[dangus]

My devil’s advocate response for that would be that Tesla as the first mover on the market gets to call their product whatever they want.

Is a “garbage disposal” a device that can dispose of all garbage in your sink? No, all it can handle is light food scraps. But the inventor named it a “garbage disposal” not a “light food waste processing device.”

To me it seems stupid that so much of the debate after all these years is about the name. I think we are beyond the point where the name matters.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They get to call it that when it can drive safely on snow covered roads. Before that happens, it's marketing hype that can't be relied on in all scenarios. When they transitioned to radar-only, they sold "FSD" that needed a whitelist to ignore the sensor input in problematic locations. What other half-baked hacks are in the current implementation?

[dangus]

Here’s a thought experiment: would you turn on traditional cruise control during a snowstorm?

I wouldn’t.

A self driving system that only works during good weather is still useful and has non-zero value.

[ethbr1]

"Full" is a dangerous word.

Especially for a device that has health impacts.

Typically the FTC regulates truth in advertising by (1) Is it an unequivocal statement? & (2) Does it have a health impact?

[dangus]

Sounds like if that’s true then the FTC will get right on it and has a slam dunk case.

[ethbr1]

They're a bit busy with Amazon now, I think.

[Latty]

I don't think past mistakes mean we shouldn't demand reasonable names for things.

If you want to use an arbitrary name, use one, if you pick a descriptive name and don't do as described, it's just false advertising.

[dangus]

And yet nobody cares that lottery products have names that imply winning, prizes, pots of gold, etc even though almost nobody wins statistically.

Again, I just think that marketing is marketing and everyone knows that. Everyone knows that a trash bag isn’t indestructible and that a paper towel can’t absorb a tsunami.