Snippiness 2.0

[DDHEverything]

Did the OP specifically ask you to comment about the replies to his post? Don’t think so. You clearly don’t understand basic conversational skills.

That was pathetic.

 

[TLLMRRJ]

That was pathetic.

To you, because it was the truth. You need to leave.

 

[DDHEverything]

To you, because it was the truth. You need to leave.

Such a sad and miserable life you must live.

 

[Knightshade]

My take here is Tesla considered the two features (TL&SS control & Autosteer) part of Automatic driving on city streets.

That's a weird taken, given you included a picture showing you're wrong and they clearly considered them separate things.

Why would they list a feature that's part of the second thing all by itself, then list the second thing separately that the first one is "considered" a part of?

(spoiler: they wouldn't and once again your reading makes 0 sense)

Especially when the first listed feature was tested in early access entirely unrelated to the other, and was released to the public 6 months ago, while we're still waiting on MAYBE the autosteer on city streets bit coming by end of year.

M
. One was close to release (or released?), and the other was still yet to come.

Yes. Because they were separate features.

Which is why they were already listed seperately.

Notice how in the NEWER version they are STILL listed separately- because they are separate things?

So the label change was made for clarity.

Again this answer is utterly nonsensical, since one had nothing to do with the other.

IMO, all the basic ingredients are already there for Automatic driving on city streets.

Since the car currently does not understand cross traffic, has no understanding of object permeance, and no rules for handling intersections in anything but a straight line, your O is once again, very very W.

If the re-write pans out, I'm closer to believing level 3 will be possible with the current hardware.

Sure. If a fundamentally very different set of software works out, it's likely things will be better.

I mean. Duh. But at least you managed to say one thing that's not glaringly factually wrong in the post, kudos!

As for who's owed what? Tesla will not hand out future hardware to some and leave out others. Either we all get it, or we all don't. It's simple common sense.

Right. Nobody's getting next-gen sensors.

But the pre 3/19 people are getting refunds. Or laywers.

The post 3/19 folks won't get either (I mean, they COULD get lawyers but the results would be mostly laugher since again the legal obligations to them are basically 0 unlike the pre 3/19 buyers)

Would they want bad publicity and a black eye in the face of increasing competition? I think not.

...what competition?

As for a class action. The first FSD description has no timeline mentioned based on that picture. It even states it's not possible to know when the features will be ready. So Tesla can take 10 or more years if they please. How many will still have their cars then?

Sure- they COULD do that.

Though as a company that's been promising working L4 or better FSD since 2016, they do eventually have to admit they CAN'T do it with current HW.

There's 2 choices there-

Either just keep saying "coming soon" when they KNOW they can't do it for years and years putting the same FSD hardware in the cars.

Or eventually admit they can't do it with CURRENT sensors, and upgrade them on future cars.


At which point they won't offer a million+ free sensor upgrades, so lawsuit time for the pre-3/19 folks if they don't get refunds.

As noted though- those folks paid MUCH LESS than the post 3/19 folks... so the refund option is cheap, and avoids the bad-look lawsuit, likely the way they'll go.

Now look at the other 2 descriptions? If by the end of the year, autosteer on city streets isn't delivered, those people have a leg to stand on.

Dude.

That "older version" screen shot is from 2019.

It said that stuff last year too and they failed to deliver either 'later this year' feature.

For that matter the description of enhanced summon is an outright lie and STILL is.

it won't come find you "anywhere" in the parking lot... it'll come find you "anywhere within 200 feet" in a parking lot and that's it.

Most lots are a ton larger than that- meaning it won't come find you in MOST of the parking lot.

 

[ucmndd]

First they laugh at you, then they...how was it again?!
And before someone starts yelling - "tHis Is JuSt tHe hEaT PuMp" - they have to run a separate EPA test for that to work. If they added 10% more capacity/more dense batteries - then they can simply slap that onto the EPA rating per kWh...
And no, the heat pump can't just automatically add 30 miles to the car...

None of this has anything to do with your navel-gazing speculation about minor battery revisions for remanufactured packs in the parts catalog.

