10 ms·

Tesla gets a bad rap because of their notorious missed deadlines. They continue to chip away at the problem though, and have a large number of people paying the

by valine 3y ago

Tesla gets a bad rap because of their notorious missed deadlines. They continue to chip away at the problem though, and have a large number of people paying them to use their beta software. The fact that they’ve figured out how to make income from unfinished self driving software makes them, in my opinion, likely to succeed eventually. For everyone else self driving is a money pit. Tesla can continue working the problem indefinitely until it’s solved.

Animats 3y ago
Just because a scam is profitable for the scammer doesn't mean the thing being sold works.
- valine 3y ago
  It kind of works, that’s the point. I pay for an FSD subscription because I get enjoyment from my car driving me around. Am I being scammed?
  - agentgumshoe 3y ago
    When people have already been scammed, they will argue till blue in the face that it's not a scam, even if it's clear it is to everyone else... So if I said yes, what's your response? No, of course. Not saying everyone thinks it's a scam here, just that your argument it's not doesn't do much with the bias of already paying...
    - valine 3y ago
      I pay some money once a month for my car to drive me around. My car then drives me around. My argument is that since I’m paying month by month I clearly know what I’m buying and have properly evaluated the value proposition. The classic argument that FSD is a scam because consumers don’t understand what they’re buying falls apart when FSD is a no contract subscription service.
      - dghlsakjg 3y ago
        Does the car fully self drive, or does it require human supervision by a licensed driver in a particular seat? Sounds like FSD doesn’t actually FSD. In other words, you know what you’re buying is not what’s advertised so it isn’t a scam?
        judge2020 3y ago
        The argument is that you know what you're buying, full stop. It doesn't matter what's being advertised, unless you intend to sue for false advertising, in which your best bet is to lie the whole time and say that you based your purchase entirely off of the advertising.
        valine 3y ago
        You can imagine my shock every time the steering wheel nag goes off. You’d think I’d learn by now.
    - o1y32 3y ago
      Exactly. I have learned that there is no point trying to tell a Tesla fanboy what the problem is. They will not listen. In the nytimes article, a guy bought another Tesla right after the previous one was totalled because of an FSD error. The thing I have been telling myself is that fortunately I am not risking my own life for that.
      - valine 3y ago
        Is this the article you’re talking about? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/magazine/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/magazine/tesla-autopilot-... The “totaled car” was a 2015 Model S which would have been running MobilEye software, not FSD. Stirring up hysteria is a classic tactic that news sites use to generate revenue. Always look at the title of the page. When you see something like “New York Time Magazine” there’s a good chance what you’re reading is not actually a reputable NYT article.
        throwaway2037 3y ago
        When you see something like “New York Time Magazine” there’s a good chance what you’re reading is not actually a reputable NYT article. This is the first time I have seen such an accusation on HN about the quality of NYTM vs NYT. To me, NYTM is just longer form -- a bit more story telling.
      - sidibe 3y ago
        The Tesla Stanley video perfectly sums up my experience discussing FSD with big fans. https://youtu.be/4r-kUtLShJo https://youtu.be/4r-kUtLShJo
  - Veserv 3y ago
    Probably, since you do not know the operational characteristics of the safety-critical device you are operating. It is a safety-critical device with known safety defects that is incomplete and that rejects defining any operational domain where it can operate safely. It literally does not define any way it can be used safely by a general consumer or the limits of its safe operation unlike say a chainsaw or a gun where there is a safety manual which defines the ways it can be operated safely by a user. This is acceptable when tested by a trained operator who is in direct contact with the designers and is made aware of the specific operational characteristics of the device, but not when operated by a untrained consumer. The product is literally, explicitly unfit for any use as it is a safety-critical product. I guess you might not be getting scammed if you know it is unfit for any purpose, but at the very least you are being a danger to society for using a explicitly unsafe product that can not be operated safely.
    - infoseek12 3y ago
      It isn’t as though there isn’t an internal and governmental testing process in place to ensure a reasonable level of safety. I suppose what you’re saying is true, in the same sense that using any modern computer technology which has software in it’s stack, which hasn’t been formally verified, is fundamentally unsafe.
      - jorvi 3y ago
        > in the same sense that using any modern computer technology which has software in it’s stack, which hasn’t been formally verified, is fundamentally unsafe. If an IDE on your laptop malfunctions, you end up with a crash or some malformed data. If self-driving fails, you end up barreling down the road in a 2 tonne deathbox, likely killing you or someone else. Not equivalent in the slightest.
