9 ms·

There is no car sold in America which could have prevented this accident.

addaon 1y ago
And would the driver’s actions have been different if they had understood that? Was their lack of understanding coincidence, correlated with their Tesla ownership by no fault of Tesla, or deliberately engineered by Tesla’s marketing approach?
- cnst 1y ago
  You know, I've talked to a whole bunch of people who actually own Tesla's, who actually work in tech, and most of them are completely unaware about any of these autopilot features whatsoever. Most people are actually very dismissive of autopilot, and are completely misinformed of the benefits / drawbacks / differences of "FSD" versus "Autopilot". Most are completely unaware of the improvements of v12 or v13, or differences between HW3 or HW4, or which one they have, or that "autopilot" is free, or circumstances under which autopilot can be used etc. I talked to some guy last year (mid 2024) who was actually paying $199/mo for FSD v12, before the price drop to $99/mo, and swearing how great it was, yet he has never tried the parking feature, even though it's been released several months prior. He's a software engineer. That's just one example. So, if anything, Tesla's marketing is nowhere near as successful as these naysayers would make you believe. Because the vast majority of Tesla's own customers are actually far behind on autopilot or FSD buy-in, and are NOT aware of the progress.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  An average of 100 people die every day in the US due to traffic accidents, many of which would have been prevented by Tesla-like software. You're obsessing about the wrong side of the equation.
toss1 1y ago
Yes, that is exactly Tesla's line, and it is entirely beside the point. The point is the EXPECTATION set by decades of basically flat-out lying about the capabilities of "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving". Hell, just the names alone entirely point to no-limitations full self driving. Plus selling $10k upgrades to use your car as a driverless taxi with the next software upgrade, which years later, has never happened. The fine print is BS; the message screams nothing but capable driving. Add to that the instant data collection and real-time deleting it at the scene, and Tesla is 100% wrong. (and I used to admire Tesla and aspire to own one) And this is 100% Tesla's own fault. They did NOT have to market it that way. Had they marketed it as "Advanced Driving Assistant" or "Super Lane-Keeping", or something, and left the data available to the driver, they likely could have won this case easily. "The guy wasn't even looking, we never even implied it could take over all driving, what the hell was he thinking?".
- peterfirefly 1y ago
  decades?
  - toss1 1y ago
    Musk joined Tesla with the Series B round in 2005. Doesn't seem that way, but it's been 20 years. He first started talking publicly about "Autopilot" or "Full Self Driving" in 2013, so 1.2 would be referred to as plural decades. (I didn't have the exact number on hand, but knew it was 1+, and used the proper form; you prompted me to lookup the proper number)
- cnst 1y ago
  First of all, I don't condone the unlinking of snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar after the upload, but, OTOH, I can also understand why something like that would be done, too. (If you were an owner of the car, would you want a subsequent owner to have the records of your crash? This is why I hate all these privacy advocates, because they ruin it for everyone.) If you've ever worked at any company where security and privacy are taken seriously, you'd be fully aware that things like logging incorrect password attempts is a straight up CVE waiting to happen, even though it's something that a legitimate user might as well want to be happening to find out who's trying to break into their system. Thank the privacy advocates. But I fail to see who exactly is misled by the marketing, ESPECIALLY given the non-stop negative media attention Tesla has always had. I mean, it's literally already called FSD Supervised, and previously it's been FSD Beta. How exactly is that not self-explanatory? But if you already a conclusion, the name is irrelevant. I mean, did you ever look at the Autopilot article in Wikipedia? It's about the aircraft system. Why do not we not FAA complaining to Boeing and Airbus that their airplanes have this super-misleading "autopilot", even though the pilots must still be supervising the tech?
  - toss1 1y ago
    Yikes You entirely miss the distinction between trained professional and ignorant consumer, "industrial use only" equipment and materials vs everyday consumer goods, things that require technical training and even certification to use properly, vs goods sellable to any consumer, prescription drugs vs otc. The technical goods carry a much higher risk and must be used with specific training and context. Using them outside those contexts is likely to harm or kill people, and creates legal liability. In contrast, consumer goods must be engineered to be safe in ORDINARY circumstances with UNTRAINED people using them. Tesla is trying to paper over those differences and use technical terms in a common environment and unleash tools requiring skilled supervision to prevent death into a consumer environment, for profit. You are either failing to make the distinction or consciously going along with it.

