Tesla's trump card: Sterling Anderson Director of Autopilot

[Roger_wilco]

His methods seems pretty applicable to utilize in spaceships avoiding asteroids

 

[hockeythug]

Yikes. Bonnie just lost any trust I had with her.

Tesla claims former Autopilot director stole data from the program before leaving to create new firm with Google’s Chris Urmson

 

[3Victoria]

• Under his leadership, Tesla has been working on a bunch of really cool stuff and he feels comfortable about leaving at this time, knowing that those projects are in good hands and will come to fruition even after he's gone.
• He's taking all those really cool ideas with him to his new employer or a company of his own -- which will be revealed shortly.

I'm thinking #2.

UPDATE: @bonnie thinks it's #1: Autopilot team changes

I'll defer to her knowledge/insight of things Tesla.

Whoa, looks like you might have been right on the money with #2. Yuk.

 

[bonnie]

Yikes. Bonnie just lost any trust I had with her.

Tesla claims former Autopilot director stole data from the program before leaving to create new firm with Google’s Chris Urmson

hahah. I hope you can get your money back.

(Note that the complaint said they asked him to stay on until release -obviously things were under good terms at that point, which is when I posted.)

In any case, let's see how it plays out. As always, there is more than one side. Might be interesting for all of us.

 

[disagree]

(Note that the complaint said they asked him to stay on until release -obviously things were under good terms at that point, which is when I posted.).

Hi bonnie,

Just for clarification's sake - in the Complaint, Sterling is asked to stay on (in early December 16). But this is under the alleged misrepresentation he provided: namely, that he was either going to spend time with family or go into a non-competitive startup.

You, though, posted after he was terminated (at least as far as the timeline in the Complaint goes. But perhaps you received your info prior to the 1/3 revelation or the 1/4 termination, but didn't post until later). After 1/4, for certain, any claim that the departure was amicable is pretty clearly not accurate.

Thus some of the confusion around what you're saying, I think.

This isn't meant to be an attack on @bonnie (I'm newish around here! I don't know her! Or anyone else, really!), I'm just fascinated by the intrigue of it all!

 

[bonnie]

Hi bonnie,

Just for clarification's sake - in the Complaint, Sterling is asked to stay on, but under the misrepresentation he provided: namely, that he was either going to spend time with family or go into a non-competitive startup.

And you posted after he was terminated (at least as far as the timeline in the Complaint goes. But perhaps you received your info prior to 1/6 but didn't post until later).

This isn't meant to be an attack on @bonnie (I'm newish around here! I don't know her! Or anyone else, really!), I'm just fascinated by the intrigue of it all!

I don't know the details you're asking for - just that at the time we knew Sterling was leaving, things were on good terms at that point. And don't worry about attacking me, plenty of people have over time . I have a fairly thick skin. And like a boss always used to say, 'If you always tell the truth as you know it, you don't have to try to remember what you said later.' Lots of wisdom in that & it def makes life easier.

 

[disagree]

I don't know the details you're asking for - just that at the time we knew Sterling was leaving, things were on good terms at that point. And don't worry about attacking me, plenty of people have over time . I have a fairly thick skin. And like a boss always used to say, 'If you always tell the truth as you know it, you don't have to try to remember what you said later.' Lots of wisdom in that & it def makes life easier.

Sorry. I wasn't clear!

I don't know when someone told you the parting was on good terms, but there are only two possibilites: before 1/3-4 or after 1/3-4.

-- If you were told after 1/3-4, then whoever told it to you didn't know the facts or wasn't being honest with you. It's more likely the former than the latter.

-- If it you were told before 1/3-4 (that is, before he actually left but after he announced he'd be leaving), then the timeline of your post and the events are unfortunately out of whack. You posted that things were cool on 1/11, and we now know that was not the case.

So, uh, I guess, um, I'm wondering when you were told.

 

[bonnie]

Sorry. I wasn't clear!

I don't know when someone told you the parting was on good terms, but there are only two possibilites: before 1/3-4 or after 1/3-4.

-- If you were told after 1/3-4, then whoever told it to you didn't know the facts or wasn't being honest with you. It's more likely the former than the latter.

-- If it you were told before 1/3-4 (that is, before he actually left but after he announced he'd be leaving), then the timeline of your post and the events are unfortunately out of whack. You posted that things were cool on 1/11, and we now know that was not the case.

So, uh, I guess, um, I'm wondering when you were told.

I knew before he left that he was leaving. I knew when he left. I posted when his departure had become public knowledge.

Things are not always as black and white as 'did you know before or after this date'. The date I posted was not the date I became aware.

 

[disagree]

I knew before he left that he was leaving. I knew when he left. I posted when his departure had become public knowledge.

Things are not always as black and white as 'did you know before or after this date'. The date I posted was not the date I became aware.

That is pure gibberish. But also condescending.

 

[bonnie]

That is pure gibberish. But also condescending.

I didn't mean for it to be condescending. Apologies that you took it that way. Perhaps I was a bit taken aback by your demand that I share what I knew when. Dunno. But didn't mean to condescend.

I am not sure how it qualifies as pure gibberish, however. If I learn on a Monday that someone is leaving after a certain milestone is reached, the milestone is reached on Wednesday, and then on Friday it becomes known publicly & I choose to post then - the Friday date is really meaningless in terms of the timeline. Sorry if that didn't make sense to you.

So again, at the time I learned about it, it was prior to departure. Obviously things would be on good terms at that point or the person would not still be there. I kept my mouth shut because it was still confidential information. I spoke about it when it was no longer confidential information.

 

[BluestarE3]

Whoa, looks like you might have been right on the money with #2. Yuk.

Well, son-of-a-gun. My wife accuses me of generally being too cynical, but for once, I was right about something. Now let's see if my dire outlook for Fara Faro comes to pass.

 

[disagree]

So again, at the time I learned about it, it was prior to departure.

Thanks! That's all I was wondering.

And you don't have to tell me squat. I just find the Sterling-suit situation interesting, and I was merely trying to understand the attack-y post at you.

 

[Electroman]

This is all reminiscent of the GM executive bolting to VW. That executive was highly regarded and his boss was ready to go the press stating he is going to get promoted, and two hours before the press meet the guy was already on his way to Germany. And then the law suits of stealing confidential information were filed.