Hacker News Reader

Comment by bagels | Hacker News Reader

Tesla's lawyers state: "mere failure to realize a long-term, aspirational goal is not fraud"

They intentionally neglect to acknowledge musk's many specific claims that involved specific timelines, as opposed to the nebulous long term aspirations they allude to.

View on HN

If FSD had been described as "a long-term, aspirational goal" I never would have purchased it, and I think many others would feel the same way.

Claims about what will happen in the future and on what timeline are obviously speculative and best guesses at best. No reasonable person would interpret them any other way.

A reasonable person might come to the conclusion that they weren't "best guesses" though, but instead knowingly misrepresenting the situation.

But that would just be failing to assume good faith from the onset, which is a problem on its own (especially if we’re trying to interpret legal stuff).

We're talking about this years later, looking at years of context, that's hardly "failing to assume good faith from the onset".

I’m not sure what you mean exactly. If you’re suggesting that repeated failure to meet ambitious target deadlines is more indicative of bad faith than a single failure to do so, well… I don’t think it works like that.

The bar for abandoning the presumption of good faith, and the principle of charitable interpretation, is very high.

> I’m not sure what you mean exactly. If you’re suggesting that repeated failure to meet ambitious target deadlines is more indicative of bad faith than a single failure to do so, well… I don’t think it works like that.

Sure it does! Elon Musk isn't 5, right? He's capable of observing the rate of progress and adjusting his pronouncements.

Failure to improve forecasting skills is valid criticism, but that doesn’t amount to bad faith.

It's bad faith if you believe he does have the capability but intentionally doesn't use it. And isn't listening to his advisors.

"If you give me $10,000 today, tomorrow I will deliver your car" ... Three years later: "I'll deliver your car tomorrow"

Sounds like a contract with specific terms! If we’re going to look at this as a contract, we’re going to need more than intuition: we’re going to need some contract law, and we’re probably going to need to look at all the disclosures and fine print involved in the purchase of FSD.

Fraud does not need a contract. My understanding is that it has three elements: First, the perpetrator has to provide a false statement as a material fact. Second, the perpetrator had to have known that the statement was untrue. Third, the perpetrator had to have intended to deceive the victim.

Is failure to meet a specific timeline any different?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com