When you look at the actual fraud (like Theranos) silicon valley funds are nowhere near it. The people that get duped are usually outsiders that are more easily manipulated.
It can be hard to tell the difference between big ideas and bullshit, they can often sound similar. Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit.
In order to tell the difference you need to actually look at the underlying tech for yourself.
> Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit.
Ah yes. A certain billionaire promises robo-taxis and full Level 5 autonomy by 2020, and then in 2021, admits self-driving is hard as FSD is still Level 2, after duping their own customers on buying ahead of their 'promises'.
This billionaire in 2019, surely knew what he was talking about. /s
> In order to tell the difference you need to actually look at the underlying tech for yourself.
Like the deceptive advertisement of FSD (Full Self Driving) auto-pilot software in Tesla cars that has tricked many Tesla drivers into paying for a product that not only doesn't work as advertised, but puts the safety of drivers and others at risk.
The worst part is that they continue to market it regardless of the missed deadlines, the safety risks and the fact that the software is still 'safe' for usage, which that is complete bullshit.
The FSD feature in Tesla cars (along side the robotaxis) was deceptively advertised as 'safe' and promised as 'Level 5' with lots of customers buying into it; and some have lost their lives over the software getting confused. If FSD is not regarded as 'actual fraud' or 'deceptively advertised', then I don't know what is.
Does it matter if the product is superior and does not cause backlash even with the overstated feature?
I mean seriously, if the Tesla owners club was crying and planning class action on this, we would have a different conversation but I don't really see that happening as FSD is just vapor ware at the moment.
FSD was advertised as paying for something that would come in the future - I bought it under that assumption (and so did everyone I know that has it). That was and remains true.
Autopilot is different and isn't advertised as level 5 - 'autopilot' implies fancy lane keeping not turn by turn point to point autonomy.
Elon's FSD timelines were wrong - that isn't fraud. People say everything he's trying to do won't work constantly, just because they're occasionally right doesn't validate all of the times they're wrong (e.g. Model 3 is vaporware will never ship, the company is bankrupt and will close in two weeks, the Model S will never ship, gigafactory is a mistake, roadster means Musk only cares about EVs for the rich etc. etc.)
If you can't tell the difference between Elon Musk and the success of Tesla and SpaceX or think it's equivalent to something like Theranos or Nikola I'm not sure what to say about that, there's just not much point in further discussion. Your pejorative use of billionaire also suggests some political element.
I think Trevor was counting on people not being able to tell the difference. They named their Tesla-competing company “Nikola,” which is a bit astounding when you think of it.
> In Holmes case I genuinely think it didn't start as a fraud
Anyone thinking you can do statistically accurate blood testing from one drop of dirty fingertip capillary blood without having already made a major scientific breakthrough is certainly not thinking straight, if not outright being fraudulent
> FSD was advertised as paying for something that would come in the future
So the software that is called 'FSD' (Full Self Driving) doesn't actually mean what is says or was advertised then? You're telling me that it doesn't mean 'Full Self Driving' or what was meant to be 'full Level 5 autonomy' which that was advertised for completion in 2019 and 2020? [0]
We are in 2021. Where are the robotaxis then? [0]
> If you can't tell the difference between...
Irrelevant. Stay on point. I have only criticized Tesla's deceptive advertising of FSD where that poses a great safety risk of life to both the driver of the car and other drivers on the road. No where did I mention anything generally about Tesla, SpaceX or anything else since the last sentence you said was completely irrelevant.
FSD does not work as advertised neither it is reliable to be used on the road and it puts the safety of the Tesla driver and others drivers at risk, even especially as it is beta software. I would not use such software in a car that confuses the moon as a yellow traffic light. [1]
> Your pejorative use of billionaire also suggests some political element.
?
So both Elon Musk or Trevor Milton are not billionaires? So I am not allowed to say they are billionaires? What wrong with that? It is a fact, not 'some political element'.
I don't always listen to everything that they say whether if it is Milton or Musk.
> So both Elon Musk or Trevor Milton are not billionaires? So I am not allowed to say they are billionaires? What wrong with that? It is a fact, not 'some political element'.
You're telling others to stay on point yet your pointing out that Musk and Milton are billionaires is just as much beside the point.
> Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit. [1]
When it comes to how the FSD system works, should I listen to a billionaire CEO or multiple leading experts in the field?
