Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Unpilot]

Watch out! I warned you! Can hurt your brains!
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

And with that I am out...selling every bit of Tesla stock....a clear "killer"
I might by one or two or three myself
/S off

 

[Fact Checking]

Well, that's just shifting the definition of FSD to non-autonomous driving. I obviously that Tesla is testing non-autonomous driving. Tesla however is not testing autonomous driving in California if the disengagement report briefly visible was correct and submitted lawfully.

Laws and regulations are all about definitions and exceptions, and Tesla's FSD test vehicles plainly meet the exception outlined in the regulation, cited by @ReflexFunds:

"An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles equipped with one or more systems that provide driver assistance and/or enhance safety benefits but are not capable of, singularly or in combination, performing the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person."​

Note that this definition of an "autonomous test vehicle" exempts Tesla's FSD nag-enforcing beta test cars even if Tesla's goal and intent is to test autonomous driving technologies.

(Furthermore your repeated passive-agressive innuendo about Tesla breaking the law is both false and patently unfair.)

 

[CuriousSunbird]

Production problems. Heard that before.

Me too. FUDsters kept dicussing “production hell” when we all know that Tesla produced precisely what they meant to produce exactly when they meant to produce it.

 

[kbM3]

Except that the regulation explicitly says that is not enough to get out of the requirements. (emphasis mine)



Every single other manufacturer in the program also has a safety driver actively monitoring and controlling the system yet they still report. As required by regulation.

Your straightforward explanation therefore does not pass fact checking.

I am not talking about autopilot. I am talking about fully self driving testing.

It's pretty well spelled out in the linked text. Any system designed to perform the dynamic driving task with or without a human operator falls under the regulation. Any system that is designed to release the driver from certain tedious parts of driving so they can focus and provide better input, is not. The former is autonomous driving, the latter is autopilot.

I believe Tesla is going to sneak up on the full self driving (or autonomous) definition. As of now, the car can drive autonomously on a city street for a while. FSD features like red light and stop sign detection may be added, but not turns and so it can do a little more. I wonder if they can bypass regulatory approval by gradually adding more and more functionality and just saying it is a more and more advanced ADAS and the driver is still in control and must remain alert?

The distinction between an ADAS and a fully autonomous vehicle becomes a slippery slope.

Do you claim Tesla should currently report all disengagement’s for EAP according to the rule? If not, why not?

 

[CuriousSunbird]

Laws and regulations are all about definitions and exceptions, and Tesla's FSD test vehicles plainly meet the exception outlined in the regulation, cited by @ReflexFunds:

"An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles equipped with one or more systems that provide driver assistance and/or enhance safety benefits but are not capable of, singularly or in combination, performing the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person."​

Note that this definition of an "autonomous test vehicle" exempts Tesla's FSD nag-enforcing beta test cars even if Tesla's goal and intent is to test autonomous driving technologies.

(Furthermore your repeated passive-agressive innuendo about Tesla breaking the law is both false and patently unfair.)

Geez, buddy, take a break with all the lies & innuendo sturm & drang. I thought sconelucht was on your side.

 

[Fact Checking]

FUDsters kept dicussing

 

[bhtooefr]

OK, that little hint caused me to run to my French-English dictionary.

Result: Wow. This is much better than Chevrolet trying to sell into Latin America its 1970-80s era "Nova", which I'm assuming all realize means in Spanish "doesn't go".

It is, in fact, a priceless name. SPadival is being very kind in his characterization. Go at it, all the rest of you!

Vorsprung durch technik? More like vorsprung Durchfall technik.

(Yes, I know, it makes no grammatical sense, just go with it.)

 

[aubreymcfato]

Wow, that's the kind of language I hear all the time regarding Elon. I guess being rich brings out the worst in people.

"He just want to be king" is a thing Elon himself said. He dislikes the guy. Bezos if obvisously very good in what he does, but he's ruthless and the disruption he brings has very little value for the society as a whole (it has great value for him). I think this is the opposite for Elon: he's no saint, but he has a moral compass and Tesla is disrupting 2-3 industries that are literally destroying the world. He has a Foundation in his name that does things and no one knows. He has a ngo for safe and open source AI. His dream is Mars and money are means to an end. I think that for Bezos money are an end itself (or for power, which is the same).
Money is as good as the things you do with it.

 

[mongo]

It's pretty well spelled out in the linked text. Any system designed to perform the dynamic driving task with or without a human operator falls under the regulation. Any system that is designed to release the driver from certain tedious parts of driving so they can focus and provide better input, is not. The former is autonomous driving, the latter is autopilot.

Here you are talking about "Autonomous mode" definition (a) and partly (b) "Autonomous test vehicle", however, (b)(1) specifically rules out systems that require regular input of a natural person.

