3 ms·
There is no such evidence beyond unsupported proclamations by the vendor who, by the way, has compulsively misrepresented the capabilities of the product for ye
by Veserv 4y ago
There is no such evidence beyond unsupported proclamations by the vendor who, by the way, has compulsively misrepresented the capabilities of the product for years. The only evidence available that is not completely tainted by a complete conflict of interest is basically Youtube videos and self reported information [1] by investors and super fans that on average show critical driving errors every few minutes and even those are tainted by self interest to over-represent the product.
Tesla’s statements should only be believed if they stop deliberately hiding the data from the CA DMV by declaring that FSD does not technically count as a autonomous driving system and is thus not subject to the mandatory reporting requirements for autonomous systems in development. If they did that then there could actually be a sound independent third party statements about their systems. Until that time their claims should be as trusted as Ford’s were on the Pinto.
[1] https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/ https://www.teslafsdtracker.com/
- enslavedrobot 4y agoAbsolutely need more data, but if a public company makes untruthful claims about the past they are in big trouble. They are mostly free to make claims about the future without much consequence. This is why startups are allowed to project massive sales next year but Elizabeth Holmes is headed to jail. If it turns out that FSD has had a fatal crash and Tesla lied about it Musk is headed to jail too.
- helf 4y agoThat’s cute that you think that. We don’t live in a “just world”. There’s a reason a lower tier person like Holmes gets some prison and psychos like, say, Trump or Musk barely get a slap on the wrist.