        belltaco 3y ago
        Yet that is what humans are allowed to do every day and kill people.
        3y ago
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > I get enjoyment from my car driving me around. Am I being scammed? I get enjoyment from my heroin too, so scam is the wrong word. But a crime is commited in both cases
  - smt88 3y ago
    I don't think you're being scammed, but it's not fair that you're beta testing software that could kill me and I have no say in it and don't get paid anything. I shouldn't have to die because idiots trust Tesla marketing lies about safety.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Not necessarily, but in this case
gdiamos 3y ago
I give Tesla a lot of credit for shipping features that I can buy. I use lane following, summoning (which saves me time), and the windshield wipers every day. Does anyone remember will it wipe? https://youtu.be/0SSYFMtdJ5k https://youtu.be/0SSYFMtdJ5k I’m also furious about the hype, and how much of my time it has personally wasted. I sometimes have to turn off the auto wipe, when there is a lot of glare…
adamjcook 3y ago
In my book, Tesla gets a bad rap for providing an unvalidated, should-be safety-critical system to run-of-the-mill consumers without an accompanying Safety Management System. The fact that they profit handsomely off this structurally dangerous wrongdoing is just the cherry on top. And, without robustly maintaining a systems safety lifecycle (which, by necessity, must incorporate a Safety Management System)... no technical progress is quantifiable by anyone, including Tesla. Tesla effectively throws a system over-the-wall and throws it all on the human driver and on the public.
- valine 3y ago
  Nothing you said is wrong, I just really, truly don’t care. FSD makes fewer mistakes on routes I drive than it did a year ago, so whatever they’re doing seems to be working. Complaining that people like me shouldn’t be allowed to purchase safety critical software just deepens my resolve to keep using it.
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > Nothing you said is wrong, I just really, truly don’t care. ... Complaining that people like me shouldn’t be allowed to purchase safety critical software just deepens my resolve to keep using it. You do understand that people are concerned about setting these cars free on public roads, right, where they can kill unwilling participants? I don't think the concern here is about your freedom to choke on billionaire boots.
    - valine 3y ago
      Those concerns are entirely unwarranted, boarding on hysteria. FSD has an adequate real world safety record.
      - VectorLock 3y ago
        "Adequate" is an interesting choice of a word when describing something's safety record.
Swenrekcah 3y ago
At some point one can’t just claim a missed deadline. They have in fact relied on misleading marketing massively inflating their capabilities in this regard. Which is sad because they’re still the best value for money you can get in the EV space. The only reason I haven’t bought one is because I hate touchscreens.
MangoCoffee 3y ago
I'm impressed by this comparison between Tesla FSD vs Waymo. whether Tesla is level 2 or 4 autonomous. I'm very impressed with Tesla's FSD. edit: Tesla FSD reach the destination first by taking the high way while Waymo go the local route and far longer to reach the same destination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s marques brownlee FSD demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8
- thorncorona 3y ago
  The problem is that the complexity is hidden in the edge cases. And those edge cases are non obvious and deadly. To put it succinctly, the difference in safety between a car manufactured in 1953 vs 2023 is not fully obvious to a driver who has not been in an accident. Google had a self driving car over 10 years ago, that is at the level of FSD, but their approach is to go straight to L5 for safety. https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM
- adamjcook 3y ago
  That "comparison YouTube video" is absurd and dangerous, because, at minimum... A Level 4-capable vehicle (a Waymo vehicle) is an incomparably different system than a Level 2-capable vehicle (a vehicle equipped with FSD Beta). The Waymo vehicle has a design intent such that there is no human driver fallback requirement within their vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD). The Tesla vehicle has a de facto design intent such that the human driver is the fallback at all times - which makes the control relationship between the human driver and the automated system exactly the same as if the Tesla vehicle was equipped with no automation at all. The risk profiles and failure mode analyses are Night and Day different and, therefore, the validation traits between these two vehicle are Night and Day different. But, more than that, there are no guarantees that: - The human driver of the FSD Beta-active vehicle shown in that video did not manipulate any of the vehicle controls out-of-view that clandestinely assisted the vehicle without deactivating the automated system (possible and inherent Human Factors safety issues with that aside); and - The creators of this comparison video did not select the most visually-performant run out of several attempts. Naturally, since we are dealing with safety-critical systems here, assumptions of "positive safety" are not compatible with any internal or external analysis. Lastly, I have yet to see a video involving FSD Beta where indirect and "unseen" systems safety issues were satisfied. Appearances can be deceiving and deadly with safety-critical systems.
