3 ms·

Can you at least read to the end of the article you post as evidence before making demonstrably false claims? "Update: The Dawn Project has since released addi

by Veserv 1y ago

Can you at least read to the end of the article you post as evidence before making demonstrably false claims? "Update: The Dawn Project has since released additional footage that doesn’t appear in its ad where we can see that they were able to activate FSD, however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad." (Note: The claim that the written results had errors at the time was true. The errors were fixed in a subsequent revision.) https://x.com/twn675/status/1557415939569639424 https://x.com/twn675/status/1557415939569639424 In fact, here is the actual released report: 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... With the contemporaneous raw footage here: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/raw-footage.mp4 https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/raw-foota... Amazing, the claim that it was not engaged is straight up false with clear video evidence that it is false and the Tesla promoter who pretends to be a "reporter" did not feel like investigating the source before making false claims accusing others of making false claims. That should really make you rethink which side is more credible. Hint, it is not the side that does not bother to watch raw footage because they already made up their mind that the company who pays them is right. Care to retract your false statement now that there is clear video evidence that your statement is false? Or are you going to argue that at 0:40 FSD disengaged two seconds before impact, but with enough remaining velocity to collide if no corrective human action is provided, therefore FSD is not responsible?

josephcsible 1y ago
> however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad. That part seems to be a big deal that you're totally glossing over. And again, if these are real problems, why have so many other people tried and failed to reproduce them?
- Veserv 1y ago
  So your argument was: > It was not engaged. But since that is now clearly false using the evidence you yourself presented you have transitioned to: "The raw video footage clearly demonstrates the claim of FSD colliding with the child under the stated conditions, but the written report had incorrectly documented what occurred in the video footage, but which has since been corrected. That disproves the raw video footage of the claim." Talk about moving the goalposts. Care to retract your false statement that it was not engaged?
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    It's clear from the still image in the article that FSD really was not engaged in the original video. It's not just a mistake in the written report. The video provided later in the update must be from a later run of the test. And in particular, since O'Dowd got caught lying about the original, I no longer trust him, so I don't trust that the second test wasn't tampered with in a less-detectable way (e.g., messing with the car's sensors, or doctoring the new uploaded video). Especially because of the point you keep not addressing: nobody else seems to be able to reproduce this problem.
    - Veserv 1y ago
      Wow, still just making up random nonsense instead of taking responsibility for your false statements. The video footage in the report was not a "update". That is the original video footage of the tests that was released at the same time as the report that Fred had, but chose not to, access before making false claims; just like you had that opportunity right now. The error in the written report that Fred was referencing is that the contents of Table 1 recorded a slightly higher "Speed at Impact" than what actually occurred. The value originally reported was most likely the speed at disengagement, but has since been rectified to report the correct number. In no way shape or form does that invalidate the video footage unless you are a mindless Tesla drone spreading the smear. The video you claim is the "original" was a TV advertisement, not a test. As you might be aware, advertisements are meant to be evocative, not precisely accurate and usually contain edited video footage. Or do you also believe that Red Bull actually gives you wings? Accuracy is for the tests, raw footage, and report that were released simultaneously and which clearly demonstrate the stated claims. For that matter, if the video were clearly false and defamatory as you claim, why has Tesla not followed up on their Cease and Desist letter from 2 years ago [1]? Tesla sent a letter claiming the videos were false and defamatory using Fred's article as evidence and would sue to get them taken down. Then Fred posted that he realized FSD was engaged and it has been crickets from Tesla since then. I think you should trust Tesla's lawyers here and stop digging your hole. I am done here. If you have any self-respect, retract your false statements and rethink your position instead of performing charity for the richest person in the world by smearing whistleblowers. [1] https://dawnproject.com/dan-odowds-response-to-teslas-cease-and-desist-letter/ https://dawnproject.com/dan-odowds-response-to-teslas-cease-...

by Veserv 1y ago

josephcsible 1y ago

> however, the footage is inconsistent with the results published about the test and in the ad. That part seems to be a big deal that you're totally glossing over. And again, if these are real problems, why have so many other people tried and failed to reproduce them?

Veserv 1y ago
So your argument was: > It was not engaged. But since that is now clearly false using the evidence you yourself presented you have transitioned to: "The raw video footage clearly demonstrates the claim of FSD colliding with the child under the stated conditions, but the written report had incorrectly documented what occurred in the video footage, but which has since been corrected. That disproves the raw video footage of the claim." Talk about moving the goalposts. Care to retract your false statement that it was not engaged?
- josephcsible 1y ago
  It's clear from the still image in the article that FSD really was not engaged in the original video. It's not just a mistake in the written report. The video provided later in the update must be from a later run of the test. And in particular, since O'Dowd got caught lying about the original, I no longer trust him, so I don't trust that the second test wasn't tampered with in a less-detectable way (e.g., messing with the car's sensors, or doctoring the new uploaded video). Especially because of the point you keep not addressing: nobody else seems to be able to reproduce this problem.
  - Veserv 1y ago
    Wow, still just making up random nonsense instead of taking responsibility for your false statements. The video footage in the report was not a "update". That is the original video footage of the tests that was released at the same time as the report that Fred had, but chose not to, access before making false claims; just like you had that opportunity right now. The error in the written report that Fred was referencing is that the contents of Table 1 recorded a slightly higher "Speed at Impact" than what actually occurred. The value originally reported was most likely the speed at disengagement, but has since been rectified to report the correct number. In no way shape or form does that invalidate the video footage unless you are a mindless Tesla drone spreading the smear. The video you claim is the "original" was a TV advertisement, not a test. As you might be aware, advertisements are meant to be evocative, not precisely accurate and usually contain edited video footage. Or do you also believe that Red Bull actually gives you wings? Accuracy is for the tests, raw footage, and report that were released simultaneously and which clearly demonstrate the stated claims. For that matter, if the video were clearly false and defamatory as you claim, why has Tesla not followed up on their Cease and Desist letter from 2 years ago [1]? Tesla sent a letter claiming the videos were false and defamatory using Fred's article as evidence and would sue to get them taken down. Then Fred posted that he realized FSD was engaged and it has been crickets from Tesla since then. I think you should trust Tesla's lawyers here and stop digging your hole. I am done here. If you have any self-respect, retract your false statements and rethink your position instead of performing charity for the richest person in the world by smearing whistleblowers. [1] https://dawnproject.com/dan-odowds-response-to-teslas-cease-and-desist-letter/ https://dawnproject.com/dan-odowds-response-to-teslas-cease-...