Sadly it is in this case. Indicative of the lack of focus, he tweets constant nonsense. I also just read that someone is selling “Elon Lies” shirts in the off-topic forum. Like I said, at least Jobs delivered.You say that like it's a bad thing...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I did understand your post but noted that you indeed went overboard and implied a socioeconomic bias on my part. I was about to thank you for your kind apology until your last point. I will take the higher road and not respond to that.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
He doesn't always deliver. Just from a quick google (I don't follow apple much):
Inside Apple: delays and manufacturing bottlenecks » Metue
Steve Jobs Admits Temporary Defeat, Leopard Delayed
White iPhone 4 Delayed Again … or Forever?
Steve Jobs Says AirPrint Is A Giant Leap, More Printers To Be Supported Soon | Cult of Mac
Missing In Action: Still No Printing From iPad Using Lion and iOS 5 [WWDC 2011 Reaction] | Cult of Mac
In my google I found this gem again:
Apple responds to iPhone 4 reception issues: you're holding the phone the wrong way
Last edited:
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It does seem Elon is going a little nutty lately, especially after I read this...
Elon Musk: forget North Korea, AI will start World War III
Elon Musk: forget North Korea, AI will start World War III
Sure, 'Jobs delivered'. Maybe have a look at how Apple handled the big transition from OS 9 to the new OS X that Jobs had been talking about for ages. The new OS was years late, missing many promised features... sound familiar? Many Apple customers were disgruntled and unhappy back then. However, some realised how difficult it was what Jobs was trying to do and decided to stick with it.
In Tesla's defense, at least they're actively improving their systems. With all other manufacturers, you get what you buy on day one and these systems will never see improvement. Want a better version? Buy a new car. While Tesla takes six weeks to learn from its fleet, other manufacturers take several model years of a car to finally deliver something that works. Of course they'll make sure that the original version more or less works as advertised, even though it may annoy the hell out of drivers.
As an example, the Braking Guard system in my 2013 Audi A6 does work. The early warning system is nice and helpful. But when the car decides it needs to act, the actual braking is horrible. It has now kicked in 3 times while driving, and every time it was completely unnecessary and annoying, in one case even dangerous. However, it does perform its function so you can't complain there. Useful? No. Any chance of improvement? No.
I actually prefer Tesla's way of doing it, as long as they inform me about changes.
Hahaha. There’s no comparison.
For example, I’d be fine if the white Tesla was delayed, as long as the other colors of the car didn’t try and randomly kill me when I have EAP on.
Putting it in perspective, Jobs was not known as the guy who didn’t deliver. People don’t talk about the concept of “Jobs Time”....
Last edited:
I think most everyone here would agree with you on that.
It’s the misleading marketing, absence of transparency, and the lack of communication that cause much of the discord here.
somnambule
Member
The bias in your post was not implied. It was very explicit. The entire point was that Teslas need to be safer just because they are more expensive. Was there any other way to interpret what you said?
Yeah, there are tons of more charitable ways to interpret what he said. Yours is pretty much the only entirely bizarre way to interpret it.
For example:
Take 1:
Person A: I think the cost of a Tesla should be reflected in its quality. And my disappointment is proportional to that cost.
You: Person A thinks poor people's lives are worth less than the lives of the not-poor!
Take 2:
Person A: I think that one of the things that should increase as the cost of a car increases are safety features. Since less expensive cars have a certain feature, Teslas, which cost more, also should.
You: Person A thinks poor people's lives are worth less than the lives of the not-poor!
Take 3:
Person A: I don't really know how upset people are about products I don't own, but I'm upset about how I feel the company from which I bought an expensive car is treating me and behaving. Oh, and this is a Tesla forum.
You: Person A thinks poor people's lives are worth less than the lives of the not-poor!
ANYWAY, back to the regularly scheduled excuse-making, red herrings, and non-sequiturs!
Car safety is nearly all related to the quality of a single inexpensive component.
The quality of the nut that holds the steering wheel is responsible for nearly all fatalities.
The quality of the nut that holds the steering wheel is responsible for nearly all fatalities.
somnambule
Member
Take the reasoning a step further. Who is able to pay higher costs and be entitled to what should be a safer car?
