3Victoria
Active Member
This is possibly true for processes that are well known. Not so much for new products with new processes, a new supply line, etc. EM tends to choose the best time with no risks going true.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Actually, Design Studio promised (well, expected) full EAP differentiation in December 2016... That is the part that showed when people bought cars.
Elon Musk then promised FSD differentiating features above that in 3-6 months from January 2017.
Or course we do not even have AP1 parity in November 2017, let alone any EAP or FSD features.
Ok, get this:
We should - and most of us do - accept somewhat missed timelines, especially bold and aggressive ones 'set' by Elon Musk himself. Elon-time and all that... I mean it's Tesla, they've done wonderful stuff, and they need to keep doing wonderful stuff in order to survive.
So I don't think missed targets is the underlying problem.
I think the problem is the lack of transparency on what's going on. With extremely important features like EAP/FSD - at least we should expect some honest info that they will be behind, and that we must have much patience, because it doesn't seem to turn out as they said. Not just leaving us waiting, and then later feeling screwed for believing them.
(Instead, we have a CEO who, Dec. 22, 2016 tweets NN's 'now working well'. In January he tweets FSD features will noticeably depart from EAP in '3 months probably, 6 months definitely'. And so forth. When the company's CEO puts such stuff in writing - media is all over it, portraying it as truth - and the customers have no reason to suspect it's not the case.)
Now if it turns out that the FSD video had absolutely nothing to do with Teslas current development - if it was completely staged, like the moon landing
- it becomes so much worse. Much, much worse than it has to be. And it gets worse and worse.The net result is a huge loss in credibility. And sympathy. And excitement.
It's sad, and it's true.
Fortunately, it's not the end of the world! It's a car. What a car
Indeed. It is not only about what they knew, but what they reasonably should have known...
Finally Tesla/Elon could have retracted previous promises and provided updated timelines transparently. Obviously they never do until events force them apparent.
I would like to propose two TMC "laws", corollaries of Godwin's Law.
Any thread about EAP or FSD that extends beyond 4 pages on TMC will have:
1. A screenshot of the EAP/FSD promises ("AnxietyRanger's Law"), and
2. An accusation of Tesla fraud ("Oktane's Law")
Godwin's Law, for those that don't know, is "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1".
Note to AnxietyRanger and Oktane: I love you both.
Any thread about EAP or FSD that extends beyond 4 pages on TMC will have:
1. A screenshot of the EAP/FSD promises ("AnxietyRanger's Law"), and
2. An accusation of Tesla fraud ("Oktane's Law")
Godwin's Law, for those that don't know, is "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1".
Note to AnxietyRanger and Oktane: I love you both.
Wow compared to what is actually available that presentation is downright fraudulent.
At least on the german version of the site there is only ONE sentence concerning FSD and that it is not yet available...but the whole eap suite in all its non-existing glory gets presented as available right now.....
I´m seriously amazed european ministries haven`t drowned Tesla in law suits yet.....
Last edited:
We are approaching the statute of limitations for many jurisdictions for Q4 buyers for some claims like common law fraud (good luck on that just throwing out an example). Discovery rule might extend that but getting down to the wire.
I truly hope the boxes were at least made by the same algorithm that drove the car - even if done in post-processing. If they were made on some completely different piece of software, that would totally be faking it.
As for the use of co-ordinates, I don't automatically consider that faking. If the car didn't have the ability to follow the navigation system yet, so be it. Now hard-coding traffic lights etc. certainly does seem like a mapping approach, not what people tend to attribute to Tesla...
I'm baffled as to why people would consider these things cheating. He noted that it was a demo of the self-driving hardware. And so it was. But who thought that the software was ready? As far as object classification... well, that's basically a download. Did they have it running on the AP2 hardware? Maybe... or maybe not. I don't see that it matters.
The complexity in this system is not in the object classification. It's in the logic required to navigate the streets in a complex and dynamic environment. None of that was shown in the demo.
This is one of those cases, where people seem to have drawn implications from the video that they shouldn't..
Except for the whole website thing saying EAP would be rolling out in Dec 2016....
Elon/Tesla is selling FSD to their customers today... and it doesn't exist. how is this not fraud?... How about the bond buyers in July?... you think he mentioned it to them?
well, i'm sure his team of lawyers are fraud proofing his statements... at least they better be. so, it's possible that he's not legally indictable for fraud... does that make you feel good?
No one.
And you're missing the point.
The question is: Who thought that the video wasn't showing off Tesla's software, or even their state of progress? Who thought Tesla didn't even have anything close to resembling what the video depicts? Who thought that the 'demonstration' video was not a demonstration, but fiction?
Remember, people payed thousands of dollars for this. Why did they do that? What motivated them to pay for something that was not finished yet?
As time goes by - and more and more info comes in place - it seems more and more likely that Tesla had nothing close to what the 'demonstration' video portrays. Right now, no one actually knows (or can say it out loud), but we're talking about the likelyhood of something, aren't we? If the real answer was communicated clearly to us, Tesla would be in a whole different kind of shape right now - positively or negatively. Why aren't they taking advantage of a possible spin on this? Why keep us in the dark of what's going on? What are they building in there?
people on the investment board spent weeks mulling over the math regarding FSD and ride sharing valuations... and they've added it to their DCFs... that is why this exists as an idea and not a product. but he has to "sell" the product in order for it to remain in the stock analysis... look at ARK pumping this garbage plot:
Could the Tesla Model 3 Become the Cheapest Car on the Road?
they've needed the stock elevated for the last 3 years in order to get capital for Auto... Tesla Energy, Solar Roofs, Tesla Mobility and now the Tesla Semi are all names of products that do NOT exist... except on analysts paper... to maintain this extraordinary valuation.
like I said, fraud can rarely be proven.
^ Tesla Energy exists?!
I guess the disconnect is the way that Musk works (and has always worked, as far as I can tell): launch the idea first, then design & build a product based on the idea.
Speaking of disconnects:
IMO: the demo was just a playback of a pre-recorded route.
The first set of disconnects (500 miles) was calibration and route training. They fed the disconnects into their shiny new DGX server back in the mothership and manually taught it what to do in those specific circumstances.
#xx809 was the playback.
I guess the disconnect is the way that Musk works (and has always worked, as far as I can tell): launch the idea first, then design & build a product based on the idea.
Speaking of disconnects:
IMO: the demo was just a playback of a pre-recorded route.
The first set of disconnects (500 miles) was calibration and route training. They fed the disconnects into their shiny new DGX server back in the mothership and manually taught it what to do in those specific circumstances.
#xx809 was the playback.
and that demonstrates the capability of what that hardware can do, when the system learns the myriad variables one would encounter on the road - precisely the purpose of that video.
As if that ever deterred anybody who wanted to say something (Esp. if it's hard to really identify you).
Anyway, I also wanted to add on all the "drawing boxes is stupid" comments that ape code actually does have a "vizualizer" process. It is disabled on production builds but it's fairly conceivable it does draw the boxes around stuff and shows them on cid (cid infrastructure to show videos from ape exists too of course).
No, it needs a special debugging build. There are even instructions on how to produce it, but lacking source you cannot really build anything
Similar threads