 

[john5520]

That's a weird taken, given you included a picture showing you're wrong and they clearly considered them separate things.

Why would they list a feature that's part of the second thing all by itself, then list the second thing separately that the first one is "considered" a part of?

It's just my take which I was asked for. Still, you're not making one lick of sense here, at all. You're trying to pick apart a point that flew right over your head.

Since the car currently does not understand cross traffic, has no understanding of object permeance, and no rules for handling intersections in anything but a straight line, your O is once again, very very W.

Apparently, the word 'basic' is lost on you.

Sure. If a fundamentally very different set of software works out, it's likely things will be better.

I mean. Duh. But at least you managed to say one thing that's not glaringly factually wrong in the post, kudos!

Coming from you, that doesn't mean much. After all, according to you, sudden Phantom Braking occurs to save people from speeding tickets, right?

Right. Nobody's getting next-gen sensors.

But the pre 3/19 people are getting refunds. Or laywers.

The only people that will get anything are the lawyers. If L3 is achieved, which could happen sooner than later, all Tesla has to do is demo a car making several long and short trips with the driver not touching the controls and the case will be closed.

...what competition?

Every other EV manufacturer and automation developer in the US and elsewhere? Ford, Chevy, Porche, BMW, VW, Mercedes to name a few? Mobile Eye? Waymo? Competition in other countries like China? Norway? 2 places where the Model 3 sales are slipping in favor of other EVs (unfortunately)? And some of these already have automation systems in the works. Where have you been? Tesla is still L2, and yeah other manufactures are already working on systems for off-freeway l2. Do you think they'll just sit by and watch Tesla corner the market forever? Or they're not competent enough to compete?

At which point they won't offer a million+ free sensor upgrades, so lawsuit time for the pre-3/19 folks if they don't get refunds.

As noted though- those folks paid MUCH LESS than the post 3/19 folks... so the refund option is cheap, and avoids the bad-look lawsuit, likely the way they'll go.

It's already been 4 years and they're still on L2. It could easily be another 10 years or more before they get to L4, if ever. There will be a long wait.

Dude.

That "older version" screen shot is from 2019.

It said that stuff last year too and they failed to deliver either 'later this year' feature.

Dude

I was just making a point that if those owners wanted to sue, they had a case as a deadline was given unlike the first FSD description. I never said they were planning to. Yikes!!

 

[mspohr]

In its September throne speech, the federal government signalled its intention to fund the development of new nuclear reactors (SMRs) as part of its climate action plan.


Today, the government made its first SMR funding announcement: $20 million from ISED's Strategic Innovation Fund for the company Terrestrial Energy to develop its prototype SMR in Ontario.


Anyone interested in evidence-based policy is wondering: Why are they doing this? There is no evidence that nuclear power will achieve carbon reduction targets, while there is considerable research indicating the contrary.


In fact, in today's funding announcement, federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan confirmed that the new reactor will take more than a decade to develop and will contribute nothing to Canada's 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.


The same week as the throne speech, the release of the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) confirmed, as did its previous reports, that developing new nuclear energy is too slow and uneconomical to address the climate crisis compared to deploying renewable energy technologies.


Last week, research based on data from 123 countries over a 25-year period made a similar finding. December 2019 research from Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson refutes claims that nuclear energy is zero-carbon. A November 2019 article in the American business magazine Forbes argues that building new nuclear reactors instead of investing in more climate-effective energy resources actually makes climate change worse.


SMRs, the nuclear reactors promoted by the federal government, are in particular over-hyped as a climate crisis solution. SMRs have been proposed as a solution for remote communities and mining sites currently relying on diesel fuel but new research has found the potential market is too small to be viable.


SMRs exist only as computer models and nobody knows for sure if they will work. Last month, the Canadian energy watchdog The Energy Mix interviewed WNISR lead author Mycle Schneider, who called SMRs "PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering."


Given all the research evidence pointing away from funding nuclear energy in a climate action plan, why is the federal government proposing to do it?

