[LunicLynx]

But this is more your feelings than actually factual.

I mean sure you can say that the timelines did slip a lot but that doesn’t really have anything to with the rest that is insinuated here.

I would argue a timeline slipping doesn’t mean you go about killing people and lie about it next. I would even go so far as to say that the timelines did slip to exactly avoid that.

[epistasis]

That's not "feelings" that's reputational data.

Tesla continues to overpromise, about safety, about timelines that slip due to safety.

We should be a bit more hard nosed and data based when dealing with these things rather than dismissing the core question due to "feelings" and due to Tesla not releasing the sort of data tha allows fair analysis b

[Forgeties79]

> But this is more your feelings than actually factual

Seems to be the other way, though I find that kind of rude to assert as opposed to asking me what informs my opinion. Other comments have answered that very well

[close04]

> a timeline slipping

You're generous with your words to the point they sound like apologism. Musk has been promising fully autonomous driving "within 1-3 years" since 2013. And he's been charging customers money for that promise for just as long. Timelines keep slipping for more than half of the company's existence now, that's not a slipup anymore.

Tesla has never been transparent with the data on which they base their claims of safety and performance of the system. They tout some nice looking numbers but when anyone like the NHTSA requests the real data they refuse to provide it.

When NHTSA shows you numbers, they're lying. If I tell you I have evidence Tesla is lying you'll tell me to show it or STFU. When Tesla does the same after so many people died, you go all soft and claim everyone else is lying. That's very one sided behavior, more about feelings than facts.

> But this is more your feelings than actually factual.

The article is about "NHTSA crash data, combined with Tesla’s new disclosure of robotaxi mileage". Sounds factual enough. If Tesla is sitting on a trove of data that proves otherwise but refuse to publish it that's on them. If anyone is about the feels and not the facts here, it's you.

[LunicLynx]

But these are not facts it’s your assumptions on the matter.

Even the already included escape route.

> If I tell you I have evidence Tesla is lying you'll tell me to show it or STFU.

I mean I wouldn’t choose those words but yes. Yes, you have to prove it, because you state it as a fact.

Innocent until proven guilty. There is a reason to this phrase.

[Forgeties79]

Another commenter linked plenty of proof

[toomuchtodo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.

https://www.tesladeaths.com/

https://elonmusk.today/

The data on this matter of lies, fraud, and bad faith is robust.

[FireBeyond]

> I mean sure you can say that the timelines did slip a lot but that doesn’t really have anything to with the rest that is insinuated here.

No. Not at all. This isn't "timelines slip". This is Musk saying, and I quote, "Self driving is a solved problem. We are just tuning the details." in 2016, and in 2021, "Right now our highest priority is working on solving the problem."

Somewhere along the line, it apparently got "unsolved".

"Timelines slipped" is far too generous for someone who, whenever Tesla is facing bad press, will imply that a new FSD release coming in 6 months, 3 months, a month, will solve all the issues plaguing it so far. Repeatedly. Those aren't real timelines.

Hell, even Tesla has had to add comments to investor and securities documents saying that "Musk's statements are aspirational and do not always reflect engineering realities."

[LunicLynx]

I don’t see how this is connected to the point at hand here.

I think taking time to make sure the system works is the right call. Delaying it is the right call. Not publishing something because you had a different impression previously, just because, is the right call.

I think it integrity to delay a product even when your investors might get angry. Is it a winning strategy at wallstreet? No, probably not.

But what is the argument here „Musk bad“ because he delays a product because it’s not ready?

I think doing the due diligence is required here. Musk argument „it’s solved“ could even be argued by „look at Waymo“ they are doing it, aren’t they?

Tesla is aiming for more than that though. And as it is in product development sometimes, sometimes your don’t know what you don‘t know. Because why do you want to focus on chains guarding parkingspots, your cameras aren’t able to see, when your car can’t even drive through the city.

This is such a big thing to solve and 100% is impossible given some definitions.

Back to the article, I think delaying for safety is the right call, and that is also what the article says. It’s just that the article is in bad faith, as most of the arguments here are.

You probably would turn around and slam Musk for a System that obviously problematic as the alternative and until then it’s saying that he delays.

And if it were obviously problematic I think it would be much louder than just an article from a website that is know for having a biased view at things.

[Forgeties79]

> I think taking time to make sure the system works is the right call. Delaying it is the right call.

You’re absolutely right but musk’s companies constantly fail to do that.

You should look up the past year or so of what’s happened at Tesla’s gigafactory in Germany. It’s pretty wild.

Also different company, same issue/owner: https://www.newschannel5.com/news/workers-walk-off-nashville...

Do you think Twitter/musk took time to get Grok right before unleashing it on social media?