The downvoting is for this: You presume that your own experience is the same as everyone else’s (regardless of differing driving conditions, etc.), and thus, that everyone else is being overly critical of their (assumed to be similar) experiences.
Please don't. I don't think anyone in the linked article or in this thread is lying. I think they all have real experiences to relate and we should listen to them. Given that, can you please retract your needlessly inflammatory accusation of gaslighting? Thanks.
All I'm saying is that my experience makes it very clear that what problems remain with this technology are resolvable ones. Consumer cars are going to drive themselves. Period. And given existing evidence, it seems reasonably clear to me that Tesla is going to get there first (though I wouldn't be shocked if it's Waymo, Cruise seems less like a good bet).
And given that interpretation, I find the kind of grousing going on in this thread unhelpful. If I show you a bug in your iPhone, would you immediately throw it out and declare that no one could possibly market a smartphone? That's how this thread sounds to me.
> All I'm saying is that my experience makes it very clear that what problems remain with this technology are resolvable ones. Consumer cars are going to drive themselves. Period. And given existing evidence, it seems reasonably clear to me that Tesla is going to get there first (though I wouldn't be shocked if it's Waymo, Cruise seems less like a good bet).
Perhaps I'm unreasonably dense, but I do not see the link (direct or otherwise) between 'it works well for me under the following circumstances' and 'it will work well for (almost) everyone, under all (reasonable) circumstances'. The former can be true, without any guarantee of the latter. Given all the hyperbole and promises that have been made thusfar, it's hardly surprising that folks are inclined to be skeptical, particularly if their own experiences are as poor as many in this thread indicate.
What I do agree with is that cars are going to be allowed to drive themselves, irrespective of how well they can do it, because the politicians and the bureaucrats apparently are unable to resist the siren song of 'progress'. That much we've seen in SF with Cruise among many other plraces. Whether this is a good thing is a different question entirely...
Many people who saw the first actual flights from Wright brothers dismissed them as a parlor trick that will not amount to anything practical.
Technology has a long history of exponential improvements. At first it improves slowly and then suddenly.
Sure, everyone (not just Tesla) was expecting self-driving to happen by now. It didn't happen yet.
I share the OP's perspective that the maturity of self-driving is already so high that it's a matter of time for it to become viable to deploy at scale.
The initial DARPA challenge was Wright's brother. We're closer to a plane that can travel halfway over Atlantic. Not quite there yet but it's just a matter of time until it can cross it.
I think the fact that my post now sits flagged and invisible, yet you're still commenting on it, more or less bears out the point I was making. I'm genuinely sorry you took offense, really I am. I thought that was fairly gentle, honestly. It was intended to be a fun way to point out the tribalism at work here. But... something are maybe just too fun to hate?
Let me repeat: I love my car. I'm not here to hate. I'm here to try to explain how great this thing is. Really, you have no idea how fun it is to have a robot drive you around town. And, comments like yours and the rest here make it clear that you're really missing out on that kind of joy in your rush to hate.
Call a friend and get a ride in an FSD beta car. You really might change your mind.
No? Surely you've had a negative experience with a product or business and recognized that not every other person out there has had the same experience.
The people here sharing negative experiences aren't suggesting that the positive experiences others report are just the result of being a Musk fan.
The person who was downvoted didn't say that negative experiences are from Musk haters.
He correctly predicted that his positive experience will be downvoted by Musk haters even though it's as valid as negative experiences shared by other people that were not downvoted.
That's clear bias and so obvious that it can be called ahead of time.
He didn't write anything less valid that the upvoted complaints and shouldn't be downvoted by anyone.
> The person who was downvoted didn't say that negative experiences are from Musk haters.
I got the...pretty strong implication from it. I didn't downvote them, but it did rub me the wrong way for exactly the implication that the people with negative experiences are from Musk haters.
There are two sentences that, taken together, seem very dismissive of people who have negative experiences:
> Everyone hates it (and given the dumpster fire at Twitter right now, everyone really loves to hate Tesla).
> But this software is working folks.
"Everyone hates it" and the parenthetical reference to Twitter really leans into the idea that people who dislike it feel that way for ideological reasons and not their own personal experience with the vehicle.
That's strongly reinforced by the next sentence that states "This software is working folks", which is a flat categorical statement that contradicts the experiences of the people who dislike it.
So, I didn't downvote, but if I did it would be exactly for the implication that the people who dislike it didn't have valid reasons for disliking it.
I downvoted because I downvote anyone who preemptively complains / invites downvotes and assumes that they’ll be doled out in bad faith. It pollutes the conversation and is the cheapest form of sophistry. It’s no different than setting up an argument that ends with “and if you disagree, that just shows how right I am!”
There’s a term for this: Gaslighting.