"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software

[gearchruncher]

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.

The problem is, you're ignoring history and how this came about, and acting like the data we have now existed weeks ago.

This is not "supposedly" a CA DMV Doc. It is. absolutely nobody has suggested this is faked / fabricated in any way. If it was, Tesla or CA DMV would have said so, and the people that hate Plainsite could use this to go after them for attributing false information to a government employee.

The original document said "Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." Flat out, it said that, but it had been redacted, but in such a way that anyone with the ability to drag a mouse could see it. That's news, period, especially in an environment where Tesla's performance around autonomy has basically never met Elon's tweets.

Miguel, as a CA DMV employee, should always know his info can get FOIA'd and should try and make all communications as clear as possible, which did not happen here and led to confusion, which is not Tesla nor Plainsite's fault. It's good that this information eventually came out, but it could have been better, and there is zero way for Plainsite to have known this context based on what the CA DMV gave them for the FOIA request.

It's Plainsite that released the second FOIA package that actually cleared this up! They look pretty clean here actually. Nobody else did their own FOIA, and Plainsite didn't hide the data they got which made Tesla look better than the original story.

If we get to use the future to analyze the past, I'm going to laugh at anyone that thought they were getting a Plaid+ or Radar in their car just because the website took orders for that

 

[mark95476]

My my... Probably a lot of text to parse through in that doc (assuming it's real) and TESLAQ & trolls latch on to a single fabricated quote. Lots of finger pointing, empty words, and what not, in response but this is absolutely BS:

"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software

I'd bet TESLAQ & trolls insist they're telling the "truth". Their "truth" has been BS from day 1.

 

[gearchruncher]

I'd bet TESLAQ & trolls insist they're telling the "truth". Their "truth" has been BS from day 1.

And yet you're sure you can know how everyone is reacting without reading the whole thread. Not exactly setting a good example of how "the other side" behaves better and is more anchored to reality.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I'm confused, are we saying that Miguel misinterpreted what CJ said? Is the engineering reality that Tesla robotaxis are coming this year?

 

[diplomat33]

My my... Probably a lot of text to parse through in that doc (assuming it's real)

The document is real.

but this is absolutely BS:

"Elon’s tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." - CJ Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software

That line was redacted from the document.

 

[diplomat33]

I'm confused, are we saying that Miguel misinterpreted what CJ said? Is the engineering reality that Tesla robotaxis are coming this year?

No. CJ said that Tesla has L2 and that Tesla needs to achieve a disengagement rate of 1 per 1-2M miles before they advance to L3+. So the engineering reality is that Tesla is at L2 and does not have a disengagement rate good enough for L3+ yet. The robotaxis are not coming this year.

"engineering reality" per CJ = Tesla is L2 and needs a disengagement rate of 1 per 1-2M miles.
Elon's tweets = Tesla will achieve L5 this year.

Miguel concluded that these two statements don't match. So Miguel concluded that the engineering reality does not match Elon's tweets.

The issue is that Miguel used "per CJ" which implied that the conclusion came from CJ when it actually was Miguel's conclusion of what CJ said.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[mark95476]

I wonder how Tesla is going to approach dealing with Migel and the DMV in the future. Migel/DMV can make all sorts of personal "conclusions", attribute them to Tesla employees, and publish in official DMV docs for TESLAQ and trolls to make hay.

 

[diplomat33]

I wonder how Tesla is going to approach dealing with Migel and the DMV in the future.

By law, Tesla is not allowed to deploy autonomous driving in CA without the approval of the CA DMV, so Tesla has to deal with the CA DMV whether they like it or not.

Migel/DMV can make all sorts of personal "conclusions", attribute them to Tesla employees, and publish in official DMV docs for TESLAQ and trolls to make hay.

It was not published. It was redacted.

You can see that the quote is not in the document that Plainsite published:

https://imgur.com/ImR0fH0

 

[Daniel in SD]

I wonder how Tesla is going to approach dealing with Migel and the DMV in the future. Migel/DMV can make all sorts of personal "conclusions", attribute them to Tesla employees, and publish in official DMV docs for TESLAQ and trolls to make hay.

