Yes. It is level 2 like any other software out there. But this is not how Musk markets it. He uses the term "autopilot" and the phrase "fully self driving" and promised that was coming in "3 month probably, 6 months definitely" 2 years ago and claims it is safer than a human driver.

To the extent that people are misled - and they are, broadly; how many know that is GUARANTEED to crash into stationary objects on the road and GUARANTEED to follow lanes into concrete barriers with no warnings - Musk is responsible.

You know this but you're a cultist so you don't care, instead choosing to obfuscate and strawman. In fact that's your modus operandi on here. It's quite effective too.

Musk just promised, with no doubt, that full autonomy is coming next year, yet another shameless lie by a giant conman.

The dead might be forgiven, given his lies and hype and the claim of automatic braking and collision avoidance, for believing that it's at least sophisticated enough to avoid gigantic stationary obstacles. After all, all other autonomous driving programs like Google, Cruise build this into their software first because they're not cowboys and they care about not needlessly killing people.

Uh, dude, the level of attention that an aircraft pilot has to engage when using autopilot is *exactly* the same as a Tesla driver using Autopilot. Any airline pilot who was watching Harry Potter movies when flying while using autopilot would be summarily fired! Both Tesla drivers using Autopilot and aircraft pilots using autopilot are required to be alert and wary of danger at all times. And the functions that an aircraft autopilot performs -- throttle, navigation, etc, -- are similar to the Tesla Autopilot. And of course aircraft autopilots don't promise to avoid all hazards, quite the contrary. There have been aircraft autopilots for decades, and that never meant that the aircraft flies itself with no input or attention needed from the pilot. So how in the world is naming it Autopilot misleading?

You genuinely believe that?

Autopilot in planes takes over nearly all functions, including flying, often landing, navigation, warning systems. People rightly expect that a plane on "autopilot" won't fly into the ground or a mountain. Autopilot that doesn't see stationary objects and crashes into them reliably without warning isn't autopilot, it's a sick joke.

That's not even counting that Musk prominently markets this as "Fully Self Driving" hardware and "semi-autonomous", both of which are bull****.

It's a minor driver assist package, capable of 30 year old cruse controls features + 10+ year old following and lane changing. And guaranteed to smash into any stationary objects and go berserk when high quality lanes markings are disrupted or there are light flares. That's not "autopilot". Nor is smashing into stationary objects without slowing or warning "collision avoidance" or "automatic braking", both of which are also claimed when you buy a Tesla.

This is so obviously a con and dishonest marketing (that's literally killing people) that I implore you to further defend it and further look completely ridiculous.

TSLA outperformed nasdaq today, no china tariffs seen as a good sign I suppose.

This is converts week though, I expect decent swings and rumors of equity fundraise (5 Bil?!)/refinanced debt deal/layoffs/leases/35k car/model Y announce date and all kinds of fun.

I find it hard to believe they will just pay the $920 mil with no other liquidity/fundraise action. Going to need more popcorn.

Many aircraft autopilots certainly will crash right into a mountain. Like I said, autopilot has been a term used for aircraft automation for many decades and only the newest and most sophisticated versions behave as you describe. And exactly zero aircraft autopilots are designed to fly for even one moment without close supervision. Calling Tesla's adaptive cruise control "Autopilot" isn't misleading at all, and it's highly amusing to see you throw a huge Aspie temper tantrum over such a minor quibble. That you're dead wrong to boot makes it even funnier.

Good god. Do you think before you post?

*SEC ASKS JUDGE TO HOLD ELON MUSK IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING DEAL

It's on boys.

Lol. What a dumb piece of **** Musk is.

No doubt, he's a moron.

But the SEC is civil not criminal. They can bar him from being an officer of a public company though, which is a pretty big threat and the board might have to remove him.

That said the stock will not drop 100pts STMP-style from this. But it's a great start and being in trouble with the SEC would complicate any fundraise/deal and just put more scrutiny on everything.

At the risk of overreacting in the moment again- does anything matter?

Since the CFO quit at the end of the Q4 call 3.5 weeks ago:
-Jan sales down 75%+ m/m per InsideEVs
-Prices cut again
-Referral program cancelled
-AMZN investing in Rivian
-Delivery hell expanded to Europe
-Local news in Buffalo published investigative article on Giga 2 fraud
-NHTSA safest car ever study was unmasked
-Model 3 loses Consumer Reports recommendation
-Deposit holders not getting refunded is reported on
-Esteemed general counsel quits after less than 3 weeks on the job
-Replaced by 40 year old internal hire with no experience

Did I miss anything?