Unfortunately, the influence of any billionaire CEO (especially one with a rare cult of personality) is far more greater than someone who is simply an 'expert' or 'researcher' in their field. I would rather verify the claims of the CEO to check if what they are claiming doesn't conflict with what the experts and researchers are showing.
Otherwise, the customers will trust anything they say and if not done with proper research, well it goes straight back to [1].
> So the software that is called 'FSD' (Full Self Driving) doesn't actually mean what is says or was advertised then?
There is no FSD today the capability you're paying for is a future update, it used to be entirely that - now they include some extra features under FSD that aren't in base autopilot (lane changes, etc.).
They've always been pretty explicit about this - the language on the site today reads:
> The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
They've also shipped more features toward this goal over time which is what they said they'd do (including a free hardware update if you had paid ahead for FSD).
> We are in 2021. Where are the robotaxis then? [0]
I already conceded he was wrong about timelines.
> Irrelevant. Stay on point.
Not irrelevant - this is the comparison we're talking about the nature of the difference between Trevor Milton and Elon Musk. If you ignore contradictory evidence because it doesn't support your position that's just cherry picking.
> So I am not allowed to say they are billionaires?
>> Ah yes. A certain billionaire promises...
>> This billionaire in 2019, surely...
Do the above quotes sound like some neutral descriptor to you?
What they have today isn't FSD (which they state explicitly), but I'm happy to give them extra money early given the work they're doing on the chance that it works in the future. I think they have the best chance of success of actually shipping something real.
> Not irrelevant - this is the comparison we're talking about the nature of the difference between Trevor Milton and Elon Musk. If you ignore contradictory evidence because it doesn't support your position that's just cherry picking.
What difference? Unless of course, the case of Tesla's deceptive advertising of its beta FSD system putting the lives of drivers at risk and killing them or others [0] is 'far more serious' than Nikola's deceptive advertising of their whole business. Then yes, I agree on that difference and both must be under very close investigation by the regulators.
More specifically, I'm sure you should also realize that I was criticizing both of them from the start and not 'cherry picking' or siding with any company or person, unlike you mentioning Musk's other companies which that is completely irrelevant.
> They've also shipped more features toward this goal over time which is what they said they'd do.
Despite this, it is still unreliable [1] and the safety risks still stands, even when the driver is behind the wheel and is attentive of what is in front of them.
Highlighting these risks is extremely important such that it is the difference between life or death and it can be from a malfunction in the software that controls the car.
> Do the above quotes sound like some neutral descriptor to you?
Excuse me?
It is an objective fact. Isn't it? [2] [3] Why do you feel offended of this fact? I'm sure the customers will listen to them because they think they know what they are talking about? Don't they?
>>> Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit. [4]
You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong. None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion.
> You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong.
It is both as I have always said. So you think it's worth putting the lives of other drivers at risk whilst using beta software that was deceptively advertised as "Full Self Driving" (FSD) by Tesla Inc. even when it is shown to be still not ready, than a company (Nikola Motors Corp.) and their CEO that is also deceptively advertising their entire products and technologies to investors?
What is the difference exactly on the lies and fraudulent claims made by both of them? There are none.
So your claim that:
> Elon Musk is obviously different. [0]
Is false. There are no exceptions.
Perhaps the only difference is that one involves a risk of death which that is irreversible and 'far more serious' than the other which I believe that both companies and their CEOs should be under serious investigation over their claims in their products.
Read all the comments again, since at this point you have ignored all of them since you are still defending the indefensible.
> None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion.
Are you now able to admit that the advertising of the FSD system and the fact that it is no where near 'Full Self Driving' capability which was bought in by Tesla customers also does not work or function as advertised?
On top of that, using a beta product that may get confused of malfunction poses a serious risk of death and has killed drivers or other passengers in the past, needs to be under through serious investigation by the regulators?
> When you look at the actual fraud (like Theranos) silicon valley funds are nowhere near it. The people that get duped are usually outsiders that are more easily manipulated.
might not have been valley insiders, but if you look at theranos bizarre board selection, they were certainly not just random joes and certainly had the wherewithal to know they needed do proper due diligence before attaching themselves to the fraud, unless of course they were also party to it...
It can be hard to tell the difference between big ideas and bullshit, they can often sound similar. Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit.
In order to tell the difference you need to actually look at the underlying tech for yourself.