-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software
- Thread starter Bladerskb
- Start date
mikes_fsd
Banned
And?
rxlawdude
Active Member
Yeah, because if you do that, you'll have to explain how Tesla's interaction with the DMV couldn't be summarized as "Please ignore our CEO, were just an L2 system no matter what he says, and it's going to be a while before we're L3 (much less L5), but when we are, we will give you lots of warning." Its' not like it says that right in the document I was told to read and is the basis of this thread:
Easier to just act like you're going to ignore someone and then run around and somehow thumbs down the posts you can't see if you did what you claim, which totally helps with your credibility.
Next maneuver: Butwhattabout Waymo!?
Last edited:
rxlawdude
Active Member
FFS. You've been corrected for misstatements so many times. You incessantly make accusations, predict what Tesla won't do, claim that FSD will never come to pass, and that Elon pissed in your cornflakes. (Maybe not the cornflakes part.)
It's funny you thought I was referring to you. Narcissistic, too?
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
Just curious, has anyone independently verified the authenticity of these documents coming out of Plainsite?
We know Plainsite is associated with TSLA shortsellers. Trusting any content from them without verifying it first is like trusting a fox's report on a henhouse.
It would be relatively simple to put our own FOIA request together, if nobody else has yet. Even if the content on Plainsite isn't doctored, I don't believe it's the whole truth. There are probably hundreds of communications between Tesla and the DMV, and it's obvious that Plainsite is only selecting the ones that appear damaging to Tesla to release. There might be a lot we could learn about Tesla's progress in autonomy if we had a full picture, instead of just cherry-picked pieces.
We know Plainsite is associated with TSLA shortsellers. Trusting any content from them without verifying it first is like trusting a fox's report on a henhouse.
It would be relatively simple to put our own FOIA request together, if nobody else has yet. Even if the content on Plainsite isn't doctored, I don't believe it's the whole truth. There are probably hundreds of communications between Tesla and the DMV, and it's obvious that Plainsite is only selecting the ones that appear damaging to Tesla to release. There might be a lot we could learn about Tesla's progress in autonomy if we had a full picture, instead of just cherry-picked pieces.
Last edited:
Wouldn't Tesla immediately say they were faked if they were? Wouldn't misrepresenting official communications of a state official be a crime?
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
Tesla doesn't make a lot of PR announcements. And if they did, it's usually better to let fake stories die than draw attention to them.
And like I said, it doesn't need to be doctored in any way in order for it to be misleading. It could just be a small piece of a bigger picture deliberately being taken out of context.
Also I'm assuming you're unfamiliar with Plainsite's history? To say the least, it's shady. This isn't an unbiased source itself, but you can judge for yourself: How Aaron Greenspan’s Charity PlainSite Silences Critics by Cyberstalking
We've been though this. If "shady sources" is a problem, then Elon has done just as much (Pedo tweets, lying about ex employees, treating spouses awfully, COVID denials, etc). Either we argue that Plainsite forged the doc, or it's real. Yes, there could be other context that someone else is welcome to expose. It's not like Tesla (or any company) only generally tells us stuff they want us to hear and is biased.
And the idea
Okay, this is making more sense (a TESLAQ nutter spreading FUD). Of course it's immediately referenced by the usual trolls on TMC.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
That explains why it was redacted from the public release. The sentence "Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality" is Miguel's personal conclusion based on the call, not a direct quote from the call. So Miguel heard about how Tesla is at L2 and not sure when Tesla will reach L5 and reached a personal conclusion that Elon's tweet doesn't match what Tesla currently has. But it is a personal conclusion, not a quote from the call.
Edited: correction it was Miguel, not CJ's personal conclusion
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
Wait..... You mean TESLAQ and their trolls have purposely deceived people and attributed another's personal opinions to Tesla's CJ Moore? I'm flabbergasted! 
"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software from Bladerskb
"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software from Bladerskb
Well the "Elon's tweet" line is in the publicly FOI sourced PDF from the California DMV, if you copy/paste from the PDF. The fact it appears to be a personal note by Miguel Acosta, Chief, Autonomous Vehicles Branch is still newsworthy IMO. Shows how discussions behind the scenes must be somewhat apprehensive between the agency and Tesla.Wait..... You mean TESLAQ and their trolls have purposely deceived people and attributed another's personal opinions to Tesla's CJ Moore? I'm flabbergasted!
"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software from Bladerskb
Plainsite didn't make it up, don't shoot the messenger. Maybe ask Miguel to clarify what discussions he had with CJ. Several records were not released under FOI, likely they contain more 'personal notes'. Interesting that the person deciding what to release under FOI is that same person.
Finally, as required by the California Public Records Act, the person responsible for the
determination to withhold responsive records pursuant to Government Code section 6255
is Miguel Acosta,
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
The quote is not fabricated. The quote did not come from Plainsite. The quote is a real quote from the CA DMV. But the CA DMV decided to redact it from their own document because it was personal commentary. The CA DMV recognized that CJ did not actually say that quote, rather it was Miguel's interpretation of what CJ said, and therefore it was misleading.
The deception is from TSLAQ who used a quote that the CA DMV themselves said not to use.
Last edited:
Also, remember that this is really on the CA DMV, who did a horrible job in the original document here.
They redacted the line in the document, but in the worst way possible- with a white bar, making it look like they were trying to even hide it was redacted, but then leaving the text in the PDF so it could just be copied. You cannot fault anyone that sees that and thinks it's a juicy element the DMV didn't want the public to see.
If it had said "Per CJ, L4 will be out by Q4 2021" then it would have also been quoted heavily.
They redacted the line in the document, but in the worst way possible- with a white bar, making it look like they were trying to even hide it was redacted, but then leaving the text in the PDF so it could just be copied. You cannot fault anyone that sees that and thinks it's a juicy element the DMV didn't want the public to see.
If it had said "Per CJ, L4 will be out by Q4 2021" then it would have also been quoted heavily.
I'm not going to even think of trying to unwind this BS.
Plainsite is run by a TESLAQ nutter.
This is supposedly a CA DMV doc.
Miguel can't read CJ's mind.
Plainsite is run by a TESLAQ nutter.
This is supposedly a CA DMV doc.
Miguel can't read CJ's mind.
diplomat33
Average guy who loves autonomous vehicles
True.
It is a legit CA DMV document. Greenspan requested the document from the CA DMV under the California Public Records Act and then hosted it on Plainsite.
Miguel does not need to read CJ's mind. He was on the call. He wrote a memo about what he heard from CJ on the call.