This is incorrect when it comes to the regulation (what Tesla thinks is irrelevant). Read the linked text. Specifically the definition of "Autonomous mode". It quite clearly says that both with or without a natural person or remote controller monitoring.

Edit: to echo @ReflexFunds
"An autonomous test vehicle does not include vehicles equipped with one or more systems that provide driver assistance and/or enhance safety benefits but are not capable of, singularly or in combination, performing the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis without the constant control or active monitoring of a natural person."

Nags means you are not an autonomous test vehicle and are not required to report anything.

No, that's a misrepresentation of what is stated. The distinction is made on designed capability, not on the actual mechanics of the driver controlling the car. Also, even then it is not the nag but the physical handling that is required that shut up the nag that plausibly could have been the defining marker as you correctly identified above when you claimed it's "Hands on wheel" that makes the distinction. The DMV made specific changes in November 2017 to exactly close that loophole by replacing the wording of "active physical control" with "supervising the autonomous technology’s performance of the dynamic driving task".

And the capability is that the car car drive without a person's input. As long as the Tesla software requires an input (be it torque on wheel, or pressing a button) it is not an "autonomous test vehicle"

Well, that's just shifting the definition of FSD to non-autonomous driving. I obviously that Tesla is testing non-autonomous driving. Tesla however is not testing autonomous driving in California if the disengagement report briefly visible was correct and submitted lawfully.

FSD code can be fully tested with a nag system running. That proves out code that is capable of being FSD but is prevented from being autonomous (due to the nag system).

Reporting requirement: 227.50
(a) Only applies to manufactures with a testing permit, Tesla does not require one due to above mentioned exception. However, assuming Tesla has a permit: "for the purposes of this section, "disengagement" means a a deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the test driver disengage the autonomous mode"
Per the last sentence of definition (a),"Autonomous mode" requires being an "autonomous vehicle", which a Tesla with nags is not per (b)(1).
(b) for manufactures authorized to test "autonomous vehicles": with the nag, Tesla is not an "autonomous vehicle", so this requirement does not apply.
(c) where to submit

Thus, there is no reporting requirement for a vehicle that requires regular input from a natural person.

 

[Buckminster]

Then why would TSLA ever be allowed into the S&P 500 if shorts can just keep driving it down $50 to $100 at a time? Why would the price even rise with revenue growth, and how and when could it ever reach fair evaluation?

Your posts combined with your avatar are starting to unnerve me....
It is a matter of time - nothing more. Unfortunately, I was expecting it earlier....

 

[Unpilot]

Green day today...I am sure!

 

[schonelucht]

(Furthermore your repeated passive-agressive innuendo about Tesla breaking the law is both false and patently unfair.)

Why?

 

[Dan Detweiler]

"He just want to be king" is a thing Elon himself said. He dislikes the guy. Bezos if obvisously very good in what he does, but he's ruthless and the disruption he brings has very little value for the society as a whole (it has great value for him). I think this is the opposite for Elon: he's no saint, but he has a moral compass and Tesla is disrupting 2-3 industries that are literally destroying the world. He has a Foundation in his name that does things and no one knows. He has a ngo for safe and open source AI. His dream is Mars and money are means to an end. I think that for Bezos money are an end itself (or for power, which is the same).
Money is as good as the things you do with it.

Well, I have to admit I am loving that he is taking on the National Enquirer right now. It's about time somebody did.

Dan

 

[UncaNed]

Not sure of the relevance of your question. What Artful Dodger is describing has to do with the day-to-day mechanics of the way the market can be manipulated in any given stock. And I agree with him. Has nothing to with all the great things happening with our Company.

SP manipulation has EVERYTHING to do with relevancy to the investor's forum. What could be more relevant? Useful discussions on Windows vs. Mac aside...

 

[anthonyj]

Well, I have to admit I am loving that he is taking on the National Enquirer right now. It's about time somebody did.

Dan

Pls Elon don’t use Alexa

 

[Chickenlittle]

And with that I am out...selling every bit of Tesla stock....a clear "killer"
I might by one or two or three myself
/S off

Let us know how they fare in accident other than fender benser

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

The opening bell might be a good time to end the fruitless discussion about whether or not Tesla is breaking Californian FSD-law.

 

[CuriousSunbird]

There’s a difference between making fun of the discussion - it’s only a stock - and personally attacking the participants.

 

[KarenRei]

View attachment 376854
Pls Elon don’t use Alexa

If anyone is worried about being secretly recorded by Alexa at a friend's house, there's always this...

(I actually tried this at my sister's place. Sadly, she didn't have it set up for purchases )

 

[Tslynk67]

Me too. FUDsters kept dicussing “production hell” when we all know that Tesla produced precisely what they meant to produce exactly when they meant to produce it.

You can exclude me from that 'when we all know', thanks.