6 ms·

> 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

by 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...
- Ukv 3y ago
  > That you linked to his objectively wrong article shows Fred Lambert's smear campaign worked and continues to work to this day. Say I claim to have tight-rope walked between two buildings. You notice an error in my video that suggests I didn't - maybe an incorrectly-keyed green-screen on one of the clips claimed to be the actual walk. I think it's fair for you to say "based on the footage in your promo video, you did not tight-rope walk between two buildings". Maybe it turns out I did, and the shot was actually filmed afterwards just for the promo video. In this case your theory was wrong, but the error stems from my own (non-malicious, but faulty) misrepresentation of the clip as something it wasn't. > 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. I'm very obviously not saying that it is okay to hit a child with a car, regardless of speed. I'm saying that the released clips do not align with the stated results of the test, with the numbers being different enough that it's not within regular measurement error. Some take that to mean the clips do not show the original tests. I believe instead that the Dawn Project messed up repeatedly on recording the speeds in some way - but I don't think the Dawn Project have admitted as such. > Of course the new tests invalidate their false accusations > [...] > That is why the Tesla community always makes sure to point back to the earliest videos Returning to the tight-rope example: releasing new correctly-keyed footage, absent an explanation of why the previous footage contained the error, does not invalidate someone's reason for concern about me having manipulated the footage. If I did indeed manipulate the original footage, I would very likely avoid visibly making the same mistake that I was called out for in future footage. For someone to debunk my claims, I don't think it'd be invalid for them to point to earlier footage containing unexplained errors from before I got sneakier.
  - Veserv 3y ago
    Say I claim to have tight-rope walked between buildings. In my official report I have a continuous video clearly showing that. Simultaneously, I release a promo video that the report does not reference. You watch the promo video and then read the report, but then choose to not watch the actual video of the tests that are literally in the report you just read. You then smear whistleblowers and do not retract your statements when you are proven to be wrong. And you know what, if I did smear whistleblowers, I would likely avoid visibly smearing in the same way in future footage that would be able to call out my lies. For someone to debunk my smears, I don’t think it would be invalid to point to later footage and show how my claimed manipulations are demonstrably absent and unnecessary for it to run down children now that the videos are clearer and more transparent. It is frankly kind of ridiculous that you are applying a significantly higher standard toward whistleblowing about a dangerous and defective product rather than the product itself and the people who are known cheerleaders and shills. That both they and the manufacturer have actively rejected every invitation to reproduce the results with their own cars should make it clear who is scared of the burden of proof here.

by Ukv 3y ago

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...

Ukv 3y ago
> That you linked to his objectively wrong article shows Fred Lambert's smear campaign worked and continues to work to this day. Say I claim to have tight-rope walked between two buildings. You notice an error in my video that suggests I didn't - maybe an incorrectly-keyed green-screen on one of the clips claimed to be the actual walk. I think it's fair for you to say "based on the footage in your promo video, you did not tight-rope walk between two buildings". Maybe it turns out I did, and the shot was actually filmed afterwards just for the promo video. In this case your theory was wrong, but the error stems from my own (non-malicious, but faulty) misrepresentation of the clip as something it wasn't. > 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. I'm very obviously not saying that it is okay to hit a child with a car, regardless of speed. I'm saying that the released clips do not align with the stated results of the test, with the numbers being different enough that it's not within regular measurement error. Some take that to mean the clips do not show the original tests. I believe instead that the Dawn Project messed up repeatedly on recording the speeds in some way - but I don't think the Dawn Project have admitted as such. > Of course the new tests invalidate their false accusations > [...] > That is why the Tesla community always makes sure to point back to the earliest videos Returning to the tight-rope example: releasing new correctly-keyed footage, absent an explanation of why the previous footage contained the error, does not invalidate someone's reason for concern about me having manipulated the footage. If I did indeed manipulate the original footage, I would very likely avoid visibly making the same mistake that I was called out for in future footage. For someone to debunk my claims, I don't think it'd be invalid for them to point to earlier footage containing unexplained errors from before I got sneakier.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Say I claim to have tight-rope walked between buildings. In my official report I have a continuous video clearly showing that. Simultaneously, I release a promo video that the report does not reference. You watch the promo video and then read the report, but then choose to not watch the actual video of the tests that are literally in the report you just read. You then smear whistleblowers and do not retract your statements when you are proven to be wrong. And you know what, if I did smear whistleblowers, I would likely avoid visibly smearing in the same way in future footage that would be able to call out my lies. For someone to debunk my smears, I don’t think it would be invalid to point to later footage and show how my claimed manipulations are demonstrably absent and unnecessary for it to run down children now that the videos are clearer and more transparent. It is frankly kind of ridiculous that you are applying a significantly higher standard toward whistleblowing about a dangerous and defective product rather than the product itself and the people who are known cheerleaders and shills. That both they and the manufacturer have actively rejected every invitation to reproduce the results with their own cars should make it clear who is scared of the burden of proof here.