Slashdot Mirror
Should The Media Cover Tesla Accidents? (chicagotribune.com)
Elon Musk tweeted about the accident:
It's super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage. What's actually amazing about this accident is that a Model S hit a fire truck at 60mph and the driver only broke an ankle. An impact at that speed usually results in severe injury or death.
The Associated Press defended their news coverage Friday, arguing that the facts show that "not all Tesla crashes end the same way." They also fact-check Elon Musk's claim that "probability of fatality is much lower in a Tesla," reporting that it's impossible to verify since Tesla won't release the number of miles driven by their cars or the number of fatalities. "There have been at least three already this year and a check of 2016 NHTSA fatal crash data -- the most recent year available -- shows five deaths in Tesla vehicles."
Slashdot reader Reygle argues the real issue is with the drivers in the Autopilot cars. "Someone unwilling to pay attention to the road shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that road ever again."
Tesla is a media company.
crashed into the rear end of a fire department utility truck, which was stopped at a red light, at an estimated speed of 60 MPH
Does anyone know if auto pilot takes into account the speed limit of the road it is on? If so, does it get that data by downloading it into it's GPS? Or by reading the speed limit signs? Also, did TFA state the speed limit of the road the accident occurred on? I generally don't see 60 MPH speed limits on roads with stop lights.
A. It really wasn't front page news unless you count maybe the local paper
B. There is this thing called statistics. The United States has over 263 Million registered cars not including the 3 warehouses worth of them that Jay Leno owns. You have yet to make 200 Thousand. It's also expected that your brand new luxury cars will be marginally safer than my 1974 AMC Gremlin.
Liberal: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."
Socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
Pick what you really mean.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Musk LOVES it that every little thing he says and does is in the news.
IT's FREE publicity and it HELPS him raise capital every time he needs to bail Tesla out.
And he'll NEED it again soon.
But that ALSO includes BAD publicity.
I can't believe this guy! THAT guy is a billionaire?!
And? That's their defense? At the start of 2016 there were 69k Teslas on US roads; at the end, 110k. Average of ~90k. There were 113 million registered cars on US roads in 2016, and 37461 deaths, or 1 in 3000 cars. 90k Teslas on average with 5 deaths means 1 in 18000 Teslas.
This is how AP defends itself?
Seriously, what sort of argument is "not all Tesla crashes end the same way" to begin with? Wait a minute, you're telling me that Teslas aren't invincible? OMG, I guess the star wore off, that explains why it's not flashing anymore!
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
five deaths in Tesla vehicles.
A quick search for Telsa deaths suggests that ALL the fatalities (of people in Teslas) have been when autopilot was running.
What would be a useful addition to the debate would be to understand just how much of the time Tesla drivers use autopilot. Is it engaged for (say) 90% of the time on almost all journeys? Or is it only used for a tiny fraction of the miles that Teslas clock up?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The media should report on whatever they think is newsworthy.
If you want to lead a public-facing life, you better be prepared for the positive and negative publicity. The media is a business and the MBA-types know that if a story contains death, despair, or destruction, it will attract more viewership/readership allowing the network to charge a premium for advertising. Is this messed up? Yes, it is. But Elon Musk chose this life for himself so he has to take the good with the bad like everybody else. He does not get a free pass because he's wealthy. He's not better than you or I.
Elon should go have a beer with Tim Cook. Literally half a dozen iPhones behind the (awesomely named) Bendgazi yet it was a huge story. Media clickbait plus food for the haters = amplified beyond all reason. Bendgazi only went away when it turned out Samsung's phone shattered at the same pressure where an iPhone 6 would bend.
That said, Tesla should just ditch the autopilot feature until self-driving technology is not just equal to humans, but vastly superior. Human brains just aren't built to take concentration way from the task at hand yet yank back to 100% at a moments notice.
What's actually amazing about this accident is that a Model S hit a fire truck at 60mph and the driver only broke an ankle. An impact at that speed usually results in severe injury or death.
It's called Media bias. For that reason, I do not watch MSM anymore. If they're not regurgitating government propaganda, they are telling blatant lies.
From the WMDs, to Syria and the Mid East, to doping in games.