asdgkasdngionio 3y ago
Unless their approach is completely unworkable, which by all appearances it is. It doesn't matter how much you bet if it's on the wrong horse. Tesla's own systems from five years ago, when they used a proper sensor suite, worked better than what they ship today.
hiddencost 3y ago
Tesla chose to kill people by shipping a low quality system. They did this because they were (and remain) massively behind the market leaders, and the only way to catch up was to start bulk data collection early with a system that wasn't ready.
- ericd 3y ago
  Strong allegations, what is the death rate per million miles of FSD vs baseline? Is that a publicly known figure?
  - Veserv 3y ago
    As FSD is a safety-critical product, the burden of proof is on Tesla to prove in a verifiable way to third partys that it is safe. Absent that, it is assumed to be unsafe. So, no, it is the weakest allegation possible and the default assumption. As to the baseline rate, the baseline rate for police reported accidents in the US is 1 per ~500k miles and fatalitys is 1 per ~80M miles [1]. That is approximately 1 per 30 years of driving and 1 per 5,000 years of driving, respectively using the reported average of ~15,000 miles per year per driver. As to the availability of FSD data, you can see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 [1] https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      By your standards you can never deploy any FSD system anywhere, because such a system cannot be proven safe without deploying it.
      - acdha 3y ago
        You could do extensive closed-course testing with realistic conditions and then pay to have human drivers watching & ready to take over at any time. The problem is that this costs money and takes time, and Tesla was hoping not to do either.
justapassenger 3y ago
No, Tesla gets bad rap because they constantly lie. And they lie, because it allows them to get billions in basically free capital.
- Reubend 3y ago
  Exactly. Missing a deadline would be understandable, but Tesla has been consistently dishonest about their software. Unfortunately, neither consumers nor the market have punished them for it. So it's inevitable that they will continue, and that other companies will follow.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
That and Tesla is insanely profitable and not running out of resources any time soon. The opposite actually. I don't really care about any arbitrary timelines here. Because they don't have any real dead line other than "Elon Time" which is probably is a bit of a blessing in disguise. By putting on pressure to deliver quickly, he actually gets results. And some of those results in other areas have lead to his companies being very profitable and unlocking multiple multi billion dollar markets. As long has he believes self driving can be done and is well funded, he'll continue to pursue this thing. Rapid iterations and quickly adapting to challenges and set backs is a good strategy here. I think there are two misconceptions in this space: 1) People mostly only talk about US companies and self driving cars in the US. China actually has a lot of self driving cars as well. Mostly following strategies similar to Waymo and with some borrowing from Tesla. And China is nowhere near as burdened by trigger happy lawyers slowing everything down. It's an ideal test ground for self driving from a legal point of view. And they are well funded. And they are running circles around most of the US in terms of car manufacturing. In general, the rest of the world will need to be covered by self driving eventually. Forget Phoenix; that's easy and rather boring. Can self driving cars manage in Italy, Spain, or conquer the German autobahn? I'm not pessimistic. But it won't be next year. 2) Painting this as a black and white game. All or nothing. Waymo is leading the way here by focusing on where it can work and gradually expanding their abilities. They are not even trying to make it work everywhere; just where they need it to work to make money. It's expanding it's area of operation and as it does the area it operates in adapts to self driving cars rather than the other way around. And it undeniably moves people from A to B at this point, seemingly without major incidents. The one thing that makes self driving cars hard is having human drivers around. Easy solution: get them out of the equation. This technology is basically going to be safety statistics and cost driven. As it gets better (i.e. safer and cheaper), it gets easier to optimize roads for self driving and the problem as a whole gets easier to deal with. Meanwhile there are big market opportunities in personal transport, freight, containers, etc. where self driving makes a lot of sense. Those are already happening. My prediction is that Tesla will do well where companies like Waymo do well in as well and that they will meet in the middle sooner rather than later. And being positioned as a safety feature, all Tesla needs to keep on doing is failing to cause a lot of fatalities and gradually keep on improving. The rest is just raw numbers. As soon as there are millions of cars driving semi autonomously most of the time failing to cause a lot of trouble, confidence increases and it gets harder to argue there is a problem. Eventually, people will let go of their steering wheels. Insurance companies and cost will incentivize them. Based on the numbers.