And would the driver’s actions have been different if they had understood that? Was their lack of understanding coincidence, correlated with their Tesla ownership by no fault of Tesla, or deliberately engineered by Tesla’s marketing approach?

cnst 1y ago
You know, I've talked to a whole bunch of people who actually own Tesla's, who actually work in tech, and most of them are completely unaware about any of these autopilot features whatsoever. Most people are actually very dismissive of autopilot, and are completely misinformed of the benefits / drawbacks / differences of "FSD" versus "Autopilot". Most are completely unaware of the improvements of v12 or v13, or differences between HW3 or HW4, or which one they have, or that "autopilot" is free, or circumstances under which autopilot can be used etc. I talked to some guy last year (mid 2024) who was actually paying $199/mo for FSD v12, before the price drop to $99/mo, and swearing how great it was, yet he has never tried the parking feature, even though it's been released several months prior. He's a software engineer. That's just one example. So, if anything, Tesla's marketing is nowhere near as successful as these naysayers would make you believe. Because the vast majority of Tesla's own customers are actually far behind on autopilot or FSD buy-in, and are NOT aware of the progress.
stickfigure 1y ago
An average of 100 people die every day in the US due to traffic accidents, many of which would have been prevented by Tesla-like software. You're obsessing about the wrong side of the equation.

toss1 1y ago

Yes, that is exactly Tesla's line, and it is entirely beside the point. The point is the EXPECTATION set by decades of basically flat-out lying about the capabilities of "Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving". Hell, just the names alone entirely point to no-limitations full self driving. Plus selling $10k upgrades to use your car as a driverless taxi with the next software upgrade, which years later, has never happened. The fine print is BS; the message screams nothing but capable driving. Add to that the instant data collection and real-time deleting it at the scene, and Tesla is 100% wrong. (and I used to admire Tesla and aspire to own one) And this is 100% Tesla's own fault. They did NOT have to market it that way. Had they marketed it as "Advanced Driving Assistant" or "Super Lane-Keeping", or something, and left the data available to the driver, they likely could have won this case easily. "The guy wasn't even looking, we never even implied it could take over all driving, what the hell was he thinking?".

peterfirefly 1y ago
decades?
- toss1 1y ago
  Musk joined Tesla with the Series B round in 2005. Doesn't seem that way, but it's been 20 years. He first started talking publicly about "Autopilot" or "Full Self Driving" in 2013, so 1.2 would be referred to as plural decades. (I didn't have the exact number on hand, but knew it was 1+, and used the proper form; you prompted me to lookup the proper number)
cnst 1y ago
First of all, I don't condone the unlinking of snapshot_collision_airbag-deployment.tar after the upload, but, OTOH, I can also understand why something like that would be done, too. (If you were an owner of the car, would you want a subsequent owner to have the records of your crash? This is why I hate all these privacy advocates, because they ruin it for everyone.) If you've ever worked at any company where security and privacy are taken seriously, you'd be fully aware that things like logging incorrect password attempts is a straight up CVE waiting to happen, even though it's something that a legitimate user might as well want to be happening to find out who's trying to break into their system. Thank the privacy advocates. But I fail to see who exactly is misled by the marketing, ESPECIALLY given the non-stop negative media attention Tesla has always had. I mean, it's literally already called FSD Supervised, and previously it's been FSD Beta. How exactly is that not self-explanatory? But if you already a conclusion, the name is irrelevant. I mean, did you ever look at the Autopilot article in Wikipedia? It's about the aircraft system. Why do not we not FAA complaining to Boeing and Airbus that their airplanes have this super-misleading "autopilot", even though the pilots must still be supervising the tech?
- toss1 1y ago
  Yikes You entirely miss the distinction between trained professional and ignorant consumer, "industrial use only" equipment and materials vs everyday consumer goods, things that require technical training and even certification to use properly, vs goods sellable to any consumer, prescription drugs vs otc. The technical goods carry a much higher risk and must be used with specific training and context. Using them outside those contexts is likely to harm or kill people, and creates legal liability. In contrast, consumer goods must be engineered to be safe in ORDINARY circumstances with UNTRAINED people using them. Tesla is trying to paper over those differences and use technical terms in a common environment and unleash tools requiring skilled supervision to prevent death into a consumer environment, for profit. You are either failing to make the distinction or consciously going along with it.