You want to promote your darling as the next evolutionary step that will replace all existing automobiles. You're especially proud of your " autonomous driving " feature. This accident is news because Tesla supposedly rolled out a safety update that enabled automatic emergency braking but appears to have been limited to vehicles operating under 50mph. ( Whoops, guess we should have upped that a bit )
See, when you promote your vehicle with said safety features and it still ends up crashing just like the " dumb " cars out there, it doesn't shine a positive light on your over-hyped / over-priced* product. ( *Compared to the typical ICE vehicle )
Moral of the story: When in the spotlight, you don't get to pick and choose what people see.
Every word in your post was false.
... the question asked should be more along the lines of... Why is the public so interested in Tesla crashes, and not in the tens of thousands of auto crashes that result in deaths each year? The media is just following the interest of the public.
No, the car did not run out of juice (ever), and it was a blown fuse, which only disabled part of the braking power. Indeed, the BBC has admitted that the "running out of charge" event was staged.
The court rulings related to Teslas lawsuit never disagreed with Tesla's claim that Top Gear staged the events. They ruled that Tesla had failed to show material losses, and that a reasonable person would not believe that what happens on Top Gear is not embellished (something I think is false, but that's what they ruled).
Beyond the fakery, then there's the deliberate distortions. Like going on about how the car only went a fraction of its rated range. Ignoring that it still had a 20% charge left when they decided to fake the "dead battery" and push it off the track, what they did would apply to any car. You think you can take your car to the track and drive foot down nonstop and get the same mileage as you get in a steady cruise? But they were trying to give the impression that you only go a short distance in the vehicle, which was simply not in any way, shape or form true.
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
Until Tesla address the elephant the room and take their responsibilities rename "autopilot" to "not-so-automatic-pilot-gonna-get-you-killed". This or stop the infatuation towards Musk.
This.
The main problem is that users become too relaxed and complacent. Solution: activating autopilot will bring up HAL's eye on the screen with a "Good morning Dave" (regardless of time of day or name of driver). When autopilot finds a situation that it can't handle, it can say, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that". When the user takes control away from the autopilot, the autopilot can say: "I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal."
When Tesla enforces a training course as thorough as pilot training for anyone to sit in the seat of a Tesla S. you have a point.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I have a couple of thoughts on all of this.
1. The news media is interested in covering anything that's sensational and grabs viewer eyeballs. We've had house fires for about as long as we had houses, yet they'll still put those on the evening news any time they have some dramatic footage to show people. By the same token, if you're a high profile company that lots of people follow (like Apple or Tesla), you're also going to find yourself in the media spotlight any time an excuse can be made to do it. People stay tuned in any time you mention those names.
2. The unfortunate thing about Tesla's autopilot functionality is that at least in the beginning, it was talked up as a car that could "drive itself". That wasn't close to reality, but it sure helped generate a lot of "buzz" for the product. (The autopilot hardware used in most of the used Tesla Model S's on the road today isn't even capable of keeping the car in a lane when the road starts curving. It really only works in a straight line.) In hindsight, I think it would have gone far better for Tesla if they only sold the whole thing as an advanced cruise control and parallel parking assistant. Then, additional features could have been added down the road without the general public so eager to hear about every time the "self driving car" fails (as they try to ease their consciences about fears of the computers/robots taking over things like driving).
Almost all of these accidents happening with autopilot on are due to drivers who aren't paying attention to what's happening in front of them anymore. They put too much trust in a fairly limited system that still really needs a human driver to intervene occasionally, when something happens outside the parameters the system can work with. If this keeps up though, government will once again try to "save us from ourselves" and start cracking down on the ability to do ANY of this stuff and get closer to self-driving cars in the future.
Liberal: "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas."
That's a rather weird definition. In fact, one I've never heard before. I've always called this "open-minded".
Ezekiel 23:20
As long as you call it an "Autopilot" and, despite telling people to pay attention, make sure that people are able to treat it as a full Autopilot and not pay attention, then the media should report every instance of someone crashing because they followed Tesla's implied instructions.
Now Musk might be correct that semi-attentive drivers with the Autopilot are safer than typical non-Autopilot drivers, even if the Autopilot sometimes screws up. But he's hardly a reputable source when he keeps playing this "Look! It's an Autopilot! You don't have to drive!! But you should totally pay attention and it's your fault if it crashes" game.
I stole this Sig
Wait, you mean it can today? On what airplanes?