by valine 3y ago

Animats 3y ago

Just because a scam is profitable for the scammer doesn't mean the thing being sold works.

valine 3y ago
It kind of works, that’s the point. I pay for an FSD subscription because I get enjoyment from my car driving me around. Am I being scammed?
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  When people have already been scammed, they will argue till blue in the face that it's not a scam, even if it's clear it is to everyone else... So if I said yes, what's your response? No, of course. Not saying everyone thinks it's a scam here, just that your argument it's not doesn't do much with the bias of already paying...
  - valine 3y ago
    I pay some money once a month for my car to drive me around. My car then drives me around. My argument is that since I’m paying month by month I clearly know what I’m buying and have properly evaluated the value proposition. The classic argument that FSD is a scam because consumers don’t understand what they’re buying falls apart when FSD is a no contract subscription service.
    - dghlsakjg 3y ago
      Does the car fully self drive, or does it require human supervision by a licensed driver in a particular seat? Sounds like FSD doesn’t actually FSD. In other words, you know what you’re buying is not what’s advertised so it isn’t a scam?
      - judge2020 3y ago
        The argument is that you know what you're buying, full stop. It doesn't matter what's being advertised, unless you intend to sue for false advertising, in which your best bet is to lie the whole time and say that you based your purchase entirely off of the advertising.
      - valine 3y ago
        You can imagine my shock every time the steering wheel nag goes off. You’d think I’d learn by now.
  - o1y32 3y ago
    Exactly. I have learned that there is no point trying to tell a Tesla fanboy what the problem is. They will not listen. In the nytimes article, a guy bought another Tesla right after the previous one was totalled because of an FSD error. The thing I have been telling myself is that fortunately I am not risking my own life for that.
    - valine 3y ago
      Is this the article you’re talking about? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/magazine/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-elon-musk.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/magazine/tesla-autopilot-... The “totaled car” was a 2015 Model S which would have been running MobilEye software, not FSD. Stirring up hysteria is a classic tactic that news sites use to generate revenue. Always look at the title of the page. When you see something like “New York Time Magazine” there’s a good chance what you’re reading is not actually a reputable NYT article.
      - throwaway2037 3y ago
        When you see something like “New York Time Magazine” there’s a good chance what you’re reading is not actually a reputable NYT article. This is the first time I have seen such an accusation on HN about the quality of NYTM vs NYT. To me, NYTM is just longer form -- a bit more story telling.
    - sidibe 3y ago
      The Tesla Stanley video perfectly sums up my experience discussing FSD with big fans. https://youtu.be/4r-kUtLShJo https://youtu.be/4r-kUtLShJo
- Veserv 3y ago
  Probably, since you do not know the operational characteristics of the safety-critical device you are operating. It is a safety-critical device with known safety defects that is incomplete and that rejects defining any operational domain where it can operate safely. It literally does not define any way it can be used safely by a general consumer or the limits of its safe operation unlike say a chainsaw or a gun where there is a safety manual which defines the ways it can be operated safely by a user. This is acceptable when tested by a trained operator who is in direct contact with the designers and is made aware of the specific operational characteristics of the device, but not when operated by a untrained consumer. The product is literally, explicitly unfit for any use as it is a safety-critical product. I guess you might not be getting scammed if you know it is unfit for any purpose, but at the very least you are being a danger to society for using a explicitly unsafe product that can not be operated safely.
  - infoseek12 3y ago
    It isn’t as though there isn’t an internal and governmental testing process in place to ensure a reasonable level of safety. I suppose what you’re saying is true, in the same sense that using any modern computer technology which has software in it’s stack, which hasn’t been formally verified, is fundamentally unsafe.
    - jorvi 3y ago
      > in the same sense that using any modern computer technology which has software in it’s stack, which hasn’t been formally verified, is fundamentally unsafe. If an IDE on your laptop malfunctions, you end up with a crash or some malformed data. If self-driving fails, you end up barreling down the road in a 2 tonne deathbox, likely killing you or someone else. Not equivalent in the slightest.
      - belltaco 3y ago
        Yet that is what humans are allowed to do every day and kill people.
      - 3y ago
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > I get enjoyment from my car driving me around. Am I being scammed? I get enjoyment from my heroin too, so scam is the wrong word. But a crime is commited in both cases
- smt88 3y ago
  I don't think you're being scammed, but it's not fair that you're beta testing software that could kill me and I have no say in it and don't get paid anything. I shouldn't have to die because idiots trust Tesla marketing lies about safety.
paulddraper 3y ago
Not necessarily, but in this case

