11 ms·
"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous." Despite it being cal
by massysett 2y ago
"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous."
Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."
Tesla should be sued out of existence.
- bagels 2y agoIt didn't always say that. It used to be more misleading, and claim that the cars have "Full Self Driving Hardware", with an exercise for the reader to deduce that it didn't come with "Full Self Driving Software" too.
- peutetre 2y agoAnd Musk doesn't want to "get nuanced" about the hardware: https://electrek.co/2024/10/15/tesla-needs-to-come-clean-about-hw3-before-the-word-fraud-comes-out/ https://electrek.co/2024/10/15/tesla-needs-to-come-clean-abo...
- fallingknife 2y ago[flagged]
- vineyardmike 2y agoMagic isn’t real. No one should be confused that the eraser isn’t magic. Fully self driving cars are real. Just not made by Tesla.
- bqmjjx0kac 2y agoWhat's the verdict on X-Ray Specs?
- largbae 2y agoI think everyone just gave up and went to pornhub
- jazzyjackson 2y ago[flagged]
- jazzyjackson 2y agoHave you used one? They basically do what they say, at least, which is erase things.
- Forgeties79 2y agoNobody who buys a magic eraser thinks it’s literally a magical object or in any way utilizes magic. It’s not comparable.
- kyriakos 2y agoEven if at least it won't kill you or anyone around you for using it.
- fallingknife 2y agoJust like nobody who buys FSD actually thinks it's really self driving.
- Forgeties79 2y agoSurely you can understand why “magic” and “fully self driving” have different levels of plausibility? In 2024 if you tell me a car is “fully self driving” it’s pretty reasonable of me to think it’s a fully self driving car given the current state of vehicle technology. They didn’t say “magic steering” or something clearly ridiculous to take at face value. It sounds like what it should be able to do. Especially with “full” in the name. Just call it “assisted driving” or hell “self driving.” The inclusion of “fully” makes this impossible to debate in good faith.
- fhdsgbbcaA 2y ago“Sixty percent of the time, it works every time”
- systemvoltage 2y ago[flagged]
- mbernstein 2y agoNuclear power adoption is the largest force to combat climate change.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoAre you proposing that cars should have nuclear reactors in them? Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.
- mbernstein 2y agoOf course not.
- dylan604 2y agoWhy not? We just need to use Mr Fusion in everything https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion
- ivewonyoung 2y agoIn a world where nuclear power helped with climate change, would also be a world where Teslas would eliminate a good chunk of harmful pollution by allowing cars to be moved by nuclear, so not sure what point you were trying to make. Even at this minute, Teslas are moving around powered by nuclear power.
- Retric 2y agoHistorically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity. It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.
- lngnmn2 2y ago[dead]
- ivewonyoung 2y ago[flagged]
- UltraSane 2y agoTesla's BS with FSD is as bad as Theranos was with their blood tests.
- mikeweiss 2y agoI think you mean fortunately?
- valval 2y agoUnfortunately for them and their ideological allies, fortunately for people with common sense.
- maeil 2y agoThis was a lawsuit by shareholders, and the judge thought investors should know whatever Elon says is bullshit. Completely different from e.g. consumers, of whom less such understanding is expected.
- rsynnott 2y agoIt’s really unfortunate that puffery survived as a common law defence. It’s really from an earlier era, when fraud was far more acceptable and people were more conditioned to assume that vendors were outright lying to them; it has no place in modern society. Also, that’s investors, not consumers. While the rise of retail investing has made this kind of dubious, investors are generally assumed to be far less in need of protection than consumers by the law; it is assumed that they take care about their investment that a consumer couldn’t reasonably take around every single product that they buy.
- hedora 2y agoOur non-Tesla has steering assist. In my 500 miles of driving before I found the buried setting that let me completely disable it, the active safety systems never made it more than 10-20 miles without attempting to actively steer the car left-of-center or into another vehicle, even when it was "turned off" via the steering wheel controls. When it was turned on according to the dashboard UI, things were even worse. It'd disengage less than every ten miles. However, there wasn't an alarm when it disengaged, just a tiny gray blinking icon on the dash. A second or so after the blinking, it'd beep once and then pull crap like attempt a sharp left on an exit ramp that curved to the right. I can't imagine this model kills fewer people per mile than Tesla FSD. I think there should be a recall, but it should hit pretty much all manufacturers shipping stuff in this space.
- shepherdjerred 2y agoMy Hyundai has a similar feature and it's excellent. I don't think you should be painting with such a broad brush.