<snip>
Full article at:
Why is the federal government funding new nuclear power reactors?

Throne speech?
Maybe the problem is that you have a throne?

 

[TLLMRRJ]

And the price dropped within two weeks of buying that? The point is simple, had I known about the impending price drop and release of the new car, I would have waited. I was deliberately deprived of that information for them to move their current stock. Other car makers know this results in bad relationship with their customers. They do not drop refreshed models and implement price changes overnight. They make their intentions known ahead of time and do run-out sales before they introduce the change. Here in Tesla they knew they are going to reduce the price and bring out a new model and did the opposite. They hid the information and let their customers hung out to dry.

You're really coming off like a spoiled child now. "Daddy, I want ANOTHER pony!"

Here's the question you have to keep asking yourself: If Tesla raised the price by 10% 2 weeks after you bought your car, and didn't tell you at the time you were buying that they are raising the price, would you expect Tesla to ask you for that extra money, and if they did, would you pay it?

Now you can sleep at night.

 

[Knightshade]

It's just my take which I was asked forp

But your take appears to make up a reading of the text that is nonsensical.

It lists a bunch of features.

What you were asked for is why they changed the wording on ONE specific one.

Your answer was that it was secretly considered to include another one of the listed features, despite that feature already being listed by itself. Which makes 0 sense and appears contradictory to facts and the actual timelines, development, and testing of everything involved.

And that they changed the wording on the one you were asked about because.... something changed about the OTHER one that, outside your imagination, has no actual relation to the one you were actually asked about.


Grasping at straws doesn't even apply to that... it's inventing imaginary straws.

Apparently, the word 'basic' is lost on you.

No, you just got caught, again, being blatantly wrong on your facts.

Several of the functions I listed are BASIC to city driving, and they don't exist in the current code.

So your claim all the basic functionality for city driving is already there is factually wrong

Much like virtually every claim you've made the entire thread.

The only people that will get anything are the lawyers. If L3 is achieved, which could happen sooner than later, all Tesla has to do is demo a car making several long and short trips with the driver not touching the controls and the case will be closed.

Again this is factually wrong.

L3 requires something from the drivers at all times.

Specifically being able and ready to take over when the car needs you to.

L4 requires no action from the drivers.

Which is why to everyone on earth but you apparently, the pre-3/19 description is very obviously describing L4 features.

"no action" does not mean "some of the time you'll need to take action"

Every other EV manufacturer and automation developer in the US and elsewhere? Ford, Chevy, Porche, BMW, VW, Mercedes to name a few?

Which of them offers a product that is comparable or better than the one Tesla currently offers?

Far as I can tell current functionality has them "competing" with AP1 from 2014....not remotely competing with the current FSD product at all.

Waymo?

Waymo doesn't sell cars- so again your basic facts are wrong.

Competition in other countries like China? Norway?

...WTF are you even talking about here?

What driver automation system does NORWAY sell?

 

[john5520]

But your take appears to make up a reading of the text that is nonsensical.

Because it flew over your head.

So your claim all the basic functionality for city driving is already there is factually wrong

Even when you ignored the meaning of 'basic' which you needed to do in order to make your grasping at straws seem even remotely legit, you still failed at your point because the re-write is days away from testing.

Again this is factually wrong.

L3 requires something from the drivers at all times.

With L3, the car is doing the driving and will most certainly have the ability to make long and short trips without any driver action. Just not every time (which Tesla never made clear). And the only thing it requires from the driver at all times is to be alert.

Far as I can tell current functionality has them "competing" with AP1 from 2014....not remotely competing with the current FSD product at all.

And Tesla's current FSD product is still L2 and is still only for freeway and limited access roads, right? Sure, outside of the city, it's ahead but not by the big margin you seem to be suggesting and the technology needs a lot of work. Besides, Audi already had L3 in development for years which it recently canceled in favor of L2 / L4 development.
Hopefully, Tesla can truly widen that gap with the re-write. Another up and coming competitor is GM's Ultra-cruise which will be capable of working off-highway.

