this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
830 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59679 readers
3989 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 204 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Yes and in 2019 Musk's claims went even further, when he claimed it was stupid to buy anything but Tesla, because next year (2020) You would be able to make money on it as a RoboTaxi. As I recall it was $200,000.- you should be able to make on a Tesla per year!!! Why he sold them then is a bit strange?
He also claimed that instead of losing value, a Tesla would increase as much as five times in value in a year, because FSD was worth that much.

How this man hasn't been jailed for fraud years ago is beyond me, I could understand if USA was a corrupt country for the rich...
oh... Never mind.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 39 points 6 months ago (5 children)

I think he truly believed all that. He did not lie, he was wrong about the future. Or at least that would be his legal defense.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 65 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Except he claimed Tesla had the technology working NOW in 2019. Which is a factually false statement not about beliefs.

[–] MxM111@kbin.social 13 points 6 months ago

And that would is probably one of the indicators of why lawsuit is allowed to proceed and might be won in the end.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. He explicitly stated that the only thing stopping them flipping the switch were those damn pesky road laws

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Which I'm sure was true. It would certainly be a lot faster to debug FSD after a number of deaths for each bug.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

depends how you define "working" i suppose.

can a tesla drive its full range automomously? probably...

should it? probably not

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (32 children)

Musk defined it himself, as the car being able to drive autonomously from a parking lot across the country to pick you up in another parking lot.

load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] m13@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

There are plenty of bosses like him out there. Completely high on their own shit. He reads about technology in a sci-fi book, and thinks he can Steve Jobs into bullying workers into making it a reality. Completely deludes himself into thinking it’s real and sells it to investors with full confidence. He has no idea of the actual technical challenges and fully convinces himself his genius brain could figure it out if he wasn’t so “busy” all the time. Everything is perpetually just 6 months away.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Funny how rich people can get away with that. I could say I fully believe I’m going to win $50 million in the lottery next week, buy a bunch of shit I can’t pay for, and probably wind up jailed pretty shortly thereafter and nobody would bat an eye. Rich guy selling vaporware? No problem, he just believed his own hype train. Sorry, investors.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

He's claimed before that he honestly believes it each year by watching the progress the past X months, but suddenly all progress stops as their method hits a plateau. So they keep changing methods.

It's probably an honest mistake the first time or two, but he's done this every year since and has no credibility anymore.

After being wrong by a year or two, he should have explained what was going in, and shut up about it, with a simple I don't know when it'll be ready but you should see forward progress each year.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago

I really believed that...

Uh-huh... There is a long, LONG list of bullshit that he believed, and continues to believe. There comes a point where we either have to accept that he has the mental level of a 5 year old believing in Santa Claus, or that he is a narcissistic compulsive liar.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 15 points 6 months ago

Now watch as Musk faces "consequences(TM)".

Why, he might have to pay a fine of a full hour's worth of profits that resulted from his actions!?

[–] TurdMongler@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

He's a military contractor.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Yes with Starlink which the military threatened they might nationalize if Musk sabotaged Ukraine access again.
I honestly don't think Musk's value as a military contractor is very high, and probably (hopefully) not enough to protect him from criminal liability.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 45 points 6 months ago

But LoSavio had opted out of the arbitration agreement and was given the option of filing an amended complaint.

This is why it’s important to opt out of arbitration!

Also notice the potential for fuckery in the statute of limitations here:

the relevant statutes of limitations range from two to four years, and LoSavio sued over five years after buying the car. Under the delayed discovery rule, the limitations period begins when "the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action."

But when Tesla declined to update his car's cameras in April 2022, "LoSavio allegedly discovered that he had been misled by Tesla's claim that his car had all the hardware needed for full automation."

Without that specific moment to point to, to reset the clock through delayed discovery, Tesla could just say “Yeah, we lied, but you bought the lie for 5 years, so now we’re in the clear!”

[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

Fuck the Musk and his inflated ego.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The part of the claim here where they wouldn't upgrade the cameras is a part that I'm highly interested in.

I don't expect tesla to upgrade any hardware beyond what they believe is required which they claim hardware 3 is.

But the moment a hardware 3 car can't flip a switch and become level 3/4 SAE autonomous and a hardware 4, 5, 6 or whatever it is if/when solved is required, I think there's a massive lawsuit there unless Tesla somehow upgrades the cars.

Suddenly the car didn't come with the hardware required and can't function as described, especially back when it was announced.

Tesla will say, oh we'll get it working on HW3 next year... and try to kick the can to avoid liability, but I don't think that will work long.

Edit: and as per the ruling, it sounds like the new knowledge that the car can't on HW3 but can on others, would trigger new knowledge opening up past the statute of limitations

[–] arin@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Sorry Tesla but every captcha about bicycles and street lights was just too good an opportunity to be bad! LOL ... bicycle! 🚲 Nah! That's just 🛣️ road! Continue!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hahahahah fuck Elon’s fraudster ass

[–] DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not for all the money in the world could you convince me to touch him, let alone what you propose.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 11 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A federal judge ruled yesterday that Tesla must face a lawsuit alleging that it committed fraud by misrepresenting the self-driving capabilities of its vehicles.

LoSavio points to a Tesla statement in October 2016 that all its cars going forward would have the "hardware needed for full self-driving capability," and a November 2016 email newsletter stating that "all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory now have full self-driving hardware."

According to the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], Tesla's cars have thus stalled at SAE Level 2 ("Partial Driving Automation"), which requires "the human driver's constant supervision, responsibility, and control."

Even if Tesla meant to convey that its hardware could reach Level 2 only, the SAC still sufficiently alleges that those representations reasonably misled LoSavio.

The complaint also "sufficiently alleges that Musk falsely represented the vehicle's future ability to self-drive cross-country and that LoSavio relied upon these representations pre-purchase," Lin concluded.

Musk claimed at an October 2016 news conference that a Tesla car would be able to drive from Los Angeles to New York City "by the end of next year without the need for a single touch."


The original article contains 509 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

They're faking it until they make it!

[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Trilobite@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

He is rich all there will be is a minimal fine

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I bet if this goes to trial his lawyers are just going to argue that no reasonable person would believe these claims. That is just hyperbole there for it is not fraud.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe, but you could easily argue that no reasonable CEO would make such claims. And any company that size should have levels of review and therefore liability if there were people who clearly knew it was false.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›