Hey moderator, where is the 'Hey Elon, where is FSD?' thread?

[u00mem9]

After the WSJ article was released, I went looking for the thread where we were discussing what Tesla and Elon actually knew when they released AP2 hardware. I can't find it, so maybe it's been removed?

Obviously, there are now first-hand accounts that Elon knew that 'Full Self Driving' was a complete misrepresentation of the reality, and that he decided to head down the fraud path... not good.

 

[deonb]

Elon, Where is the FSD features you promised?

 

[u00mem9]

Thanks! search (or the searcher ) is nearly worthless

 

[u00mem9]

Locked...well, where should the fraud be discussed?

 

[PhaseWhite]

Why not continue it here... Can someone summarize the key points of the WSJ article? The electrek summary is pretty bare.

 

[azred]

The $3000 has been sucked up by a black hole but perhaps the people who naively paid it will get updated hardware for free so that EAP will work for them when it's released in about 2030.

 

[BestRadar]

Here is a summary...

WSJ casts negative light on Tesla’s Autopilot ambitions

 

[alcibiades]

Did my post with the screenshots and the summary get deleted?

 

[sandpiper]

Locked...well, where should the fraud be discussed?

I might as well stick my head into the ring to re-hash the moderately pro-Tesla side of the argument.

1. I don't think it could be considered fraud. I don't have the sales agreement, but I'm sure that they lawyers have covered this well.

2. The term fraud implies malicious intent. I think this more a case of promising what they thought they could do, and not succeeding (yet).

3. Elon has a long track record of unilaterally promising the impossible, regardless of the protestations among his team, and then driving them to deliver (late). I believe that he, and other key folks, genuinely believe (or believed???) that they can/could get there. I suspect that this might be a case where the icebergs of reality are too large to overcome. And it might be that some refunds will be due to people who paid for the FSD option. That's not the end of the world.

4. I do think that they will end up delivering on more advanced systems - L3 at least. That would of a lot of value.

 

[efusco]

Did my post with the screenshots and the summary get deleted?

Yes, inadvertently--tried to message you, but you have messaging turned off. I'm unable to restore it but you can repost and it will be approved.

Here's the text:
It begins on October 19th 2016, when Tesla announces:

View attachment 243649

The configuration page then changes for new Model S and Model X to include the following:

View attachment 243651

Also there were numerous safety features advertised as included at that time which were not in fact present when the cars shipped.

Subsequently, a class action suit has been filed regarding the failure to deliver EAP and safety features (AEB appeared shortly after the suit was filed).

To this day, there are no enhanced AP features. Also, EAP does not include all of the features of AP1 and arguably is not AP1's equal in the features it does have.

Subsequently, nearly 10 months after the announcement of hardware inclusion and on a timeline indicated by the CEO, there are no FSD features. Further, all new Teslas are shipping with hardware that differs from the hardware on the cars built after the 10/19/16 announcement. It is being reported that engineers at Tesla did not agree with the 10/19/16 announcement and do not believe that the 10/19 hardware is sufficient to accomplish what is stated.. There has been leadership tumult in the AP team since the announcement. There is a demo video of questionable representation. Cruise and Waymo are operating fully autonomous cars on streets. Tesla has shown nothing.

And I don't have rain-sensing wipers.

 

[efusco]

To address the question about why the prior thread was closed, it had turned into nothing more than an argumentative crap-fest. The amount of work to moderate it was out of control and other than the handful of people arguing with each other it failed to contribute anything of value to the forum.

So, happy to keep this thread alive and open unless and until it takes the same turn the previous one did. You guys start name calling, insulting, and going off topic with ad hominum attacks, we'll shut this down too.

 

[bonnie]

For what it's worth, I know Sterling and have never heard him say anything like this article implies. Lots of people like to sound informed, when in reality, they're just filling in their knowledge gaps with supposition. They know Sterling left the company, the assumption as to FSD not being possible is pure speculation on the part of WSJ - speculation that is then turned into fact. No second source, just a (potentially disgruntled) former employee.

I wouldn't bother posting at all on this kind of drivel, other than I know the WSJ article is simply not true. I continue to be glad that I canceled my subscription back when Murdoch took it over.

 

[alcibiades]

@bonnie also said Sterling left on good terms, which turned out to be categorically false.

To address the question about why the prior thread was closed, it had turned into nothing more than an argumentative crap-fest. The amount of work to moderate it was out of control and other than the handful of people arguing with each other it failed to contribute anything of value to the forum.

So, happy to keep this thread alive and open unless and until it takes the same turn the previous one did. You guys start name calling, insulting, and going off topic with ad hominum attacks, we'll shut this down too.

I think the above intercession by posters with financial and emotional connections to the players is the sort of thing that you should try to keep out of the thread.

It doesn't help with analysis. It is an attempt to derail the thread before it starts.

 

[jeffro01]

Once again, members throwing around the word "fraud" without much thought to what that accusation even means...

Jeff

 

[alcibiades]

Making deceptive claims to induce customers to hand over money is fraud.

 

[jeffro01]

@bonnie also said Sterling left on good terms, which turned out to be categorically false.

I think the above intercession by posters with financial and emotional connections to the players is the sort of thing that you should try to keep out of the thread.

It doesn't help with analysis. It is an attempt to derail the thread before it starts.

My apologies, still drinking my morning coffee but am I reading this to mean you are calling @bonnie a liar? Or am I misreading?

Jeff

 

[alcibiades]

My apologies, still drinking my morning coffee but am I reading this to mean you are calling @bonnie a liar? Or am I misreading?

Jeff

You're misreading. I'm saying that anecdotes from people with personal stake don't always turn out to be the right picture. No maliciousness need be intended by the relayer. In this case, what she had been told turned out to be false. I'm not saying she believed it was false when she told it. That make sense?

BUT ANYWAY, this has nothing to do with trying to understand the october announcement and the subsequent developments.

 

[jeffro01]

Yep, again, I was still getting my brain tuned in...

Jeff

 

[bonnie]

My apologies, still drinking my morning coffee but am I reading this to mean you are calling @bonnie a liar? Or am I misreading?

Jeff

Haha. I don't much care . People are going to believe what they're going to believe. Just thought I'd share that while a former employee filled in his personal knowledge gap to mean that Sterling left Tesla because of an issue with FSD claims, Sterling himself has never said anything like that in conversation with me. Ever. Only a data point. But at least it isn't speculation.

The WSJ article is speculation only. If some forum members want to believe the speculation, that's up to them.

 

[Tangible]

There is a qualitative difference between what was said about EAP and FSD back in the 4th quarter of 2016. FSD was always characterized as a future deliverable, and changes in timeframe – even dramatic ones – can be seen by those with a charitable bent as just excessive exuberance.

EAP was described as undergoing "final validation" with expected delivery in December 2016. Whoever wrote that must have known that the code wasn't even written yet, and wouldn't be ready for many more months. Whether that constitutes fraud is a legal question for the courts to decide. I do know it's not dealing with customers in good faith.

With regard to the moderator"s decision: I think it's important to censor insults, ad hominem arguments, and repetitive rants. My preference, though, would be for them to delete individual posts rather than shut down an entire thread that contains valuable information and insights in addition to the bad stuff.