And even if FSD leapfrogs everyone by a mile, it doesn't mean competition magically disappears. So, your attempt at a point went nowhere.

Waymo doesn't sell cars- so again your basic facts are wrong.

No, they, like MobileEye, develop technology that can then be used in other cars. And Tesla's robotaxi service, if it ever comes to fruition, will
be a direct competitor. My guess is Waymo's coverage would have expanded to many other cities by then.

...WTF are you even talking about here?

What driver automation system does NORWAY sell?

??????? Your severe lack of reading comprehension is rearing its ugly head again.

 

[Knightshade]

Because it flew over your head.

Yes if there's a reason you keep making up imaginary excuses contradicted by the actual text from Tesla, that's going over everyones heads right now.

Guess it's just you playing 9D chess with us.

Even when you ignored the meaning of 'basic'

Are you talking to yourself?

Because again, many of the BASIC functions needed to do that don't exist in the current software.

So when you literally said they did you were, as always, factually wrong

you still failed at your point because the re-write is days away from testing.

This is again factually wrong because your claim was about the current software.

Which does not have all the basic features needed for city driving as you, wrongly, claimed.

Your inability to not just admit, but apparently even notice when you are repeatedly called out for getting your essential facts wrong is simply remarkable.

With L3, the car is doing the driving and will most certainly have the ability to make long and short trips without any driver action.

Again, this is factually wrong

The SAE chart explicitly points out that UNLIKE L4, the DRIVER still has a role to play and can be required to TAKE ACTION at any time on short notice.

It's why you can't take a nap in an L3 car, but can't in an L4 car.

"remain awake and able to take over" is a required action by a driver in an L3 vehicle.

it's NOT required in an L4.

Do I need to add more red circles to the chart so you can see the facts once again are against you?

Just not every time

Yes, EVERY time you are in the drivers seat of a car driving as L3, you must remain awake and must still be prepared to intervene when requested.

That's NOT true of an L4 car where the person in the drivers seat need take no action during the trip at any time. You don't have to be ready to do anything because you won't ever be required or needed to do anything.

And the only thing it requires from the driver at all times is to be alert.

Right. Remain alert is an action.

Action
Noun
the fact or process of doing something

Like, the PROCESS OF REMAINING ALERT.


In contrast- NO action is required of the person in the drivers seat for a pre-3/19 FSD car once the promised features are delivered.

That's why it's an L4 promise, not L3.

It literally tells you so

We even showed you pictures and you still refuse to accept facts.

And Tesla's current FSD product is still L2 and is still only for freeway and limited access roads, right?

That is the intended use, yes.

Sure, outside of the city, it's ahead but not by the big margin you seem to be suggesting

Whom do you think is really close today in a car you can buy today?

Most consider Caddy to have the next best system.

Current features are about the same as AP1 from Tesla circa 2014....except that it works on fewer roads than the 2014 Tesla system.

and the technology needs a lot of work. Besides, Audi already had L3 in development for years which it recently canceled in favor of L2 / L4 development.

I've got a time machine in development. Lot of good a product that doesn't actually work and nobody can actually buy does anyone though right?

Not sure why you keep tossing irrelevant nonsense out there.

Another up and coming competitor is GM's Ultra-cruise which will be capable of working off-highway.

"will be"

Just like VW is gonna be the industry leader in electric cars by 2018 (a promise they actually made about 5 years earlier)

Competition by press release isn't competition

And even if FSD leapfrogs everyone by a mile, it doesn't mean competition magically disappears.

No, it means it remains a mile behind though. So not really "competition" so much as "the much crappier thing you're stuck with if you don't buy a Tesla"

I mean, both a corolla and a corvette can go 0-60 in SOME amount of time. That doesn't mean the corolla is competition for the corvette does it?

No, they, like MobileEye, develop technology that can then be used in other cars.

Great! What car can I buy today that uses Waymos self driving tech?

Is it... none?

Because I'm pretty sure it's none.

??????? Your severe lack of reading comprehension is rearing its ugly head again.

DUDE.

I quoted YOUR words.

