buvanshak

That is what you said. You said no one knows the full list of hardware requirements to make full self driving work. Tesla is claiming that their cars have this "full hardware for self driving".

In other words the company is as genuine as the quack around the corner who sell cancer cure...

I am not sure. Why are you mentioning flights? I am talking about this [1] and [2]. It does not have anything to do with regular planes..

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/spacex-launch-last-y...

[2] https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/25/spacex-rocket-carved-gia...

>The same feature which adds danger at every update is one that also has the potential to add safety at every update...

You don't work in software, right?

Is there any concern regarding the damage these frequent and big rocket launches are doing to the upper atmosphere? Are people aware of such a thing? Because I have seen very few discussion around the same....

>Assuming your car came with what I believed to be sufficient hardware capabilities to pull this off...

You have said it yourself that no one know enough to make this assumption. How can Tesla then make this assumption?

> Its a claim about the performance of the system which you have claimed we can not characterize with the currently available statistics.

I claimed the feature they call "Autopilot" is unsafe because it has only limited capability (as per Tesla's documentation). But the naming of the feature and its marketing inspires false confidence in the drivers, leading to accidents. This is a very simple fact, and it should have been apparent to people a Tesla, and the fact that they went ahead and did this kind of marketing makes them "blatantly evil" in my books. Because, as you said, it is open and they are unashamed about it. Other safety features that are widely available in similar cars from other companies is irrelavant here. I am not even sure why you dragged it into this.

>If we think long-term, their actions are part of what allows the long term to exist in the first place.

What kind of circular logic is that? If they are not really interested (their real motivation) in the "long term", then their actions cease to be part of "what allows long term to exist".

To be clear, by misleading marketing, I meant things like the "autopilot" feature. And claiming that they have "full self driving hardware". I am not sure how the safety of vehicles with assistive tech is relevant. I am not at all disagreeing on that aspect. You were saying that fact that vehicles with assistive tech are safer is reflected in tesla's marketing and PR. I am still not sure how that could be the case. How does it justify calling a half baked self driving tech as autopilot and selling them to unsuspecting people?

>At no point in the chain of logic is it necessary to call upon the motivations of Elon Musk.

We are interested in their motivation because we are thinking long term. When you are need of a million bucks, and a person shows up with a million bucks that they are willing to give you, without asking for payback, will you accept it right away? Or will you try to infer the true motivation behind the act, that may turn out to be sinister? This is irrespective of the fact that the other person is giving you real money, that can help you right now. Will you think like, we don't need to worry about their motivations as long as we are getting real money. Will you?

Hope I am clear.

You are squinting too hard. Don't squint too hard. You ll miss out all the important details.

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.

>Tesla's safety record actually is such that if scaled up, their would be a massive drop in the number of deaths per day...

There is not enough data to do this "scaling up". So doing so would be incredibly misleading (But doesn't stop tesla's PR from doing the same).

>Tesla is also a leading player in moving away from destroying our planet.

The actions of this company and the persons behind this somehow does not feel compatible with such a goal. I am sorry. I am just not buying it. It is more probable that this "saving the planet" narrative is something that is meant to differentiate from the competition and to attract investors. Do you think Elon Musk could have created a company that builds ICE cars and emerged as a major player? It is "save the planet" for tesla and "save humanity by going to mars" for spacex..

I mean, is this so hard to see?

No, it is not the crash that makes the evil. It is how they handle it. And how they put blatantly misleading marketing out there, along with poorly researched features that may or may not have lead to overconfidence from the drivers along with half baked tech, that resulted in crashes such as these.

>I think he's super honest about the Mars stuff. I also think he's being super deceptive about the Tesla stuff.

If he is super deceptive about X, then there is really no reason to believe, or incredible naive to believe that he is super honest about Y for all Y

About "hands not detected on the wheel part", it seems that the car only detects steering torsion, and it is possible that the driver actually had hands on the wheel, but just didn't provide any steering input.

If a company is this blatantly evil while still in a growing phase, I can only imagine what they would do once they are a established major player...

> Given that no one has full self-driving, no one has an actual list of the necessary hardware.

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?

The claim is full self driving hardware right now, right?

>You can buy a Tesla car today, strip it down, and confirm it works and isn’t a giant Potemkin village?

What about "Full self driving hardware"? I am pretty sure you are not going to find it there.

And people have bought them thinking that it (full self driving functionality) is just one update away...

around 10 years before, an IT professional was the hottest thing in the Indian marriage market (if I may use that term, which is common use around here.). There was no problem for one to find a bride if they are anywhere near IT. When you here that some girl is getting married, and ask what the groom is doing, 9 out of 10 times, it would be "Software Engineer in US". Now it is bank employees. No one needs IT professionals now...

That should tell you something in lines of answering this question...

> there was some serious integration of battery technology that had never been done before that made it possible for the Model S to exist.

Where can I read about this?

You know, face to face communication is good if you are repeating stuff you heard from somewhere or stuff like "Hi there, how was your weekend" type of talk.

When you want productive communication, you want thought backing content and framing of every one of your sentences...

>I’ve found face to face communication effective for resolving contentious disagreements...

I have observed the same. But 9 out of 10 times, it was because the losing party couldn't spend much time thinking about counter arguments.

So again, it cures the symptom, but it benefits only the person with the loudest voice in the room, and not the one with sound reason.

>People seem to understand the other side’s perspective more fully and confusions that can show up in email from things like poor word choice can be resolved...

Don't buy this either. As I said before, the "seem to understand" bit might come from the fact that people often does not express disagreement in face to face communication that often, because they didn't have time to think it through.

EDIT: This is assuming that the both parties in the discussion are more or less on the same level of competence. If the communication is going to be mostly one sided, then face to face communication (Like a teacher in a class room) is fine.

> I still believe that face-to-face communication is the most efficient way to transfer information ...

Why do people think this. For one thing, and I think it is most important, face to face communication does not give either parties time to think. It ends up with awkward, unproductive pauses.

Face to face communication is great for small talk, chit chat and rumors. Not for communication backed by actual thought...

>MKUltra was wide in scope but no earth-shattering new information was revealed...

Again, our little argument was asking if such information would ever be revealed to the public if it was found. So including this particular argument is no possible..

> When the effective medicines become widespread big pharma has incentive to spend as much money marketing against them as it does to actually develop better stuff...

Can you explain why they would do this?

>The idea that a super bug could get out of control in the general population is not scientifically sound because it would kill all of its hosts..

That is not what a super bug means. It just means that it is resistant to antibiotics. Not that it has a MR of 100. It is possible for people to survive infections without antibiotics. I am surprised that I have to say this aloud. It seems that we are living in a time where people are born convinced that human beings cannot survive without medicines...

>The government isn’t that great at secrets.

Do you really mean this? Are you saying that the government is incapable of keeping a certain fact secret, if exposing it will compromise national security?

> SpaceX came in with radically different manufacturing ideas and changed the game.

This never really happened. If this really happened, please provide a good article about the same, that describe what radically different manufacturing ideas and how they "changed the game"...

Never used github. Always used bitbucket.

denial!

If the client does not not care, why suffer by using something that is worse for you? I mean, you might as well use something that you like.

I don't get the logic here.

Another thing is that, if it it worse for you, it is automatically worse for the client. I am not sure why it is so hard to see. if your tool is bad, then your work ll suffer, and thus the client. So it is worse for them also..

Ok. But that does not mean that you have to use the worst thing that is out there.

Why not Python?