3 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- Ukv 3y ago
  > 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. As far as I can tell: * 2022-08-09 13:50PT (timestamp on video) - The ad is released, containing no mention or link to a report * Lambert contacts the Dawn Project for comment and receives the affidavit and screen photograph * 2022-08-10 08:56PT (timestamp on article) - Lambert's article is released. It uses press images provided by the Dawn Project ([0], [1]), but not anything directly taken by Lambert from the report, which I do not believe he has seen at this point * Between 2022-08-09 20:43PT and 2022-08-10 14:27PT (closest Wayback machine snapshots with and without the campaign[2]) - the Dawn Project added the campaign to their website, including the link to the report * Later in the day, Lambert updates the article addressing the newly released footage I could well be missing something, but I don't see evidence that Lambert had read the report at the time of writing the initial article as you claim. > You then smear whistleblowers [...] > [...] you are applying a significantly higher standard toward whistleblowing about a dangerous and defective product rather than the product itself [...] The Dawn Project is really Dan O'Dowd, a self-described "billionaire entrepreneur" whose company provides for competing automated driving systems[3]. According to his website[4], he's also: * "Your Source for Software that Never Fails and Can't Be Hacked" * The "World's leading authority on cybersecurity", "World's leading authority on software safety", "World's leading authority on software reliability", and "World's leading authority on software performance" * Designer of "the only operating system that never fails and can't be hacked" * The one who "rescued the Macintosh and Apple Computers at Steve Jobs' request" * "I can make any computer system unhackable", "I can program any system so it will never fail" * "I can find every bug in any program I write", "The last time I couldn’t find a bug, it was 1975" * "I can make your software run up to 4 times faster than anyone else. No one else even claims to be an expert in software performance." Not to turn this into just ad hominem about O'Dowd's quackery, but he shouldn't be presented as some legitimate impartial organisation or sincere whistleblower - it's one rich schmuck with a business interest and vendetta against another rich schmuck. That doesn't mean O'Dowd's interests can't happen to align with the public's, or that he can't perform valid tests, but I do think a large dose of scrutiny for his claims is appropriate. An Internet debate/investigation of any kind is a far lower standard than the rigorous testing Tesla's "FSD" should be subject to - don't take my comments as arguing that should be lowered. > [...] 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. Is there some specific invitation from O'Dowd you're referring to? I can see plenty of people testing it, even including a couple testing on real children[5] which is horrendous. [0]: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Willow-Springs-Commercial-Figure-3.png https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Willow-Sp... [1]: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Results.png https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Results.p... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20220810044304/https://dawnproject.com/campaigns/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220810044304/https://dawnproje... [3]: https://www.ghs.com/products/auto_adas.html https://www.ghs.com/products/auto_adas.html [4]: https://danodowd.com/ https://danodowd.com/ [5]: https://abc11.com/north-carolina-tesla-full-self-driving-test-carmine-cupani/12150489/ https://abc11.com/north-carolina-tesla-full-self-driving-tes...

by Ukv 3y ago

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.

Ukv 3y ago
> 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. As far as I can tell: * 2022-08-09 13:50PT (timestamp on video) - The ad is released, containing no mention or link to a report * Lambert contacts the Dawn Project for comment and receives the affidavit and screen photograph * 2022-08-10 08:56PT (timestamp on article) - Lambert's article is released. It uses press images provided by the Dawn Project ([0], [1]), but not anything directly taken by Lambert from the report, which I do not believe he has seen at this point * Between 2022-08-09 20:43PT and 2022-08-10 14:27PT (closest Wayback machine snapshots with and without the campaign[2]) - the Dawn Project added the campaign to their website, including the link to the report * Later in the day, Lambert updates the article addressing the newly released footage I could well be missing something, but I don't see evidence that Lambert had read the report at the time of writing the initial article as you claim. > You then smear whistleblowers [...] > [...] you are applying a significantly higher standard toward whistleblowing about a dangerous and defective product rather than the product itself [...] The Dawn Project is really Dan O'Dowd, a self-described "billionaire entrepreneur" whose company provides for competing automated driving systems[3]. According to his website[4], he's also: * "Your Source for Software that Never Fails and Can't Be Hacked" * The "World's leading authority on cybersecurity", "World's leading authority on software safety", "World's leading authority on software reliability", and "World's leading authority on software performance" * Designer of "the only operating system that never fails and can't be hacked" * The one who "rescued the Macintosh and Apple Computers at Steve Jobs' request" * "I can make any computer system unhackable", "I can program any system so it will never fail" * "I can find every bug in any program I write", "The last time I couldn’t find a bug, it was 1975" * "I can make your software run up to 4 times faster than anyone else. No one else even claims to be an expert in software performance." Not to turn this into just ad hominem about O'Dowd's quackery, but he shouldn't be presented as some legitimate impartial organisation or sincere whistleblower - it's one rich schmuck with a business interest and vendetta against another rich schmuck. That doesn't mean O'Dowd's interests can't happen to align with the public's, or that he can't perform valid tests, but I do think a large dose of scrutiny for his claims is appropriate. An Internet debate/investigation of any kind is a far lower standard than the rigorous testing Tesla's "FSD" should be subject to - don't take my comments as arguing that should be lowered. > [...] 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. Is there some specific invitation from O'Dowd you're referring to? I can see plenty of people testing it, even including a couple testing on real children[5] which is horrendous. [0]: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Willow-Springs-Commercial-Figure-3.png https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Willow-Sp... [1]: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Results.png https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Results.p... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20220810044304/https://dawnproject.com/campaigns/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220810044304/https://dawnproje... [3]: https://www.ghs.com/products/auto_adas.html https://www.ghs.com/products/auto_adas.html [4]: https://danodowd.com/ https://danodowd.com/ [5]: https://abc11.com/north-carolina-tesla-full-self-driving-test-carmine-cupani/12150489/ https://abc11.com/north-carolina-tesla-full-self-driving-tes...