam to sell X "coming next year" and six years later, not to have it. > I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans That other scams exist doesn't negate that.
    - slg 4y ago
      > I'm sorry, it's a scam to sell X "coming next year" and six years later, not to have it. Where did I state otherwise? Once again, all these comments are reinforcing my point which is that there are plenty of more concrete complaints to make about this than “Autopilot is a misleading name”. I don’t know how many times I need to say I’m not defending Tesla. I am criticizing a bad argument. But I guess I should just accept my downvotes. I should know better than to try to have a nuanced conversation about Tesla and Musk.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        You said: we really need a better argument than the same “the name sounds misleading when you first hear it” argument that has been repeated for years now We do have that. We have a very thorough argument, and it has been repeated endlessly. So that's why you got downvoted.
        slg 4y ago
        Context matters. Reread the comment to which that was a reply. It focused specifically and exclusively on the name so I called out that focus.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        You didn't focus your comment well enough on that aspect.
wpietri 4y ago
In your opinion, exactly how much time should people making purchases put in to investigate the extent to which they're being lied to? Because in my view, the burden should first fall on companies to be clear and honest.
- slg 4y ago
  The name itself is not a lie. You can call it misleading, but it isn’t a lie by itself. When the CEO is obviously lying to the public and you focus on the name instead, it weakens the case for fraud in the court of public opinion.
6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago
> If that was all it took, we all would have sued cellphone companies for their “unlimited plans”. Personally, i think it’s bullshit that that’s not cracked down on too.

by slg 4y ago

crote 4y ago

This isn't a "9 out of 10 dentists recommend using our product" situation, and cellphone companies have been sued for failing to deliver true unlimited plans. It is being marketed as "Full Self Driving", and the CEO is publicly saying it is "in beta", "coming next year", and "just waiting for regulatory approval". In reality it needs constant driver supervision, is still primitive enough that it is directly linked to multiple fatalities, has been coming "next year" for over 6 years, and is clearly not even remotely finished. Customers have paid thousands of dollars for a feature they are not able to use, half a decade down the line. They may never be able to use it as advertised at all. The product as delivered is substantially different from anything the company says. It's like saying your car can do 0 to 60 in less than ten seconds and then delivering a car without an engine - while putting a statement in the small writing that the car currently only reaches this in freefall from a mountain top, but pinky promise that they will install the engine in a few years.

slg 4y ago
Your comment helps prove my point because you didn’t stop at just the name. It takes more than “the name is a misleading” to be considered fraud. Tesla is guilty of more than just giving the feature a bad name. If you are arguing fraud, mention those other things. Because people don’t spend $40k+ based off a name of a feature. I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans so the name clearly wasn’t the problem in whatever lawsuits they might have been involved in. And to reiterate, my point is not that Tesla is innocent. My point is that the most common argument used to point to their guilt is a stupid argument, especially considering there are better arguments available to argue the same underlying point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  I'm sorry, it's a scam to sell X "coming next year" and six years later, not to have it. > I can still go to Verizon’s website today and find “Unlimited” plans That other scams exist doesn't negate that.
  - slg 4y ago
    > I'm sorry, it's a scam to sell X "coming next year" and six years later, not to have it. Where did I state otherwise? Once again, all these comments are reinforcing my point which is that there are plenty of more concrete complaints to make about this than “Autopilot is a misleading name”. I don’t know how many times I need to say I’m not defending Tesla. I am criticizing a bad argument. But I guess I should just accept my downvotes. I should know better than to try to have a nuanced conversation about Tesla and Musk.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      You said: we really need a better argument than the same “the name sounds misleading when you first hear it” argument that has been repeated for years now We do have that. We have a very thorough argument, and it has been repeated endlessly. So that's why you got downvoted.
      - slg 4y ago
        Context matters. Reread the comment to which that was a reply. It focused specifically and exclusively on the name so I called out that focus.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        You didn't focus your comment well enough on that aspect.

wpietri 4y ago

In your opinion, exactly how much time should people making purchases put in to investigate the extent to which they're being lied to? Because in my view, the burden should first fall on companies to be clear and honest.

slg 4y ago
The name itself is not a lie. You can call it misleading, but it isn’t a lie by itself. When the CEO is obviously lying to the public and you focus on the name instead, it weakens the case for fraud in the court of public opinion.

6gvONxR4sf7o 4y ago

> If that was all it took, we all would have sued cellphone companies for their “unlimited plans”. Personally, i think it’s bullshit that that’s not cracked down on too.