- noapologies 2y agoI'm not sure how any of this is related to the article. Does this non-Tesla manufacturer claim that their steering assist is "full self driving"? If you believe their steering assist kills more people than Tesla FSD then you're welcome, encouraged even, to file a report with the NHTSA here [1]. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem
- gamblor956 2y agoIf what you say is true, name the car model and file a report with the NHTSA.
- HeadsUpHigh 2y agoIve had similar experience with a Hyundai with steering assist. It would get confused by messed road lining all the time. Meanwhile it had no problem climbing a road curb that was unmarked. And it would try to constantly nudge the steering wheel meaning I had to put force into holding it in place all the time since it which was extra fatigue. Oh and it was on by default, meaning I had to disable it every time I turned the car on.
- m463 2y agoI believe it's called "Full Self Driving (Supervised)"
- maeil 2y agoThe part in parentheses has only recently been added.
- rsynnott 2y agoAnd is, well, entirely contradictory. An absolute absurdity; what happens when the irresistible force of the legal department meets the immovable object of marketing.
- tharant 2y agoPrior to that, FSD was labeled ‘Full Self Driving (Beta)’ and enabling it triggered a modal that required two confirmations explaining that the human driver must always pay attention and is ultimately responsible for the vehicle. The feature also had/has active driver monitoring (via both vision and steering-torque sensors) that would disengage FSD if the driver ignored the loud audible alarm to “Pay attention”. Since changing the label to ‘(Supervised)’, the audible nag is significantly reduced.
- tsimionescu 2y agoThe problem is not so much the lack of disclaimers, it is the adberitising. Tesla is asking for something like 15 000 dollars for access to this "beta", and you don't get two modal dialogs before you sign up for that. This is called "false advertising", and even worse - recognizing revenue on a feature you are not delivering (a beta is not a delivered feature) is not GAAP.
- tharant 2y ago> The problem is not so much the lack of disclaimers, it is the adberitising. I agree; the entire advertising industry is well known to be misleading and/or dishonest; it’s annoying and often hurts consumers. > Tesla is asking for something like 15 000 dollars for access to this "beta", The cost of FSD is $8000 for the life of the vehicle, $5000 for 3 years (includes free supercharging and premium connectivity), or as a no-contract, a la carte option for $99/month—which IMO is pretty cheap if you just want to try it out or if you only want/need it during special occasions. > and you don't get two modal dialogs before you sign up for that. Depends on how you purchase FSD; if done from the vehicle, you get the dialogs. If done at the time of vehicle purchase you get plenty of disclaimers and documentation about its capabilities—though not as obviously prominent and scary as modal dialogs. I haven’t witnessed a subscription purchase so I’m not sure if the dialogs are present during the subscription process; perhaps that’s where the scam lies but I doubt it. > This is called "false advertising", and even worse - recognizing revenue on a feature you are not delivering (a beta is not a delivered feature) is not GAAP. Perhaps in your opinion but, well… that’s not how the world works, nor the law. For decades orgs have been delivering revenue-generating products, marketed and labeled as “beta”; a product being incomplete doesn’t mean it doesn’t have value. Heck, most of the software we use is ever changing and often considered a beta release—but they still (usually) offer value. Remember, FSD is software, not hardware; I suspect folks are uncomfortable with what appears to be the new paradigm of cars that change their capabilities over time even while they demand regular new capabilities in other products like their phone or computer. For what it’s worth, here’s the FSD disclaimer currently present on the Tesla website: “Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Your car will be able to drive itself almost anywhere with minimal driver intervention. Currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on development and regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions.” Seems pretty clear to me.
- innocentoldguy 2y agoIt's called "Full Self-Driving (Supervised) Beta" and you agree that you understand that you have to pay attention and are responsible for the safety of the car before you turn it on.
- kelnos 2y agoSo the name of it is a contradiction, and the fine print contradicts the name. "Full self driving" (the concept, not the Tesla product) does not need to be supervised.
- rty32 2y agoCome on, you know it's an oxymoron. "full" and "supervised" don't belong to the same sentence. Ask any 10 year old or a non native English speaker who only learned the language from textbooks for 5 years can tell you that. Just... stop defending Tesla.
- innocentoldguy 2y agoIt's a name that accurately describes the ultimate goal of the technology. It's not there yet, and Tesla makes it clear that this is the case. I don't see an issue with it and it works exceptionally well as is.