gdiamos 3y ago

I give Tesla a lot of credit for shipping features that I can buy. I use lane following, summoning (which saves me time), and the windshield wipers every day. Does anyone remember will it wipe? https://youtu.be/0SSYFMtdJ5k https://youtu.be/0SSYFMtdJ5k I’m also furious about the hype, and how much of my time it has personally wasted. I sometimes have to turn off the auto wipe, when there is a lot of glare…

adamjcook 3y ago

In my book, Tesla gets a bad rap for providing an unvalidated, should-be safety-critical system to run-of-the-mill consumers without an accompanying Safety Management System. The fact that they profit handsomely off this structurally dangerous wrongdoing is just the cherry on top. And, without robustly maintaining a systems safety lifecycle (which, by necessity, must incorporate a Safety Management System)... no technical progress is quantifiable by anyone, including Tesla. Tesla effectively throws a system over-the-wall and throws it all on the human driver and on the public.

valine 3y ago
Nothing you said is wrong, I just really, truly don’t care. FSD makes fewer mistakes on routes I drive than it did a year ago, so whatever they’re doing seems to be working. Complaining that people like me shouldn’t be allowed to purchase safety critical software just deepens my resolve to keep using it.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  > Nothing you said is wrong, I just really, truly don’t care. ... Complaining that people like me shouldn’t be allowed to purchase safety critical software just deepens my resolve to keep using it. You do understand that people are concerned about setting these cars free on public roads, right, where they can kill unwilling participants? I don't think the concern here is about your freedom to choke on billionaire boots.
  - valine 3y ago
    Those concerns are entirely unwarranted, boarding on hysteria. FSD has an adequate real world safety record.
    - VectorLock 3y ago
      "Adequate" is an interesting choice of a word when describing something's safety record.

Swenrekcah 3y ago

At some point one can’t just claim a missed deadline. They have in fact relied on misleading marketing massively inflating their capabilities in this regard. Which is sad because they’re still the best value for money you can get in the EV space. The only reason I haven’t bought one is because I hate touchscreens.

MangoCoffee 3y ago

I'm impressed by this comparison between Tesla FSD vs Waymo. whether Tesla is level 2 or 4 autonomous. I'm very impressed with Tesla's FSD. edit: Tesla FSD reach the destination first by taking the high way while Waymo go the local route and far longer to reach the same destination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv9HtWUf27s marques brownlee FSD demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8

thorncorona 3y ago
The problem is that the complexity is hidden in the edge cases. And those edge cases are non obvious and deadly. To put it succinctly, the difference in safety between a car manufactured in 1953 vs 2023 is not fully obvious to a driver who has not been in an accident. Google had a self driving car over 10 years ago, that is at the level of FSD, but their approach is to go straight to L5 for safety. https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM https://youtu.be/TsaES--OTzM
adamjcook 3y ago
That "comparison YouTube video" is absurd and dangerous, because, at minimum... A Level 4-capable vehicle (a Waymo vehicle) is an incomparably different system than a Level 2-capable vehicle (a vehicle equipped with FSD Beta). The Waymo vehicle has a design intent such that there is no human driver fallback requirement within their vehicle's Operational Design Domain (ODD). The Tesla vehicle has a de facto design intent such that the human driver is the fallback at all times - which makes the control relationship between the human driver and the automated system exactly the same as if the Tesla vehicle was equipped with no automation at all. The risk profiles and failure mode analyses are Night and Day different and, therefore, the validation traits between these two vehicle are Night and Day different. But, more than that, there are no guarantees that: - The human driver of the FSD Beta-active vehicle shown in that video did not manipulate any of the vehicle controls out-of-view that clandestinely assisted the vehicle without deactivating the automated system (possible and inherent Human Factors safety issues with that aside); and - The creators of this comparison video did not select the most visually-performant run out of several attempts. Naturally, since we are dealing with safety-critical systems here, assumptions of "positive safety" are not compatible with any internal or external analysis. Lastly, I have yet to see a video involving FSD Beta where indirect and "unseen" systems safety issues were satisfied. Appearances can be deceiving and deadly with safety-critical systems.

