Snippiness 2.0

[Chocochip]

You are missing that Tesla paid more for the car then they would have had it not had FSD. So at that point Tesla isn't double dipping because they bought the FSD back.

Not to belabour the point I made earlier, but trying to keep it simple; let's assume Tesla is charging $5000 for the FSD, always has and always will:

Case 1: you buy your new car and choose FSD, are charged $5000 for it; you later (could be 1 or 2 years later) decide to sell it back to Tesla, which offers you the market value for your car and adds $5000 for the FSD package you purchased; Tesla then goes on to sell the car to someone else, and because that other person also wants the FSD package Tesla charges them $5000 for it.

Case 2: you buy your new car and choose FSD, are charged $5000 for it; you later decide to sell it back to Tesla, which offers you the market value for your car and adds $2500 for the FSD package you purchased, arguing the car as a whole (of which FSD is now part of) has depreciated; Tesla then goes on to sell the car to someone else, and because that other person also wants the FSD package Tesla charges them $5000 for it. You would also need to pay another $5000 if you want to get FSD on a new Tesla.

In case 1, Tesla plays fair and only gets paid once for delivering FSD.
In case 2, Tesla gets paid more for the same thing, which it always sells as new, with each additional transfer of ownership. Taken to the extreme, if the car changes hands once a year, Tesla would theoretically get an extra $25,000 in ten years.

And this is exactly the reason some people suggested FSD licenses that are attached to the owners, who can then transfer it from one car to the next.

I do appreciate this topic is quite complex and not necessarily appropriate for this thread, but it is relevant to us investors (it relates to the revenue Tesla can generate, and to brand image) and it came up in today's news.

 

[XLR82XS]

What's up with the people on this forum?? I literally copy and pasted what I posted from the Tesla.com home page at the time I posted that.

People like you just like to start arguments.

Model 3 | Tesla

Agreed. People on here are weird. Arguing on the internet is like the special Olympics. Even if you win: you're still retarded.

 

[JRP3]

Tesloop’s Tesla Model S Surpasses 400,000 miles (643,737 kM) — Tesloop

194

324-194= 130

neither case of replacement did it make it over 200
and neither case did it get anywhere CLOSE to 300k

fake news

Seriously? Which part of X90 did you not understand? The cognitive dissonance in some of you is remarkable, you so desperately want to see what you believe.

 

[bhzmark]

Tesla's new language says they will batterygate every car, for any reason, eventually.

false hyperbole

nothing he has said is backed by more than words and faith, a

false hyperbole.

But maybe you and Jason are correct. Maybe Tesla really is that evil

false hyperbole.

Recall what @wk57 wrote:

"I never said anyone's cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just condition X or Z would have to happen. They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, supercharging, leaving the car in the sun, etc... or in an ICE vehicle, I'd say just pumping gasoline is riskier than all of the above)."

"There are a bunch of factors that increase the risk of fire in a battery. For example, I'd say just charging a car (one without any other issues, new, whatever) to 100% and letting the car sit without discharging soon can result in as much, or likely even more in many cases, risk of fire than any of the conditions mitigated by the range loss updates. Charging to 100% in direct sunlight is probably more risky than having condition Z."

"Heck, I'd say using Ludicrous+ battery heating is probably 5x riskier than any of the conditions relevant to this discussion."

"So, let's not blow things out of proportion. There is acceptable risk involved with the operation of any automobile, ICE or EV. However, the more risk eliminated, the better."​

Because chaser posts are increasingly unhinged I will put him on ignore on not waste any more time truthsquading him. Don't take my lack of disagree/funny or direct truthsquading him to indicate any agreement.

If he ever posts how what he thinks Condition Z is with any evidence, or what the range loss of people with affected batteries is please repeat so I can see it.

 

[SlimJim]

It’s just the honeymoon phase. A lot of husbands feel the same way about their wives when they first get married.

I don't know what FSD is analogous to on his wife. it don't make sense.

