You do raise reasonable points. My position on her is based almost entirely on her scientific, technological and experience base. She does tend to disdain loudly opinionated other people and she does so in a flamboyant way. OTOH, she regularly praises SpaceX accomplishments and those fo Tesla also.
In my personal view she really has problems with overbearing and opinionated rich white guys. Thus she simultaneously tends to applaud Tesla while at the same time having strong disagreement with overpromising and underdelivering, specifically doing that with FSD and Autopilot.
Those objections are often spoken here by many of us, not on Twitter, as a rule and certainly not with obnoxious visual aids and quippy snarky statements.
So no question I don't think much of her quips. OTOH, I'm no fan of Elon's either. In both cases I find it appropriate to ignore them, because they are emotional outbursts that harm the overall message.
After that I look at her academic and career progression. Any intelligent person who flew F-18's (I have met a few, not a lot) probably is acutely aware of how dangerous automated systems can be if not thoroughly tested and controlled. The Boeing 787 and 737Max events certainly played a role also.
I am confident that the emotional reactions she displays do fit certain political agendas. Her technical expertise and experience also makes her respect the accomplishments. That is why I am less dismayed than are some of us. That is also why expect her to be pragmatic in fact, so probably a net positive influence on the overall trend towards more automation.
Tesla will benefit in a longer term from increased scrutiny and greater release discipline. Safety scores already seem to be having a positive effect. As a Plaid owner myself, I really wish there were type ratings for them! If she helps advance better discipline I support it.
I appreciate that there may be a component of her objection(s) rooted in her technical experience. However that experience is:
1) In the past
2) Based on different technology
3) Lacks any direct insight in the underpinnings of Tesla's solution
Therefore, if she is going to be a governmental appointee with some influence (regulatory or otherwise), she needs to maintain some objectivity about her her deficiencies in her understanding.
However, I see some significant evidence for lack of objectivity:
1) Decision to block folks on twitter based on a TSLAQ block list. That's not a way to hear dissenting views that may inform
2) Classification of any technology based on the race of the person developing it
3) Decision to not answer questions directly relating to her claims of publishing "peer reviewed" papers when there seems to be no record of such in the DOI
4) Significant conflict of interest in benefitting financially from hardware manufactures of equipment used (other than by Tesla) for autonomous driving
5) Previous financial compensation from aunt manufacturers competing with Tesla
So, can she get on the twitterverse and blare opinions on regarding technology with "white men" behind it, and make references to wishing she could assault them like an other idiot out there? Yes. And all the while silencing potential critics and ignoring scrutiny of impropriety in publishing? Yup. It's a free country.
Does that give evidence of her objectivity as person with potential governmental influence in the arena? Not in my book... no matter what other legitimate (if distant) experience she has.
