US probes Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after fatal crash

(www.reuters.com)

410 points jjulius | 5 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.967s | source

Show context

massysett ◴[19 Oct 24 02:14 UTC] No.41885131[source]▶

"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous."

Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."

Tesla should be sued out of existence.

replies(9): >>41885238 #>>41885239 #>>41885242 #>>41885290 #>>41885322 #>>41885351 #>>41885429 #>>41885656 #>>41893664 #

1. UltraSane ◴[19 Oct 24 03:18 UTC] No.41885395[source]▶

>>41885351 (TP) #

Tesla's BS with FSD is as bad as Theranos was with their blood tests.

2. mikeweiss ◴[19 Oct 24 03:20 UTC] No.41885400[source]▶

>>41885351 (TP) #

I think you mean fortunately?

replies(1): >>41886161 #

3. valval ◴[19 Oct 24 06:59 UTC] No.41886161[source]▶

>>41885400 #

Unfortunately for them and their ideological allies, fortunately for people with common sense.

4. maeil ◴[19 Oct 24 07:00 UTC] No.41886167[source]▶

>>41885351 (TP) #

This was a lawsuit by shareholders, and the judge thought investors should know whatever Elon says is bullshit.

Completely different from e.g. consumers, of whom less such understanding is expected.

5. rsynnott ◴[19 Oct 24 14:21 UTC] No.41887909[source]▶

>>41885351 (TP) #

It’s really unfortunate that puffery survived as a common law defence. It’s really from an earlier era, when fraud was far more acceptable and people were more conditioned to assume that vendors were outright lying to them; it has no place in modern society.

Also, that’s investors, not consumers. While the rise of retail investing has made this kind of dubious, investors are generally assumed to be far less in need of protection than consumers by the law; it is assumed that they take care about their investment that a consumer couldn’t reasonably take around every single product that they buy.

↑