Look at the list of things I posted. It's not a matter of having fewer features in cheaper cars. It's significant failures in parts they do have. At no price point should a car simply die while being driven or have carbon monoxide seeping in to the cabin etc. What sort of a person would justify that as acceptable just because they are cheaper cars?
That's a perfectly fine response, except that's not what the post I responded to said.
No. If they had validated AEB in AP 2.5 before releasing AP 2.5, this thread would not exist, because they hadn't yet released AP 2.5, because it is not ready. And new Teslas would have effective AEB which they at the moment don't have.
This thread exists because they released AP 2.5 before it was ready.
You are either being disingenuous or insane.
somnambule
Member
If you have a logical explanation of how anyone can justify the faults from other manufacturers I mentioned that can cause vehicles to stall on highways, catch fire, allow CO seepage into cabin etc. as acceptable because they are cheaper cars, I'm all ears. Or if you can explain how temporarily disabling AEB is more serious than those other issues, I'm even open to that.
Or you could resort to ad hominem attacks. It's certainly easier.
Last edited:
You can point to logic until you are blue in the face, but it won't work when the kool aid is flowing.
Money for Nothing (In Dire Straits)
(background, faint)
I want my AEB...
I want my AEB...
Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You play with software for the AEB
It's not workin', that's the way they ship it
Money for nothin' and some checks for free
Now it still ain't workin', that's the way they did it
Lemme tell ya dem guys off base
Maybe get a blemish on your pretty nose-cone
Maybe get an airbag in your face...
(sorry that was too easy)
(background, faint)
I want my AEB...
I want my AEB...
Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
You play with software for the AEB
It's not workin', that's the way they ship it
Money for nothin' and some checks for free
Now it still ain't workin', that's the way they did it
Lemme tell ya dem guys off base
Maybe get a blemish on your pretty nose-cone
Maybe get an airbag in your face...
(sorry that was too easy)
Last edited:
I just wanted to go on record that I do think the lives of rich people are worth more than the lives of the poor. I mean, the 'market' already decided their time is literally worth more than poor people.
In fact, if there were a negligence suit against Tesla following a fatal accident where a missing AEB would have prevented the death, the lifetime earning potential of the rich owner would directly result in a higher settlement. So yeah, the courts would agree. (there could obviously be rich owners with low earning potential, but they would be outliers and probably safely at home anyway).
In fact, if there were a negligence suit against Tesla following a fatal accident where a missing AEB would have prevented the death, the lifetime earning potential of the rich owner would directly result in a higher settlement. So yeah, the courts would agree. (there could obviously be rich owners with low earning potential, but they would be outliers and probably safely at home anyway).
I think, in agreement with my comrade above, that safety features should be egalitarian. Car companies should be forced to put in gratis any feature that increases the safety of passengers. For example, Tesla should not charge for EAP/FSD (when validated, wink-wink) as to charge for it is to say that the lives of poor(er) people are not worth as much.I just wanted to go on record that I do think the lives of rich people are worth more than the lives of the poor. I mean, the 'market' already decided their time is literally worth more than poor people.
In fact, if there were a negligence suit against Tesla following a fatal accident where a missing AEB would have prevented the death, the lifetime earning potential of the rich owner would directly result in a higher settlement. So yeah, the courts would agree. (there could obviously be rich owners with low earning potential, but they would be outliers and probably safely at home anyway).
Furthermore, lest we be put with our backs against the wall ourselves, if we are to criticize one thing with a price, we must criticize everything similar below that price or else people won't know that we are unbiased against the poor.
I think a new thread is overdue here. Perhaps the title is "Shouldn't there be tax rebates for cars with better safety features?" It sounds interesting, just not in this thread.
And this is how you get a level of innovation less than the auto industry outside of Tesla. No thanks.
Who would any company invest in R&D for a feature that will (a) cost them R&D, (b) result in liability when it has any behaviors deemed by litigation to be unsafe, (c) cost them hardware and labor to install, and (d) will never result in revenue growth?
Similar threads
- Article
