In fairness, Tesla has promised that at some point in the future. They have not claimed that they have full self driving currently. Theranos claimed to have their system working.
I still see a claim about future functionality as a far different thing (even if they are wrong) than a false claim about existing functionality.
Exactly what makes this false claim. Imagine someone gave you a drug and claim that it can cure cancer. It would be a false claim, even though it is possible that in future, it might turn out to be capable of curing cancer, by some specific method of application. The only problem is that that method is unknown today and no indication that such method might actually exist..
So just because in theory, you can strap on two forward facing cameras and call it full "self driving hardware" (because that is what humans have). Would you consider it legit?
If Tesla believes, in good faith, that their hardware is sufficient to enable full self-driving, them it is not fraud. They might be wrong. They might even be incompetent, but that's not the same as fraud. Obviously, if they do not believe their hardware is sufficient, then it is fraud.
Now, if Tesla sold you a car and told you that it is capable of fully self-driving right now, that would be indisputable fraud, because this claim cannot be made in good faith. This is what Theranos did. They did not claim that they had a potential solution. They claimed they had a completed product.
As you said earlier that "no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware". And if that is true, claiming that "our cars have full self driving hardware", is nothing but a big, fat lie.
That is like selling a computer by saying that it has "full stock prediction hardware".Oh, I am not a fraud because I sincerely believe that my computer can see into the future. It just needs the right software. Oh believe me, I make this claim in good faith.
What a crock of shit.
You insist on assuming that they are operating in bad faith by making a prediction and you keep giving bad faith examples as metaphors. If I sold you a car and told you that a future update would automatically dim and brighten the headlights based on whether the road was empty, would that be fraud? Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off, this isn’t a bad faith claim unless I do not intend to deliver.
You have said it yourself that no one know enough to make this assumption. How can Tesla then make this assumption?
Your argument boils down to being unable to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Most people don't consider the constraints of reality to constitute fraud.
In other words the company is as genuine as the quack around the corner who sell cancer cure...
Complete quacks, right?
I have nothing else to add. Thanks for the laughs.
You mean, computer?