 

[BulldogsRus]

I don't know what FSD is analogous to on his wife. it don't make sense.

Free Sex Daily

 

[SwedishSTIle]

NYR..If you are SO dissatisfied with the color and materials resistance to staining, and you buy 4 figure suits, go spend the $800-$1000 to reupholster your whole car, in whatever material and color you want. For heavens sake, try to be a little less of a troll.

I just did the front buckets of my 450sl in perforated leather with new slings and foam for $600. You can easily accomplish a simple recover for a grand. You have spent THOUSANDS, spend a couple more dollars. Maybe you can get a refund on one of your poorly dyed suits to cover the expense.

 

[drdumont]

Do yourself and your Tesla a favor. Charge it up, drive it somewhere, enjoy the drive, enjoy the scenery, clear the cobwebs out of your mind and the battery.
Does a horse good, too.
IMHO, both are thoroughbreds and should be treated as such.
I used to do the same thing with my big Chevy. Of course, that included a quart of ATF, a six pack of Lone Star, and a couple of hundred miles round trip on Interstate 10. A Hispanic Maintenance Operation.

Or a Mexican Tuneup.
<running for cover in this hypersensitive age>

 

[DrtyJrze]

This I actually one of the better threads in this forum.

Why is not a sticky for all to enjoy?

 

[Mr X]

 

[Knightshade]

Tesla has a duty to inform its customers about the risks of using AP. Having ignorant posts on a fan site shout “read the manual” every time autopilot operates in a way the end user isn’t expecting isn’t working.

Uh... they do inform their customers.

in the manual

That's kind of the exact place you'd expect it to be in fact.

Are there not enough pictures in it for you or something?

You don’t seem to understand how compilers work, so I’m not going to waste my time. Suffice it to say, you are wrong.

Except, of course, I'm not, since we're discussing adding multiple functions to multiple parts of the existing code

Like adding a conditional to when the car goes into drive or not (and there's already code with such conditionals- you're adding another) and ALSO adding an upper lock to top speed when ALREADY IN GEAR (and there's already code with such limits- in multiple places, because there's multiple driving modes)

Which you can't do all do in 1 line in 1 place.

Once again literally nothing you write makes a damn bit of sense.

uh, no, there are many car manufacturers who offer capabilities similar to what Tesla offers. Tomato tomato.

So first- no, there's not. There's many that offer some inferior version often not as capable as what tesla offered 5 years ago though.

But know what all of those have in common?

100% of them already have the hardware to put in the limts we are talking about

So once again your claim it'd cost tons of $ to add HW is idiotic since they already have that hardware

YSorry it went above your head. I’ll try and dumb it down from here on out for you.

Good luck-as you can see I've been increasingly dumbing it down for him going on 3 or 4 pages now to little avail

I think the funniest thing in the last couple pages is neither side of this pointless argument has realized that a Model 3 actually does not let you drive if you don't have a seatbelt on (it will throw itself in park at low speeds or if you are stopped for a bit, and tell you to put your belt on).

Which funnily enough, it also mentions in the manual...

That's not correct at all. Car drives fine with the seatbelt off other than nagging you about it.

For example I frequently stop at my mailbox at the end of a quite long driveway, taking off my seatbelt- when I get back in I don't put it back on just to drive to the end of the driveway and park in the garage. Car drives fine.


Car only throws itself into park if seatbelt is off and it detects you have left the seat- to protect it from rolling away because you forgot to put it into park when getting out. A few folks have accidentally triggered this by lifting their butts off the seat to get their phone or wallet or something...but simply not having the belt on doesn't do it.

 

[whatthe2]

a lot of words to not answer a question.

Wow you do really need it dumbed down. Here goes, try and follow along. I’ll type slowly.

You think Tesla should disable AP for areas where it isn’t recommended. So I asked you if you think we should build walls to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking. You know, same type of scenario, both ridiculous.
I’m sure it still flies over your head, but I’ve done all I can now to try and help you see how ridiculous your thinking is.

