You are being dishonest. You literally preached that Tesla will have Level 5 by the end of 2018.
Infact you were so adament, it prompted me to ask that question for you to reiterate.
The statement you made in May 2017 was
That doesn't sound like some neural statement. That is an adamant statement of believe and fact. You are making a definite assertion. If you swapped out the subject with anything else to remove bias, no human would see that statement other than it being a definite assertion being made by someone. You asserted that "Even if Tesla releases in late 2018/early 2019, they will still be ahead."
This is what prompted me to ask you the question in which you basically responded with yes but blamed others and regulation if it doesn't happen. Not them having the software ready.
Your question was "so you truly believe that tesla will
release L5 in 2018?". I basically responded
no. Where did I say I believe they would get the software done in 2018 (much less be willing to bet on it)? That's all things you are imagining and putting words in my mouth. My point was even
if they do so, it's irrelevant, since if the legal framework is not there to use, they can't release it anyways (and from the whole SAE definition argument ongoing it's not really L5 if usage is limited to very small geofenced areas that might allow it). Your question was about
release, not about getting the software done (you never asked me about that).
The whole Audi level 3 system is a prime example. By all means it seemed they had the software and hardware pretty much ready to go, but the legal framework to allow it was not there, so they had to ditch their plans.
You didn't find it unlikely that they won't get the software done. That is what's important here. You found it unlikely because you believe that big bad bogie man oil automakers will try to enact regulation to slow Tesla down.
You already asserted what you believed which is that "Even if Tesla releases in late 2018/early 2019, they will still be ahead."
LOL, again trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I say I believed Tesla will release it in late 2018/early 2019? I was responding to your claim that the delay in the promised schedule would mean fans who claim Tesla is ahead would have been wrong (context below). My point was even if Tesla released with that delayed schedule, they would have still been ahead. Did I say I believe they will do so? Nope, in fact as above I said the exact
opposite. And the funny thing here in 2021, is given all the efforts back then have been delayed or cancelled (except perhaps Waymo's), Tesla still has a chance at being ahead depending on how the beta goes.
This also dispel the notion from many tesla fans who claim that tesla is ahead and not only ahead but ahead by years. But we both know that's not how it works right? People will twist and contour things to fit their own warped logic.
Example below and look at those upvotes
If
@powertoold post was strictly accident then guess what? It was already fulfilled in the very first month. The beta testers went over 150k miles without an accident and there still hasn't been any accident.
Any source to this claim? A quick search did not come up with how many miles Beta testers have travelled so far. Plus any accidents that have happened may not necessarily have been reported yet. Note even if they passed the 150k mark they are not out of the woods yet. Two accidents in short succession would break that. As below the claim was talking about "
on average," not just passing 150k miles without an accident.
Clearly the only way to compare and evaluate a SDC that is still in testing to average human reliability and accident rate, is not by trying to count accidents that happen when there are humans literally taking over and preventing them. Because there won't be any accidents. Because the drivers are preventing them. duhhhhhhhhh.
But by actually counting accidents that WOULD HAVE occurred if the human driver didn't take over.
Hence they are called safety related disengagement.
The context here is that Tesla is done, its game over and Tesla is 5+ years ahead. They already won and it will be ready in 6 months and it will have human reliability (accident rate). Then someone then looked up the stats for human reliability and then
@powertoold then said it will easily match that in 6 months.
Its quite clear to any sane and logical thinking person that
@powertoold is now back peddling and trying to change the definition and it doesn't make sense because his prediction if viewed any other way would be fulfilled because there hasn't been an accident over hundreds of thousands of miles already.
No logical person would take the angle you took.
Safety related disengagement from one DirtyTesla video with many more safety related disengagement that i didn't include.
Point is
@powertoold never backpedaled. He was explicitly responding to a question about accidents per 150k miles: "What is your estimate / guestimate for
no accidents on average every 150K miles?
It's crazy I even think this, but 6-9 months lol.". This is again another prime example of you putting words into people's mouth to fight against a strawman position someone else never made, even after they made clarifying statements that is not what they meant.