3 ms·

>Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one

by natch 3y ago

>Because the manufacturer of a self-driving product Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one in your imagination maybe. It is a beta which is not yet self driving. >should be primarily responsible for how it functions. By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas. >How exactly is that controversial to you? Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist.

freejazz 3y ago
>Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one in your imagination maybe. It is a beta which is not yet self driving. They sell it, it's a product. You can call it a beta product. This is entirely pointless semantics. >By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas. You are going in a loop. That's not logic, and certainly not my logic. Toyota doesn't sell self-driving cars, so why would Toyota be responsible for how the cars drive. If there is a defect in their cars, they would be responsible for that. You are once again playing semantics. Tesla sells cars with a self driving product. You are trying to play a semantic game by saying it's not "full self driving" because some aspect of its function, but what words we call it is besides the point, what matters is how its functions. Tesla is liable for how the product functions because it's in control of how the product functions, not because its "full" or "partial" self driving. >Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist. You literally just keep making up nonsense in order to justify your positions. Like saying "it's a beta" so it's not a product. You can buy it. It's a product. They are already facing lawsuits over it. Get real. Hands down one of the most pointless conversations I've had here when you are engaging like this.
- natch 3y ago
  It may be a little complex to talk about but the product you speak of is essentially a technology preview (the beta) wrapped together with a future functionality the buyer is prepaying for. By paying, they get access to the preview now, and they will get the actual released software later when it is ready. It’s all bundled up as, as you say correctly, a product. What you’re missing is a bit of subtlety about the contents of the product, that’s all. During the preview period users are responsible (blah blah I don’t need to repeat that part yet again, right?). I think it’s not actually super hard to understand but it is admittedly not exactly like most other products. It’s a product the features of which are being rolled out progressively until it is fully ready. Meantime it is made crystal clear in many ways and repeatedly to buyers what their responsibilities are… before buying, after buying, before turning it on in settings, during driving, etc. It is very well communicated.

by natch 3y ago

freejazz 3y ago

>Hold on right there. There is no self-driving product in the picture or in the conversation. Other than one in your imagination maybe. It is a beta which is not yet self driving. They sell it, it's a product. You can call it a beta product. This is entirely pointless semantics. >By your logic, should Toyota pay for all accidents that happen in Toyotas? No, because Toyotas are not fully self driving? I have news for you. Neither are Teslas. You are going in a loop. That's not logic, and certainly not my logic. Toyota doesn't sell self-driving cars, so why would Toyota be responsible for how the cars drive. If there is a defect in their cars, they would be responsible for that. You are once again playing semantics. Tesla sells cars with a self driving product. You are trying to play a semantic game by saying it's not "full self driving" because some aspect of its function, but what words we call it is besides the point, what matters is how its functions. Tesla is liable for how the product functions because it's in control of how the product functions, not because its "full" or "partial" self driving. >Your hypothetical sounds reasonable in theory, but it’s predicated on an imaginary situation that does not exist. You literally just keep making up nonsense in order to justify your positions. Like saying "it's a beta" so it's not a product. You can buy it. It's a product. They are already facing lawsuits over it. Get real. Hands down one of the most pointless conversations I've had here when you are engaging like this.

natch 3y ago
It may be a little complex to talk about but the product you speak of is essentially a technology preview (the beta) wrapped together with a future functionality the buyer is prepaying for. By paying, they get access to the preview now, and they will get the actual released software later when it is ready. It’s all bundled up as, as you say correctly, a product. What you’re missing is a bit of subtlety about the contents of the product, that’s all. During the preview period users are responsible (blah blah I don’t need to repeat that part yet again, right?). I think it’s not actually super hard to understand but it is admittedly not exactly like most other products. It’s a product the features of which are being rolled out progressively until it is fully ready. Meantime it is made crystal clear in many ways and repeatedly to buyers what their responsibilities are… before buying, after buying, before turning it on in settings, during driving, etc. It is very well communicated.