The SEC has asked for contempt of court which includes jail time if the judge wants it to. He got a free pass for the worst securities fraud of the decade, and rather than take it as a gift and change, he spat in the face of the SEC, his shareholders, the agreement, and the court, not once but many times. Any sane court system would make an example of him and send him to jail for a few weeks. Unlikely it will happen, but it's the only appropriate remedy for someone as in-your-face defiant despite being completely in the wrong (as this loser is).

Nothing has indicated to me that demand is anything but dead (bar the smallish Europe backlog).

effffff

I almost added to my short today.. then got distracted by work and then it was 4pm.

lol TS, he's NOT going to jail. If the Judge finds him in contempt of the previous agreement, the judge can:

a) void the agreement and restart the process with a hearing in a few weeks
b) tell elon no more twitter or something else creative as punishment
c) grant SEC original request to bar Elon from CEO/public officer

It's almost assuredly a) or b) - also the SEC did not ask to hold Tesla (part of the original agreement) in contempt, just Elon.

The stock reaction is minimal because of this. The bigger part is it complicates any refinancing this week, or maybe pushes the board to agree with elon about stepping away for some time.

This could be some last straw stuff for institutions, or the increase in risk on down the line things tips the scales to the sell side?

This is wayyy off afaik. Pretty sure most plane crashes are due to pilots incorrectly overriding autopilot in situations where autopilot would have been just fine. aviation autopilot tech has long passed the point where planes would be easily capable of, and possibly better off, not having pilots at all.

SK is definitely closer to the truth. Autopilot has traditionally been very simple and not even close to a hands off ‘planes fly themselves’ thing that many people assumed. It’s getting more automated with the latest technology but even now the pilot needs to pay attention and plays a role in various aspects of flying or controlling the plane.

There are a bunch of plane crashes caused by pilots not believing instrumentation or overruling automatic controls. But that’s not at all the same thing as saying the plane would have been fine without the pilot. Planes can’t fly without pilots. Planes can fly without autopilot.


Edit: To try and make that second paragraph clear - imagine there are three things (a, b, c) that need to happen. If autopilot is responsible only for a and the pilot is responsible for b and c - an accident caused by the pilot overruling autopilot on a doesn’t mean the plane would have been better off without a pilot. The pilot was always needed for b and c.

Although I'm not convinced that the sorts of adaptive cruise control and lane keeping that are increasingly common are a good idea. It leads to the problem of diffusion of responsibility, where the human who ultimately is in control becomes less diligent in paying attention because he is convinced that the automation will take care of any issue. That's the same situation in aircraft automation but it's less problematic because there are two highly trained professionals who are responsible for overseeing the automation. As opposed to someone whose only qualification is he literally just bought a car. But of course Tesla is far from the only automaker to field similar products and face similar issues.

The airplane analogy is awful for the obvious reason that there are no lane markings, turns, intersections, road construction, traffic signals, bikers, pedestrians, skateboarders, scooters, other vehicles of all sizes, shapes, and speeds, or almost anything at all to worry about in between taking off and landing unless you are in a storm in the mountains of Alaska.

there is no last straw stuff. if they havent sold by now they wont. I wont buy tesla because I only buy tech and utilities...but there is no last straw and i dont think they;ll ever go bankrupt...they may end up in a bondholder takeover....

So with your scenario they drop from $300 to $0 overnight?

Some of the larger holders have to wise up eventually... right?

I honestly can't decide if Elon getting removed as CEO would be good or bad for the company or the stock in the medium to long term. They would lose his great value as a fund raiser and hype man, but they'd also lose his disservice as an incompetent executive.

derailing now but I'm curious. Are there situations from the time where cruising altitude has been reached to the beginning of descent where modern autopilot is not fully sufficient? (the analogy being highway driving where there are many situations requiring human intervention)

I'm not a pilot, so I'm definitely not an expert. I think the answer is no (Edit: I misread your question as cruise to landing. Yes, autopilot could likely handle an entire cruising section of the flight w/o additional inputs assuming no changes from air traffic control / weather / etc). I think its technically possible for the autopilot to do all the actual flying (from cruising to stopping on the runway) - but configuring the airplane for different situations (like cruise vs landing), responding to air traffic control directives, and even just adjusting waypoints along the way all probably require a pilot to do something.

There's an amazing decade-long thread in OOT where a pilot answers a ton of questions about planes and flying. Here's some of the things he's said about autopilot:







Note that contrary to statements earlier ITT the autopilot will happily fly into the ground or smack into oncoming traffic.

Most autopilot just fly straight and land in good weather. They do have more advanced autopilot, but they aren't common as the airline fleet is generally old af. You don't see autopilot on small airplanes beyond "will fly straight in good weather".

Commercial autopilot isn't really comparable. Tesla autopilot might be more advanced than general aviation autopilots.

There will be minimal reaction to this from the market.