buvanshak's comments

>I never disagreed that there was potential for the safety to be negatively impacted with every update...

The point you are missing is that while update might be slightly enhance safety, the negative, unpredictable impact might be catastrophic. because one is planned and other one is not.

>99% of Tesla owners follow these instructions. There will of course be 1% drivers who will not.

Where did you pull those numbers from?

>we knew that continual burning of coal and other fossil fuels would cause considerable warming.

Wrong. We didn't know that. We hoped the co2 will be cleaned up by the mechanisms already in place, and we thought the effect would only be temporary. Just like we think the holes caused by the rockets are temporary now, and will not have any cascading effects.

Incredibly short sighted and We have learned nothing from history if we continue to reason like this.

>I'm sure I can prove ESP and I'm not a telepath. Seriously, it is so common, that the big question is why I was blind to it. In simple experiments, with hardly any effort, I see ESP confirmed, daily. That is: mind to mind contact without relying on sound, vision, or a chemical channel.

Can you write more about this here? What were your simple experiments, and why haven't people looking for it found it out already, if they are simple?

Dude, that is not an attack. Only if you have written software, you ll be aware of how seemingly innocent changes can break it in unexpected ways...And your "proof" article does not change anything...

They have also been asked to rename the "Autopilot" feature..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/10/14/german...

>You clearly don't know what deduce means.

Please explain.

>You've also clearly haven't understood anything I've said during this entire conversation.

Oh I understood you just fine. I just find it stupid.

>You've utterly failed to establish that they are lying.

That is because you are overly generous with assumptions to justify their claims, which is typical of people who are apologetic of fraudulent entities such as Musk

>Tesla already has an established history...

But they haven't save the planet yet. Please give some thought about what you are writing before responding.

>There’s no evidence that the impact on the extremely low density part of the atmosphere makes any kind of environmental problem

That is what people thought about automobiles emitting co2. If we have learned anything, we would be extremely wary of anything that causes big disruptions in the environments, how ever innocent it might seem...

I applaud your mental gymnastics by which you put full self driving to be similar to that of remodeling of a house.

I have nothing else to add. Thanks for the laughs.

> there communication is enough to deduce the limits of their technology..

Not deducing. By what they explicitly state in the manual. About the "need to keep hands on the wheel always". So again. I am not "deducing" it.

>So why isn't the person who coined the term 'homo sapien' blatantly evil for coining the term?

I don't know. Was the person who coined the the term trying to sell human beings as being wise? Are people suffering because of this word? What is your goddamn point?

Tesla is evil because they use lies to SELL. use lies and project a false image to get INVESTMENT. Please keep this in mind when coming up with further examples.

>The existence of imperfectly stated motivations doesn't cause a cessation of causal history.

Ha. Now you are talking about "history" that does not exist yet. Are you really this misguided or just faking it?

That is what you said. You said no one knows the full list of hardware requirements to make full self driving work. Tesla is claiming that their cars have this "full hardware for self driving".

In other words the company is as genuine as the quack around the corner who sell cancer cure...

I am not sure. Why are you mentioning flights? I am talking about this [1] and [2]. It does not have anything to do with regular planes..

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/spacex-launch-last-y...

[2] https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/25/spacex-rocket-carved-gia...

>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update...

You don't work in software, right?

Is there any concern regarding the damage these frequent and big rocket launches are doing to the upper atmosphere? Are people aware of such a thing? Because I have seen very few discussion around the same....

>Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off...

You have said it yourself that no one know enough to make this assumption. How can Tesla then make this assumption?

> Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics.

I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. This is a very simple fact, and it should have been apparent to people a Tesla, and the fact that they went ahead and did this kind of marketing makes them "blatantly evil" in my books. Because, as you said, it is open and they are unashamed about it. Other safety features that are widely available in similar cars from other companies is irrelavant here. I am not even sure why you dragged it into this.

>If we think long-term, their actions are part of what allows the long term to exist in the first place.

What kind of circular logic is that? If they are not really interested (their real motivation) in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows long term to exist".

To be clear, by misleading marketing, I meant things like the "autopilot" feature. And claiming that they have "full self driving hardware". I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people?

>At no point in the chain of logic is it necessary to call upon the motivations of Elon Musk.

We are interested in their motivation because we are thinking long term. When you are need of a million bucks, and a person shows up with a million bucks that they are willing to give you, without asking for payback, will you accept it right away? Or will you try to infer the true motivation behind the act, that may turn out to be sinister? This is irrespective of the fact that the other person is giving you real money, that can help you right now. Will you think like, we don't need to worry about their motivations as long as we are getting real money. Will you?

Hope I am clear.

You are squinting too hard. Don't squint too hard. You ll miss out all the important details.

As you said earlier that "no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware". And if that is true, claiming that "our cars have full self driving hardware", is nothing but a big, fat lie.

That is like selling a computer by saying that it has "full stock prediction hardware".Oh, I am not a fraud because I sincerely believe that my computer can see into the future. It just needs the right software. Oh believe me, I make this claim in good faith.

What a crock of shit.

>Tesla's safety record actually is such that if scaled up, their would be a massive drop in the number of deaths per day...

There is not enough data to do this "scaling up". So doing so would be incredibly misleading (But doesn't stop tesla's PR from doing the same).

>Tesla is also a leading player in moving away from destroying our planet.

The actions of this company and the persons behind this somehow does not feel compatible with such a goal. I am sorry. I am just not buying it. It is more probable that this "saving the planet" narrative is something that is meant to differentiate from the competition and to attract investors. Do you think Elon Musk could have created a company that builds ICE cars and emerged as a major player? It is "save the planet" for tesla and "save humanity by going to mars" for spacex..

I mean, is this so hard to see?

No, it is not the crash that makes the evil. It is how they handle it. And how they put blatantly misleading marketing out there, along with poorly researched features that may or may not have lead to overconfidence from the drivers along with half baked tech, that resulted in crashes such as these.