 

[qdeathstar]

Except, again, it demonstrably and factually was.

This is a tesla thread on a tesla forum.

We were talking about AP, then you decided to bring up seatbelts. Tesla is one of the few cars with a system like AP, so if you left it to that conversation, maybe you have a point. But once you decided for some reason to bring up seat belts, no one agreed it was just Tesla’s, I never said just Tesla’s. You assumed just Tesla’s but never provided a rational. “This is a Tesla forum” doesn’t cut it.

Except those already have the HW too.

you keep saying that but haven’t provided evidence...

... what?

You want me to show you cars that have documented the fact they know the seatbelt is on or not?

And can take that input and use it to control the ignition. Without any additional hardware. That’s what we are talking about.


That’s why your posts are foolish. You read two words and ejaculate all over the keyboard.

 

[qdeathstar]

Or go get a room somewhere.

I had a room. Then this happened:

 

[Knightshade]

We were talking about AP, then you decided to bring up seatbelts. Tesla is one of the few cars with a system like AP, so if you left it to that conversation, maybe you have a point

I did, and I do.

here's my actual post-

Not wearing a seatbelt kills many orders of magnitude more people than using AP in the wrong place.

So does speeding compared to using AP the wrong place.

Yet the least deadly of the three- by far is the only one you seem to want Tesla to specifically lock out in software- and leave the much more deadly ones open to driver choices.

Notice how I mention how you seem to want Tesla to lock out ONE of the 3 causes of death under discussion... the one that kills the least people no less!

you keep saying that but haven’t provided evidence...

Except, unlike you, I have.

I quoted the corolla owners manual showing it has the HW to do that.

You haven't provided evidence of any car that can't do it in fact.


We keep waiting.

You can't- because there aren't any. Your ignorance about basic vehicle HW shines through yet again.

And can take that input and use it to control the ignition. Without any additional hardware. That’s what we are talking about.

No, that's idiotic thing you are talking about.

Sane people are talking about controlling the car going into a moving gear or not. Which, again, is what my original post actually said

Here it is again so maybe you'll quit lying about it?

Should they also lock out putting the car in drive if your seatbelt isn't on?

How about locking out driving any speed above the speed limit?

Should the car refuse to drive if the rear camera sees a trailer hooked to it in the US?


All of those are against intent- but as with AP, the car ultimately holds the driver responsible for proper use.

Notice we're talking about locking out putting it in drive not simply turning it on.

(also since we're on the subject and this predates my earlier post- notice that bit about the trailer- in the US specifically? that should've made it even more obvious (besides this being a tesla forum) that we're discussing tesla... the Model 3 outside the US has a trailer hitch available. In the US you're not supposed to tow with it.


I guess you didn't know that either so just ignored it and drove on....






But, anyway back to the seat belt thing- of course, the car has the hardware to do either of those.


We know this because it already won't turn on unless specific conditions the car has the HW to detect exist (for example the key is either physically in the ignition... or increasingly in more and more cars going push-button- the wireless fob in the car and detected).

And it already won't let you shift into gear unless your foot is on the brake pedal.


So to sum up:


All current production cars can tell if your seatbelt is on

and

All current production cars can control if the car is allowed to go into gear or not (and can also control if the ignition will turn on- but that's a pretty stupid thing to condition on having your belt on- and nobody else ever suggested it anyway)


So your original claim is, like all your claims- total and utter nonsense and your entire premise suggests you have 0 understanding of how any modern car works or what it's capable of.

 

[qdeathstar]

I did, and I do.

You brought up seatbelts, so no, you didn’t stick to AP.

Notice how I mention how you seem to want Tesla to lock out ONE of the 3 causes of death under discussion... the one that kills the least people no less!

Actually, i never took a position on the other two. But the other two aren’t relevant to the topic other than the fact that you brought it up. Seatbelts didn’t have a factor in the accident

I quoted the corolla owners manual showing it has the HW to do that.

