I have nearly 125k on a M3P, on the original pads. Right foot tends to be heavy on both pedals. Regen takes a lot of the load, makes a huge difference in pad usage / life.
Voting data says there are large portions of the population loyal to Trump with no interest in the law, and even larger portions in the law enforcement agencies. If I was working in those departments, I would assume at least 2/3 (the portion of the general population fine with Trump's behavior) is not going to be on my side.
Research <> expensive human trials to obtain FDA approval. Voters and legislators are the only ones stopping government employees from doing the necessary human trials.
I would be surprised if you had enough data to be able to conclude such a lofty claim, especially accounting for increased availability of taxis in areas where there were none or few.
Either way, the benefits of price transparency are not imaginary, but they are also not the only factor. Things like insufficient buyers or sellers, government policy, etc are also in play.
All else being equal, a buyer being able to easily see seller A is more expensive than seller B for the same goods will result in lower prices for the buyer. But all else is rarely equal.
There is free competition. You can put up a website advertising your items for sale for near zero cost and anyone in the world has the ability to see it. You can also list it for sale for free on Facebook marketplace, or Craigslist, or staple a paper to a utility pole near your house.
It’s much free-r than it used to be, when the paper on a pole and paying for a newspaper ad was the only option.
It’s both true that Elon lies and overpromises damn near everything, and that Tesla has the best self driving related features available in the US that a normal person can buy and use.
There's no formal definition for "full self driving". But perhaps we could tease out a definition we can both accept. Let me start. My elderly Dad is a legal licensed driver who drives every day. FSD drives much better than my Dad in every way you can possibly measure. Can my Dad fully self drive or not?
>FSD drives much better than my Dad in every way you can possibly measure. Can my Dad fully self drive or not?
Your Dad cannot fully self drive (I am a huge fan of Tesla FSD given that no other equivalent option exists in the market at that price point, but I have had to take over and drive it, at least as of the most recent free demo last Christmas season).
A more objective definition is any entity that is not willing to take on the financial liabilities of driving is not capable of full self driving. The minute Tesla says they agree to take on full liability is the minute I buy and use FSD for all of my trips.
You just said my Dad cannot fully self drive, but then proposed an "objective" definition which my Dad unquestionably satisfies.
Are you conceding that FSD is in fact correctly named in terms of its technical capabilities, and only falls short in terms of legal liability?
I should note that my Dad is a perfectly competent driver who has not been in any car accident in the last 30 years (at least, I'm not aware of any). But he drives in a way that makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable as a passenger. It's hard to explain.
Assuming your evaluation that FSD is better in every way, which I suspect is wrong because FSD is lacking at edge cases, such as parking. It’s good, but I suspect your dad is more competent at figuring out many edge case scenarios.
>but then proposed an "objective" definition which my Dad unquestionably satisfies.
Right, which is that if Tesla was so confident, they would take on the liability, like Waymo does. It’s possible your dad is so bad at driving he shouldn’t be taking on that liability (like Tesla has decided to). But apparently he’s good enough for an insurance underwriter to trust him.
From videos I've seen FSD is perfectly capable of parking. It doesn't yet have the ability to reliably discern which spaces will reliably avoid parking fines, but it can park just fine.
This really gets to the question of what qualifies as driving. A robotaxi can't top up its own wiper fluid either, but keeping that topped up is, IMHO, a critical part of being a responsible driver.
> if Tesla was so confident, they would take on the liability, like Waymo does
This is a non sequitur. Both operators accept the same liability under the same conditions. Both Waymo and Tesla accept liability for vehicles in their own autonomous taxi fleets. Neither Tesla nor Waymo have proposed any mechanism to accept liability for customer-owned vehicles.
IMHO transferring liability for customer-owned vehicles is a deeply non-trivial matter, and I doubt it will ever occur in any absolute sense. For example, how does liability shift if an autonomously operated vehicle crashes into a pedestrian because it was raining and the tires were overdue for replacement? What if the crash occurred because of prior damage to the suspension which the owner knew about and chose to ignore?
> For example, how does liability shift if an autonomously operated vehicle crashes into a pedestrian because it was raining and the tires were overdue for replacement? What if the crash occurred because of prior damage to the suspension which the owner knew about and chose to ignore?
True, I had not thought of this. Thanks for engaging, I would say you have convinced me the definition of driving, or self driving or full self driving, is not so simple.
In his pocket or what? When SpaceX IPO'd he was valued at over a trillion USD. Currently somewhere over 900MM, and worth more than the 2nd, 3rd and 4th on the rich list combined.
In terms of net worth, you are closer to Jeff Bezos than Bezos is to Musk.
Big difference between getting people to buy 0.0000001% at that valuation, and getting them to buy 5%. Even if you assume SpaceX is worth zero, he's still worth $200B
Assuming the NASDAQ / S&P aren't gamed into listing these at offering price to game the system into putting ~10% of people's retirement into a junk stock on day 1.
"Buy the index" isn't a solution for human influence and corruption, there are people in control of what goes into the index too.
When a stock hits the public market, it gets incorporated into broad market index funds (subject to the rules of those funds). If an overvalues stock gets dumped onto the public market, then crashes after being bought by index funds, then holders of those index funds are harmed.
Are there examples of this and quantified losses? The only one I can think of is Nasdaq and SpaceX, but Nasdaq isn’t exactly an index lay people should be investing in, and it isn’t commonly owned anyway (maybe less than 1% own it). And I don’t think SpaceX has lost any Nasdaq 100 investors money yet.
You can get rich by stealing pennies, if you steal them from enough people. It is still wrong, even if no individual lost enough to care about going after you.
If enough people try profiting by stealling pennies, the cumulative losses are significant; and can threaten confidence in and the strenght of the market.
I mean that used to be true until companies began strong-arming the indexes to include them on day 1 instead of having a mandatory 1-year waiting period. Now you're taking the bag whether you like it or not.
reply