YOU wrote- in a discussion on competition in self driving features, in a thread specifically about self driving, the following:

"Competition in other countries like China? Norway?"

So I asked what self driving system Norway developed.


Don't get mad at me because you keep making insane claims with no basis in reality then getting called on em.

 

[john5520]

This is again factually wrong because your claim was about the current software.

No it wasn't. Where did I say current software? That's what you conveniently added in.In and earlier post I talked about the rewrite:

Next we need turning on intersections which the re-write should help with. So yes, automatic driving on city streets is complex, but we're not that far away at all. All the basic ingredients are there like I've said before.

The SAE chart explicitly points out that UNLIKE L4, the DRIVER still has a role to play and can be required to TAKE ACTION at any time on short notice.

Correct.

"remain awake and able to take over" is a required action by a driver in an L3 vehicle.

LOL!!!!!! Quit reaching. It's embarrassing to see the lengths you would go to make an argument that goes nowhere.

Whom do you think is really close today in a car you can buy today?

Most consider Caddy to have the next best system.

Current features are about the same as AP1 from Tesla circa 2014....except that it works on fewer roads than the 2014 Tesla system.


I've got a time machine in development. Lot of good a product that doesn't actually work and nobody can actually buy does anyone though right?

Not sure why you keep tossing irrelevant nonsense out there.

"will be"

Just like VW is gonna be the industry leader in electric cars by 2018 (a promise they actually made about 5 years earlier)

Competition by press release isn't competition

No, it means it remains a mile behind though. So not really "competition" so much as "the much crappier thing you're stuck with if you don't buy a Tesla"

I mean, both a corolla and a corvette can go 0-60 in SOME amount of time. That doesn't mean the corolla is competition for the corvette does it?

What a collection outright lies, ignorance, pointless babble and excuses, none of which changes the fact that Tesla has competition. Also, you DO understand there is more to competition in the EV market than just automation tech right?

 

[Knightshade]

No it wasn't. Where did I say current software?

Right here.

IMO, all the basic ingredients are already there for Automatic driving on city streets.

"already there" is current software.

Since that's the only software that is "there" for anybody but Teslas internal developers/testers.

And of course as I correctly pointed out, there's numerous basic ingredients NOT there in the current software.


I'm sorry once again you've been proven wrong with facts- in this case your own words.

Doubtless you'll continue to misunderstand and deny it anyway though.

LOL!!!!!! Quit reaching.

Citing the literal dictionary definition of a word to prove you wrong, for like the 300th time in the thread, is reaching?

I mean, it might cause you to reach for an actual dictionary for the first time ever I guess- which potentially would vastly improve the quality of your posts- so seems like a win-win there.

It's embarrassing to see the lengths you would go to make an argument that goes nowhere.

Yes- citing facts, Teslas written statements, the SAE rules, and your own contradictory words are SOME lengths to go to.

Shame you never bother with things like that and just keep making up new contradictory nonsense.

What a collection outright lies, ignorance, pointless babble and excuses

Fantastic summary of your posts in the thread so far- kudos!

I mean- especially when it's in reply to paragraph you quote where I again catch you behaving in all those things.

, none of which changes the fact that Tesla has competition. A

Again you repeating a lie doesn't really stop it from being a lie.

You can't buy a car today with a system that's competition for much more than what Tesla offered in AP1 in 2014.

Nobody's really close to the current system in any consumer vehicle outside of press releases and "coming soon" promises.

lso, you DO understand there is more to competition in the EV market than just automation tech right?

PENALTY!

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS!

If you wanna discuss general EV competition, maybe go find a thread about THAT topic instead of this topic?

 

[john5520]

Right here.

"already there" is current software.

Post # 86 above:

. Next we need turning on intersections which the re-write should help with. So yes, automatic driving on city streets is complex, but we're not that far away at all. All the basic ingredients are there like I've said before.

So no, I wasn't just talking about the current software.

Citing the literal dictionary definition of a word to prove you wrong, for like the 300th time in the thread, is reaching?

You didn't prove anything. Being alert is not an action. But I did get a nice laugh out of it.