You provided a owners manual that stated it was set up to disable airbags, not disable the ignition (or shift into gear) which is a completely different system.

No, that's idiotic thing you are talking about.

Sane people are talking about controlling the car going into a moving gear or not. Which, again, is what my original post actually said

Here it is again so maybe you'll quit lying about it?

Notice we're talking about locking out putting it in drive not simply turning it on.

Ok, but is there a difference in your point whether it disables the ignition or disables shifting into gear? The question is “if you want lockouts on ap, shouldn't you want lockouts on being able to drive the car with your seatbelt unfastened”, correct? I’m not sure i’m understanding the distinction you are trying to make.

All current production cars can tell if your seatbelt is on

never said otherwise.

All current production cars can control if the car is allowed to go into gear or not (and can also control if the ignition will turn on- but that's a pretty stupid thing to condition on having your belt on- and nobody else ever suggested it anyway)(

uh huh... i agree so far

So your original claim is, like all your claims- total and utter nonsense and your entire premise suggests you have 0 understanding of how any modern car works or what it's capable of.

1 + 1 = 3 is your argument....


w can detect x. y can control z. x can control z.

 

[Knightshade]

You brought up seatbelts, so no, you didn’t stick to AP.

Nor did I claim to.

Are you high or something?

The post you're replying to has me specifically citing seatbelts.... as an example of another thing the car maker does not put a hard disable on if not using it correctly.

That was the entire point of analogy in fact.

Actually, i never took a position on the other two.

Other than to, wrongly, claim you'd need to spend lots of $ adding hardware for the car to tell if your seatbelt is on...

Which admittedly was hilarious to watch.

But the other two aren’t relevant to the topic

Of course they are.

They're additional examples of things it's the drivers responsibility to handle properly- that the car maker could easily take away from the driver in the name of "moar safety" but they don't.

Nobody does.

Thus.... showing how ridiculous and out of touch your original suggestion for them to disable AP to do that was.... since it was the least dangerous thing of the three as far as killing anybody.

You provided a owners manual that stated it was set up to disable airbags, not disable the ignition

Which, again, nobody suggested made any sense to disable, ever, other than you

You'd disable shifting into gear.

(or shift into gear) which is a completely different system.

Are you seriously so ignorant of all cars made in the last couple decades as to need proof that they already have[/B} the hardware to prevent you from shifting into gear unless specific conditions are met?

You really need someone to quote the owners manual on THAT too?

Ok, but is there a difference in your point whether it disables the ignition or disables shifting into gear?

Well, yes.... one is much dumber than the other. For several reasons already mentioned.

And of course it's the one you picked and nobody else ever suggested.

The question is “if you want lockouts on ap, shouldn't you want lockouts on being able to drive the car with your seatbelt unfastened”, correct? I’m not sure i’m understanding the distinction you are trying to make.

Meanwhile everyone else is sure you haven't understood a damn thing all discussion

1 + 1 = 3 is your argument....


w can detect x. y can control z. x can control z.

...no.

Not even slightly.


You do understand all modern cars have computers-- right?

So that the control systems and sensors can all talk and coordinate with each other.... right?


So to correct your, once again, horribly nonsense programming analogy:


The sensors can detect X. Which they then tell to the computers controlling the car. Cars do that TODAY.

The computers can lock out shifting into gear unless specific conditions are met. Cars do that TODAY.

The computer can have an additional condition added to that check. Even cars already on the road can have that added. Cars do that TODAY (though for everyone buy Tesla you need to bring it to a dealer to flash the computer).


So all new cars today can already add such a seatbelt lockout with zero added hardware

Like you've been corrected on about 10 times now.


Where'd you get lost this time? Did you find a pretty rock and get distracted or something?



While we're at it- let's get back to your original post on this nonsense-

Adding speed limiters and searbelt interlocks on every care would add a lot to the cost of most cars. what similar cost (or negative) does locking AP have?

