Perhaps you could summarize what was your point. This started with a discussion about what the graph showed and what that meant.
That is the point I’m referring to. At first I thought you didn’t understand the point I was trying to make (without necessarily agreeing with it).
But I’ve been increasingly getting the impression that you wouldn’t even be able to quote the point of mine I’m making.
The former would be on me for not being able to explain. The latter… that’s where I think your contrariness is what I’m talking to, not a good-faith discussion of any point I’m making.
Certainly that is what Tesla has been suggesting.
Ah so Tesla is saying they are being cautious and waiting for the capability and safety to suit a wider and lower safety score tester pool, but your theory is that their true motives have actually been your theories?
This sounds like conspiracy talk.
So your theory is now that Tesla was improving driver monitoring when they said they were, but during the months between when they stated they were improving monitoring (months when there were no major outbreaks of attention lapse issues), during those silent months they were STILL working on driver monitoring, and THAT was the reason for the delayed expansion?
And all of this slow rollout played out again in a matter of a few weeks with 10.69, NOT because the first release of the new core tech (Occupancy Network) was rolled out slowly for safety (like Tesla said), but because they had somehow had a major regression in… wait for it… driver monitoring?
And you’re saying “how do I know” this slow 10.69.x rollout wasn’t because they were secretly working on monitoring? (To what end I wonder as there have been no major issues come out about monitoring, and no accidents).
Man this is straight up conspiracy talk.
There were a lot of people whining at Elon. I think that is why we got that (very bizarre!).
So again your theory is that the slow rollout is because Tesla is SUPER concerned about driver monitoring and attentiveness.
AND you think Tesla just allowed people back in to this version who had been kicked out by this often secret monitoring system advances? Simply because they complained?
That makes literally zero sense.
Again, hard to know exactly what point you were making with the graph.
Again. I’m not sure you can even QUOTE the point you’re arguing. It seems you just like to take a counter position (and your little passive-aggressive laugh reactions) to any post that suggests FSD might be improving.
I went back and reviewed your posts, and they plainly state that you think individual users are driving substantially more with FSDb than they used to. Seems like we should figure out if that is true.
I believe this true. Because I’ve seen dozens and dozens of people reporting it.
Has nothing to do with the point in question. The miles per person per release has nothing to do with the point I made about that chart.
If I recall, it was brought up as an obvious counter to your point where you suggested (and continue to go to increasingly incredulous lengths, see above) that FSD Beta is no better today than 10.2.
—
I’m just going to leave this here.
I like to believe that Daniel was discussing the issue in good faith. I have trouble believing the same of you any longer.