7 ms·

I'm an FSD Beta user. If you stop reading at "Full Self Driving Capability", then yes, it's an issue for a potential purchaser. But if you read just a little bi

I'm an FSD Beta user. If you stop reading at "Full Self Driving Capability", then yes, it's an issue for a potential purchaser. But if you read just a little bit more, it becomes more clear what you're buying. I don't feel "fooled" and neither do 1000s of other Beta testers with whom I regularly communicate on Discord.

lesuorac 4y ago
Oh good point, I should be more careful of what I read. It's "Full Self Driving" not "Full Self Driving without Accidents".
- ejb999 4y ago
  you mean like people?
lotsofpulp 4y ago
It is not about not being fooled, it is about maintaining standards so that people in society can spend less time ensuring they do not get fooled.
- LanceJones 4y ago
  Valid point.
ok_dad 4y ago
> I'm an FSD Beta user... 1000s of other Beta testers Ah, so the hundreds of thousands or millions who bought FSD years ago should be happy that a few thousand of you get to test out a system with your own lives. Great. Edit: Don't bother responding if you're a Tesla or Elon fanboy/fangirl. I'm not interested in being insulted any longer by you folks.
- LanceJones 4y ago
  There are 400,000+ Beta users currently (US and Canada). You are being fooled by the headlines. The people in the EU have a legitimate beef (not being able to use the functionality). "test a system with our own lives" is silly hyperbole and you know it.
  - lawn 4y ago
    That's true. You're testing it with the lives of others on the road or walking beside it too.
    - LanceJones 4y ago
      It's ADAS Level 2. Tesla is one of many. And are you equally concerned aboout parents who allow their 15 and 16 year olds to drive on the same streets with no-to-little training... and where the parent cannot easily grab the steering wheel or press the brake?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    "test a system with our own lives" is actually an understatement; FSD Beta is being tested on other peoples' lives without their consent. Other drivers, pedestrians, etc.
    - 00F_ 4y ago
      so when you have a student driver, or a new driver, the lives of not just them but the people around them are being risked just to test a system. so we should just stop all new drivers. no more new drivers. because a new driver, especially a teenage one, is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the current fsd.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Student drivers are typically subject to significant limitations - no other kids in car, no driving past certain hours, parental supervision for a certain period of time, etc. They're not learning for a billionaire's profit, and they're fairly unlikely to get a software update that causes a whole bunch of them to make the same mistake in a short period of time.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Hey now, don't forget the lives of everyone else they are in traffic with. That increases the number of beta tested by an order of magnitude if you think about it.
figassis 4y ago
Don't think this is the point. Calling something Oranges, and then saying "they're not really oranges, but an approximation, but we call them oranges bc it sounds cool" is still fraudulent in my view.
- falseeq 4y ago
  No that’s not fraud. Fraud requires a lie and justifiable, detrimental reliance on that lie by a victim.
  - singleshot_ 4y ago
    Hi, welcome to hacker news. Why wouldn’t a buyer be justified in relying upon a sellers description of the goods for sale?
    - falseeq 4y ago
      Because the more detailed description of the feature clearly explains what it does and doesn’t do. Say you sign a contract, one section is titled “Seller Assumes Liability for Injury” but then the text of that section lists some circumstances where they don’t. Totally fine and legal.
      - singleshot_ 4y ago
        Maybe, if all that is within the four corners of the contract. I don’t think that’s what we are talking about here; our current discussion seems to involve the marketing name of a car feature (full self driving) and the technical functionality that name represents. With that in mind it seems that you are not thinking about the Rst. 2d Torts 540 duty to investigate rule. I can be justified in relying on something (e.g., your intentionally misleading name for the feature) even if an investigation would have shown the misrepresentation was false. Instead of “totally fine and legal” I would say that this is “a fact-dependent situation.” Do you believe that selling something called Full Self Driving that actually could not drive itself fully is within the duty of good faith and fair dealing? This sidesteps the issue of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation and goes right to the heart of the customer confusion a product like a Tesla sows.

lesuorac 4y ago

Oh good point, I should be more careful of what I read. It's "Full Self Driving" not "Full Self Driving without Accidents".

ejb999 4y ago
you mean like people?

lotsofpulp 4y ago

It is not about not being fooled, it is about maintaining standards so that people in society can spend less time ensuring they do not get fooled.

LanceJones 4y ago
Valid point.

ok_dad 4y ago

> I'm an FSD Beta user... 1000s of other Beta testers Ah, so the hundreds of thousands or millions who bought FSD years ago should be happy that a few thousand of you get to test out a system with your own lives. Great. Edit: Don't bother responding if you're a Tesla or Elon fanboy/fangirl. I'm not interested in being insulted any longer by you folks.

LanceJones 4y ago
There are 400,000+ Beta users currently (US and Canada). You are being fooled by the headlines. The people in the EU have a legitimate beef (not being able to use the functionality). "test a system with our own lives" is silly hyperbole and you know it.
- lawn 4y ago
  That's true. You're testing it with the lives of others on the road or walking beside it too.
  - LanceJones 4y ago
    It's ADAS Level 2. Tesla is one of many. And are you equally concerned aboout parents who allow their 15 and 16 year olds to drive on the same streets with no-to-little training... and where the parent cannot easily grab the steering wheel or press the brake?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  "test a system with our own lives" is actually an understatement; FSD Beta is being tested on other peoples' lives without their consent. Other drivers, pedestrians, etc.
  - 00F_ 4y ago
    so when you have a student driver, or a new driver, the lives of not just them but the people around them are being risked just to test a system. so we should just stop all new drivers. no more new drivers. because a new driver, especially a teenage one, is orders of magnitude more dangerous than the current fsd.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Student drivers are typically subject to significant limitations - no other kids in car, no driving past certain hours, parental supervision for a certain period of time, etc. They're not learning for a billionaire's profit, and they're fairly unlikely to get a software update that causes a whole bunch of them to make the same mistake in a short period of time.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Hey now, don't forget the lives of everyone else they are in traffic with. That increases the number of beta tested by an order of magnitude if you think about it.

figassis 4y ago

Don't think this is the point. Calling something Oranges, and then saying "they're not really oranges, but an approximation, but we call them oranges bc it sounds cool" is still fraudulent in my view.

falseeq 4y ago
No that’s not fraud. Fraud requires a lie and justifiable, detrimental reliance on that lie by a victim.
- singleshot_ 4y ago
  Hi, welcome to hacker news. Why wouldn’t a buyer be justified in relying upon a sellers description of the goods for sale?
  - falseeq 4y ago
    Because the more detailed description of the feature clearly explains what it does and doesn’t do. Say you sign a contract, one section is titled “Seller Assumes Liability for Injury” but then the text of that section lists some circumstances where they don’t. Totally fine and legal.
    - singleshot_ 4y ago
      Maybe, if all that is within the four corners of the contract. I don’t think that’s what we are talking about here; our current discussion seems to involve the marketing name of a car feature (full self driving) and the technical functionality that name represents. With that in mind it seems that you are not thinking about the Rst. 2d Torts 540 duty to investigate rule. I can be justified in relying on something (e.g., your intentionally misleading name for the feature) even if an investigation would have shown the misrepresentation was false. Instead of “totally fine and legal” I would say that this is “a fact-dependent situation.” Do you believe that selling something called Full Self Driving that actually could not drive itself fully is within the duty of good faith and fair dealing? This sidesteps the issue of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation and goes right to the heart of the customer confusion a product like a Tesla sows.