Again you repeating a lie doesn't really stop it from being a lie.

You can't buy a car today with a system that's competition for much more than what Tesla offered in AP1 in 2014.

Nobody's really close to the current system in any consumer vehicle outside of press releases and "coming soon" promises.

ALL automation systems, however advanced, are competitors. Some people are just happy with TACC, which a ton of cars already have.

Tesla wants to sell more cars than the next guy so they have to consider the competition in every context. You have a knack for only seeing the forest for the trees.
And when I made the statement about competition in post #86, it wasn't in the context of just automation.

 

[Knightshade]

Post # 86 above:


So no, I wasn't just talking about the current software.

Except, you were.

We know because you say the basics are ALREADY ther- which can LITERALLY only be true of the EXISTING software... (and is factually wrong of course)


and then, as per YOUR OWN QUOTE, you say "next" and begin talking about the NEW software- which is NOT already there.


Or do you also need pictures with red circles to explain the direction in which time flows?

You didn't prove anything. Being alert is not an action.

Except, of course, remaining alert and ready to take over if asked is LITERALLY AN ACTION by the definition of the word action in the dictionary.

Again I admire the tenacity with which you refuse to understand basic english.

ALL automation systems, however advanced, are competitors.

I mean, in the sense a corolla is a "competetor" for a Corvette, because both go 0-60 EVENTUALLY....sure.

Otherwise- not so much.

Some people are just happy with TACC

Some people are happy getting to 60 mph in 8.2 seconds. That doesn't really mean their corolla is a competitor for a C8 though does it?

Tesla wants to sell more cars than the next guy so they have to consider the competition in every context.

Given nobody increased sales YoY last quarter other than Tesla- doesn't seem like it.

And when I made the statement about competition in post #86, it wasn't in the context of just automation.

Then you appear to be in the wrong thread.

Guess we can add that to the massive list of everything else you've gotten wrong

 

[john5520]

Except, you were.

We know because you say the basics are ALREADY ther- which can LITERALLY only be true of the EXISTING software... (and is factually wrong of course)

No, it's factually right because the re-write already exists.

Except, of course, remaining alert and ready to take over if asked is LITERALLY AN ACTION by the definition of the word action in the dictionary.

Not on Planet Earth. In your bizarro world maybe.

Given nobody increased sales YoY last quarter other than Tesla- doesn't seem like it.

This made no sense whatsoever, but I'm not surprised.

 

[Knightshade]

No, it's factually right because the re-write already exists.

Given you were discusing features in CURRENTLY deployed software, specifically telling us the CURRENT software had the BASIC functions needed (a claim that is factually untrue)- no, it doesn't.

Doubly obvious when your NEXT paragraph specifically mentioned that NEXT thing would be the re-write.

Which makes it extra clear the pREVIOUS discussion was NOT about the re-write.

Again you fail to defend even your own contradictions by not grasping either basic English, or the direction in which time flows.

Not on Planet Earth.

I'm not sure what earth you're from where dictionaries don't exist- but the lack of them from your home would explain a lot about your posts

This made no sense whatsoever, but I'm not surprised.

I mean, it does- but it requires understanding basic facts and math- so again your inability to grasp it surprised no one.

 

[john5520]

Given you were discusing features in CURRENTLY deployed software

Autosteer on City Streets isn't currently deployed yet, and I was referring to it as well, so your statement is factually incorrect.

 

[pjensen]

I admire the tenacity with which you refuse to understand basic English.

Have to agree. This is one long painful thread to read.

Earlier, I recommended john5520 buy some contract law books and read them. But I'm not sure he would understand them.

Read your purchase contract carefully. It specifies what you will be buying (and nothing more). You also agreed to arbitration which prevents (most) litigation.

 

[Yelobird]

One of the funnier videos our Model Y caught on Sentry. No damage or scratches (we also have full PPF). Just some admirers having a little fun.

Streamable Video

Why would you block this ignorant drunk hoes face. I would publish it Everywhere unedited to Think about other people property when she’s pimping herself.