So we've debunked the seatbelt thing pretty heavily...


How bout the locking out driving over the speed limit?


Do you also think new cars already can't do this?


I ask- because generally new cars today already have an active max speed limiter it's just a lot higher than the speed limits in the US.


I imagine there might be exceptions, but it'd be trivial to add them via a software flash- again with $0.00 in new hardware.



It must be exhausting for you- being wrong so much....

 

[qdeathstar]

Nor did I claim to.

The post you're replying to has me specifically citing seatbelts.... as an example of another thing the car maker does not put a hard disable on if not using it correctly.

That was the entire point of analogy in fact.

But, this topic is about Autopilot, silly. What the hell did “I did, and i do” mean when you said it? You giving me your best donald impression or what?

Other than to, wrongly, claim you'd need to spend lots of $ adding hardware for the car to tell if your seatbelt is on...

That ain’t what i said. I said an interlock. Yes the car has systems to detect if the seatbelt is buckled. Yes the car has systems to tell what gear it is in and to make sure certain conditions are met. However, they systems are built modularly, and you just assume one computer can easily control another with no evidence, all willy nilly like. Whatever the monetary cost is, it is certainly higher that a software lock of AP.

They're additional examples of things it's the drivers responsibility to handle properly- that the car maker could easily take away from the driver in the name of "moar safety" but they don't.

what do you propose is the primary reason they don’t? Because they want to give customers freedom, or because of cost. Which do you think is more important to the manufacturer. Then, when you answer that question, you will see the light, dim as it is from the hole you’re in.

Thus.... showing how ridiculous and out of touch your original suggestion for them to disable AP to do that was.... since it was the least dangerous thing of the three as far as killing anybody.

still more practical that shouting at dead men to “read the manual” like some 90 year old nut case....

Which, again, nobody suggested made any sense to disable, ever, other than you

You'd disable shifting into gear.

I said i agree with you here, but i don’t know what the big deal is about the difference as far as what it takes to get it done is. Enlighten me.

Are you seriously so ignorant of all cars made in the last couple decades as to need proof that they already have[/B} the hardware to prevent you from shifting into gear unless specific conditions are met?

Nah, i’m with you on that. What i’m not with you is how point a and point b equal assumption c, that the cars can easily add interlocks. You got lemons and you got water, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can make lemonade, sugar.

Talk about assumption c, because i agree with you on a and b, and never said otherwise.

You do understand all modern cars have computers-- right?

multiple computers, most likely.

So that the control systems and sensors can all talk and coordinate with each other.... right?

Highly doubtful. However, a few months ago tesla created a patent to allow this to be possible. Every sensor and ever computer cannot to talk to every other computer and every other sensor. Not even on a tesla.

The computer can have an additional condition added to that check. Even cars already on the road can have that added. Cars do that TODAY (though for everyone buy Tesla you need to bring it to a dealer to flash the computer).

I imagine there might be exceptions, but it'd be trivial to add them via a software flash- again with $0.00 in new hardware.

Keep imagining... but, hey, let’s assume you are correct and all it takes is a flash of the computer and wham bam thank you mam, gear locks. The cost of flashing computers isn’t zero. Retrofitting old cars would be very expensive for dealerships, since it involves laborshop visit. I only mention it because you seem to think the cost is practically zero in a retrofit situation... but I’m limiting the cost discussion to new cars, so we can ignore those costs, they’d have to flash the car off the assembly line anyway.

 

[MP3Mike]

Keep imagining... but, hey, let’s assume you are correct and all it takes is a flash of the computer and wham bam thank you mam, ignition locks. The cost of flashing computers isn’t zero. Retrofitting old cars would be very expensive for dealerships, since it involves laborshop visit. I only mention it because you seem to think the cost is practically zero in a retrofit situation... but I’m limiting the cost discussion to new cars, so we can ignore those costs, they’d have to flash the car off the assembly line anyway.

 

[qdeathstar]

i agree, knightshade brought it up.