6 ms·

> Except that it was engaged as stated in the Safety Test Report [1] and as seen in the raw footage [2]. > They are not liars because they point out FSD was no

• Veserv 3y ago
  To clarify, I was stating it was engaged during the tests used to inform the test report and the campaign. The claim in the article is that "they never engaged FSD Beta during the test". That is demonstrably false. You could state: "FSD Beta was not engaged during portions of the ad footage". That is well supported. However, Fred Lambert read the Safety Test Report [1], as he pointed to specific sections, but was apparently too busy to view the raw footage linked on page 5 (unfortunately that link is now dead, but did point to the same footage I linked previously) or accept affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury before affirmatively declaring that FSD was not enabled during the referenced tests. He did not even make minimal effort to ascertain the actual truth before spouting vile and false accusations. To further add on to his point, he fabricated nonsensical justification for why it must have been disabled like: "The explanation is likely quite simple. Tesla FSD Beta still relies on map data, and this test was performed on a closed course at Willow Springs International Raceway in Rosamond, California." As a "journalist", he made no effort to ascertain the actual truth before promulgating a story. The story was venomous, throwing around the most inflammatory and sensationalist accusations possible such as claiming it was a "smear campaign" and arguing that they were either intentionally lying about the system being enabled or too stupid to do so and thus should be completely ignored. The consequences of his "journalism" are that his false accusations continue to be successfully used as ammunition to quash whistleblowing and he has made no effort to remedy his errors, making only a limp-wristed reluctant, non-retraction when confronted with the magnitude of his error that is insufficient to dispel the clear disinformation he presented as truth. As to the data in the safety report, it is corrected in the report here [2] which has live links to the raw footage. The discrepancies from the original report are immaterial as they are only slight differences in child collision speed, there exists no qualitative error, and the footage speaks for itself as a authoritative source. In any event, you can just look to the more recent tests which completely invalidate these questions anyways. The system is clearly engaged, there is no driver input, the test environment is simple, and the error is egregious and reproducible. [1] https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The_Dawn_Project___Tesla_FSD_Test__8_.pdf https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/The_Dawn_... [2] https://dawnproject.com/the-dawn-projects-new-advertising-campaign-highlighting-the-dangers-of-teslas-full-self-driving/ https://dawnproject.com/the-dawn-projects-new-advertising-ca...
  • Ukv 3y ago
    > or accept affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury before affirmatively declaring that FSD was not enabled during the referenced tests. He did not even make minimal effort to ascertain the actual truth before spouting vile and false accusations. The driver's sworn word doesn't really contradict the theory that they failed to realize they didn't engage FSD - supported by the footage where the driver attempts to engage FSD, and acts as if it has been activated, but actually failed to do so. Lambert says his theory is "based on their own footage in the ad", which I think is fair. The theory turns out to be wrong because the ad presents footage as part of the test that was actually recorded as a re-enactment afterwards (or at least, I believe it does - haven't seen the Dawn Project admit to this). It's understandable that they did so to get better shots for the ad and I don't think there was any malice or intentional misrepresentation, but the driver's mistake in this extra footage is the root of the error. > As to the data in the safety report, it is corrected in the report here [2] which has live links to the raw footage. The discrepancies from the original report are immaterial as they are only slight differences in child collision speed 24mph -> 17mph is a notable discrepancy when the exact speed is visible in the released recording on the dashboard. It seems to be silently altered to match the released video, as opposed to explained, as far as I can see. But may just be a case of "we took the driver's estimate rather than checking the footage" or "we paused the video very inaccurately, sometimes before and sometimes after the collision". > In any event, you can just look to the more recent tests which completely invalidate these questions anyways If someone believes the Dawn Project are manipulating the tests, the release of new different footage where they're careful not to make the same mistake they were called out for previously doesn't really affect anything. An explanation of why there were discrepancies in the previous footage, with supporting evidence if possible, may help. I believe the existence of the unexplained (but not unexplainable) discrepancies is why "people, to this day, still deliberately point back to the earliest videos".
    • Veserv 3y ago
      Lambert is a "journalist". It is unacceptable for him to willfully ignore easily accessible evidence and loudly and aggressively smear whistleblowers on a hunch to protect the company that owes him 500,000$ worth of cars [1][2]. That you linked to his objectively wrong article shows Fred Lambert's smear campaign worked and continues to work to this day. 24 mph -> 17 mph is not a notable discrepancy. The car should not ever hit a child in that situation at a speed that sends them flying, period. The video is clear, but the old report has inaccuracies that were fixed in the new report is not grounds for dismissing the critical safety defect of running down children. That people laser focus on about 7 mph child collision speed differences so they can distract from the nearly trillion dollar company releasing a "full self driving" product that could not detect stationary children until somebody ran a national PSA about it is insane. Of course the new tests invalidate their false accusations. As I said in my initial post, a claim of manipulation is only valid if the manipulation would change the outcome of the test. A clear test demonstrating the claimed manipulation is not present is evidence that their accusation that manipulation is the only way to achieve the stated outcome is false. Further evidence is that all major people in the Tesla influencer community has been invited to observe, participate, and even use their own cars in the tests and every single one of them has chickened out. Anybody pointing to old, immature tests is just propagating a mindworm meant to sound persuasive when it is actually a completely moronic argument. Arguing that improvements in the camera setup and test transparency are some sort of tachyonic evidence of malfeasance is asinine. The only way you would think the current videos are manipulated is if you come in with the assumption that they are manipulated. That is why the Tesla community always makes sure to point back to the earliest videos because they will get caught if they try to lie about anything new, so they need to lie about the past when the cameras were not good enough to catch their hands in the cookie jar. Yet, for some reason, nobody applies that same level of scrutiny to the nearly trillion dollar company that has killed and injured hundreds. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/24025/electreks-editor-in-chief-publisher-both-scoring-250000-tesla-roadsters-for-free-by-gaming-referral-program https://www.thedrive.com/news/24025/electreks-editor-in-chie... [2] https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b0bljo/how_much_did_fred_lambert_electrek_cost_future/eidnzpu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b0bljo/how_muc...