3 ms·
> I'll still take Tesla FSD over the average earthling driver any day Sure. As long as Tesla itself, the company and its leaders and its shareholders, are held
by anonymousab 3y ago
> I'll still take Tesla FSD over the average earthling driver any day
Sure. As long as Tesla itself, the company and its leaders and its shareholders, are held personally liable for any major autopilot or FSD fuckups.
Be it a monetary ticket or time in jail, have them all serve that responsibility each and every time. And if a long stint in "jail" - i.e. not being able the conduct business of any kind for that period - is too traumatic for the company to survive, then maybe they'd rethink their level of recklessness.
And certainly, if I'm in any sort of roadside screwup nearly regardless of fault, my insurance rates are going up a lot, for a long time. So too should that be the case for Tesla and their products whenever and wherever their software makes a decision that is involved in or the cause of the same.
- andsoitis 3y ago> As long as Tesla itself, the company and its leaders and its shareholders, are held personally liable for any major autopilot or FSD fuckups. Are you sure? That would include everyone who owns S&P 500 index funds, probably most (if not all) pension funds, etc.
- friendzis 3y agoShareholders? Yes, doubly so. They 1. knew better 2. enabled that Fund managers? Triply so. They 1. knew better 2. enabled that 3. with other people's money
- andsoitis 3y agoWhy do you include the company management and shareholders, but not the workers who actually create the car?
- supertimor 3y agoWorkers have very little input on releasing a product or the direction in which a product goes.
- predictabl3 3y agoLol. Sure. I'm absolutely fine with that and everything else it would imply. The entire issue of excessive CEO compensation for the sake of driving stock price, while being completely divorced from any repercussions of any knowingly harmful actions is exactly the capitalism part of "late stage capitalism" that sucks. Let's restate your question -- Why should shareholders not get to benefit from blatant disregard for truth or safety without any liability on the line when that stance results in collateral damage?