asdgkasdngionio 3y ago

Unless their approach is completely unworkable, which by all appearances it is. It doesn't matter how much you bet if it's on the wrong horse. Tesla's own systems from five years ago, when they used a proper sensor suite, worked better than what they ship today.

hiddencost 3y ago

Tesla chose to kill people by shipping a low quality system. They did this because they were (and remain) massively behind the market leaders, and the only way to catch up was to start bulk data collection early with a system that wasn't ready.

ericd 3y ago
Strong allegations, what is the death rate per million miles of FSD vs baseline? Is that a publicly known figure?
- Veserv 3y ago
  As FSD is a safety-critical product, the burden of proof is on Tesla to prove in a verifiable way to third partys that it is safe. Absent that, it is assumed to be unsafe. So, no, it is the weakest allegation possible and the default assumption. As to the baseline rate, the baseline rate for police reported accidents in the US is 1 per ~500k miles and fatalitys is 1 per ~80M miles [1]. That is approximately 1 per 30 years of driving and 1 per 5,000 years of driving, respectively using the reported average of ~15,000 miles per year per driver. As to the availability of FSD data, you can see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36181877 [1] https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    By your standards you can never deploy any FSD system anywhere, because such a system cannot be proven safe without deploying it.
    - acdha 3y ago
      You could do extensive closed-course testing with realistic conditions and then pay to have human drivers watching & ready to take over at any time. The problem is that this costs money and takes time, and Tesla was hoping not to do either.

justapassenger 3y ago

No, Tesla gets bad rap because they constantly lie. And they lie, because it allows them to get billions in basically free capital.

Reubend 3y ago
Exactly. Missing a deadline would be understandable, but Tesla has been consistently dishonest about their software. Unfortunately, neither consumers nor the market have punished them for it. So it's inevitable that they will continue, and that other companies will follow.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

That and Tesla is insanely profitable and not running out of resources any time soon. The opposite actually. I don't really care about any arbitrary timelines here. Because they don't have any real dead line other than "Elon Time" which is probably is a bit of a blessing in disguise. By putting on pressure to deliver quickly, he actually gets results. And some of those results in other areas have lead to his companies being very profitable and unlocking multiple multi billion dollar markets. As long has he believes self driving can be done and is well funded, he'll continue to pursue this thing. Rapid iterations and quickly adapting to challenges and set backs is a good strategy here. I think there are two misconceptions in this space: 1) People mostly only talk about US companies and self driving cars in the US. China actually has a lot of self driving cars as well. Mostly following strategies similar to Waymo and with some borrowing from Tesla. And China is nowhere near as burdened by trigger happy lawyers slowing everything down. It's an ideal test ground for self driving from a legal point of view. And they are well funded. And they are running circles around most of the US in terms of car manufacturing. In general, the rest of the world will need to be covered by self driving eventually. Forget Phoenix; that's easy and rather boring. Can self driving cars manage in Italy, Spain, or conquer the German autobahn? I'm not pessimistic. But it won't be next year. 2) Painting this as a black and white game. All or nothing. Waymo is leading the way here by focusing on where it can work and gradually expanding their abilities. They are not even trying to make it work everywhere; just where they need it to work to make money. It's expanding it's area of operation and as it does the area it operates in adapts to self driving cars rather than the other way around. And it undeniably moves people from A to B at this point, seemingly without major incidents. The one thing that makes self driving cars hard is having human drivers around. Easy solution: get them out of the equation. This technology is basically going to be safety statistics and cost driven. As it gets better (i.e. safer and cheaper), it gets easier to optimize roads for self driving and the problem as a whole gets easier to deal with. Meanwhile there are big market opportunities in personal transport, freight, containers, etc. where self driving makes a lot of sense. Those are already happening. My prediction is that Tesla will do well where companies like Waymo do well in as well and that they will meet in the middle sooner rather than later. And being positioned as a safety feature, all Tesla needs to keep on doing is failing to cause a lot of fatalities and gradually keep on improving. The rest is just raw numbers. As soon as there are millions of cars driving semi autonomously most of the time failing to cause a lot of trouble, confidence increases and it gets harder to argue there is a problem. Eventually, people will let go of their steering wheels. Insurance companies and cost will incentivize them. Based on the numbers.