What is the alternative to a "personal conclusion" when summarizing a conversation?
Obviously we would need a transcript of the conversation to conclude whether or not Miguel's interpretation was correct. You seem to believe his conclusion was incorrect? It seems like we have no evidence either way so I see no reason to doubt Miguel's conclusion especially since it seems very likely that Elon's statements on Twitter will in fact not match "engineering reality".

 

[gearchruncher]

Migel/DMV can make all sorts of personal "conclusions", attribute them to Tesla employees, and publish in official DMV docs for TESLAQ and trolls to make hay.

Other solution:
Elon could stop tweeting timelines and hyperbole about FSD performance, and then the DMV wouldn't need to try and figure out what is going on and make conclusions when Tesla engineering shows up in person presenting something totally different and wholly less capable than they would be expecting.

 

[DanCar]

Other solution:
Elon could stop tweeting timelines and hyperbole about FSD performance, and then the DMV wouldn't need to try and figure out what is going on and make conclusions when Tesla engineering shows up in person presenting something totally different and wholly less capable than they would be expecting.

Tesla would also have to rename away from FSD. I'm hoping California takes a hard stance on this one and makes Tesla and Elon walk back all claims of FSD or comply with California's FSDs requirements.

 

[pilotSteve]

Elon….. drop the “F”….. limited self driving delivered would pretty cool IMO.

 

[ZeApelido]

The title of this thread makes it sound like the quote came directly from CJ.

So yeah, that's not true.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The title of this thread makes it sound like the quote came directly from CJ.

So yeah, that's not true.

Only if you're TSLAQ.
Does CJ Moore saying "Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ." make any sense?
It didn't say: "Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality" per CJ.
Maybe we can change the title to:
CA DMV: "Elon's tweet does not match engineering reality per CJ [Moore, Tesla's Director of Autopilot Software]"
Or we could just click on the click bait title and read.

 

[gearchruncher]

The title of this thread makes it sound like the quote came directly from CJ.

So yeah, that's not true.

The title of this thread IS a DIRECT quote from a CA DMV document. Zero editing. Only information received weeks afterwards made it clear it's misleading.

If only we knew someone else where we start threads with direct quotes from them and then two weeks later we find out it wasn't true Somehow we blame the reader in those cases though for not understanding what they MEANT instead of what they SAID. No such concession is given the other direction though for some odd reason that nobody will ever figure out.

 

[jabloomf1230]

Or we could just click on the click bait title and read.

Or since the issue posed by the OP has been resolved, we could ignore the temptation to look at any new posts in this thread.

 

[ZeApelido]

The title of this thread IS a DIRECT quote from a CA DMV document. Zero editing. Only information received weeks afterwards made it clear it's misleading.

If only we knew someone else where we start threads with direct quotes from them and then two weeks later we find out it wasn't true Somehow we blame the reader in those cases though for not understanding what they MEANT instead of what they SAID. No such concession is given the other direction though for some odd reason that nobody will ever figure out.

The attribution part is also in the doc?

Then the dude who wrote the doc is a hack.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The attribution part is also in the doc?

Then the dude who wrote the doc is a hack.

The DMV talked to CJ Moore. I’m not sure why this is so confusing to people. Does it really surprise people that the head of Autopilot doesn’t think that Tesla will be at L5 this year?

 

[Daniel in SD]

Or since the issue posed by the OP has been resolved, we could ignore the temptation to look at any new posts in this thread.

What issue?

 

[gearchruncher]

Then the dude who wrote the doc is a hack.

Like I said, if we're calling people "hacks" for inaccurate comments, we've got an interesting person at the head of Tesla.

This whole thing is literally about how Elon's tweets are not realistic, and your defense is to call someone a hack when they communicate poorly. In this case, in a document they never thought would be public.

Standards for thee, but not for me.