Ezekiel 23:20
If Musk is doing everything he can to get the message across that Autopilot is NOT autonomous driving, should he not be happy that the news covers people getting into serious accidents by trying to use it like an autonomous vehicle? This seems to be consistent with what he wants, if a lot of commenters here are correct. If this isn't what he wants, then he isn't really trying to get the message out that these cars can kill you if you don't pay attention.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why wouldn't the media do its job and report on such accidents? It's no different than when a plane crashes. It happens so rarely it is a news event.
The same with Tesla. The number of crashes of Tesla vehicles is small, but because of the hype surrounding Tesla, promulgated by Musk himself, any crash should be examined.
If Musk doesn't like the media reporting on the crashes of his vehicles, then perhaps he shouldn't be out and about promoting how safe they are or that they practically drive themselves.
Yeah... Now let's look at three dimensional proximity of the airplanes and the time necessary to be alerted and resume control. That, plus the flight plans that must be filed really fucks up your narrative, don't it?
"Standard Safety Features
These active safety technologies, including collision avoidance and automatic emergency braking, have begun rolling out through over-the-air updates
Automatic Emergency Braking
Designed to detect objects that the car may impact and applies the brakes accordingly
Side Collision Warning
Warns the driver of potential collisions with obstacles alongside the car
Front Collision Warning
Helps warn of impending collisions with slower moving or stationary cars"
So which of these did her car have? AEB is not exactly cutting edge technology, and should have activated whether Autopilot was engaged or not.
That is Elon's point as well. Disproportionately covering Tesla crashes keeps the general public ignorant of Tesla's actual safety record.
Tesla vehicles currently drive about 2.67 billion miles per year (as of July 2017). That is about 0.083% of all miles driven in the US. This means you would expect about 33-34 deaths per year in Tesla cars, without adjusting for the demographics and behaviors of Tesla drivers compared to the US average. In 2016 there were 5 deaths, making Tesla cars about 6-7 times safer than average (again without adjusting for driver demographics).
Considering the average driver age (by miles driven) is about 43, and Tesla average driver age is 53, you would expect slightly less driver deaths in Teslas. Although considering driver deaths by age are fairly consistent between ages 35-70 (with 16-30 and 75+ being much higher), perhaps there would be another 1-2 Tesla driver deaths if they had drivers of a more average age. So after taking that into account, maybe Teslas are only 4-5 times safer than an average car. Then again your average Tesla driver probably likes to accelerate faster than your average 53 year old driver, so maybe on average Tesla drivers are just as safe or even less safe than average drivers.
Teslas are also much newer than the average car. The average car on the road is about 11 years old, and my guess is the average Tesla is around 3-4 years old. 3 year old cars are about 20% safer than 11 year old cars on average, so again Tesla might kill another 1-2 people per year if they were a bit older. So perhaps Teslas are only 3-4 times safer than your average car.
The only thing that isn't disputable is that Teslas are far safer than your average car. If every car was as safe as a Tesla, its possible that 75% or more of all traffic deaths would be prevented. It's hard to tell just how many 10's of thousands of lives would be saved each year if all cars were as safe as Teslas because there are so many factors, but it would certainly be a lot.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Right. So if I understand you correctly, the BBC itself was lying when they admitted to their own fakery? Is that the argument you're going with here?
Give a boy a gun and you arm him for a day. Teach him how to make a gun, and the whole metaphor breaks down.
That was the fist definition that appeared when searching for liberal definition on Google.
And it matches what the classic definition of Liberal is - and then the term has been hijacked by politicians that have contaminated it.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The media should cover the non-fatal crashes - ONCE a year, listing each crash and the results, along with percentage (by both per vehicle and per miles driven) comparing it the same stats for a similar car.
But covering a broken foot crash as if it's breaking news? That's called bad reporting.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Slashdot reader Reygle argues the real issue is with the drivers in the Autopilot cars. "Someone unwilling to pay attention to the road shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that road ever again."
The issue is that Tesla sells an Autopilot, whilst everyone else sells a driver assist package. To the average person, Autopilot means it will pilot itself - you don't have to do anything. Driver assist means it will help, but you're still the driver. The issue is Tesla uses highly-misleading words to describe their under-performing product and then gets upset when people are misled. Change the freaking name from Autopilot! But Elon can't do that, because it would be an admission of failure...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This is the problem with SJW in general. "We want to think for the group, but if SHTF, you're alone."
Tesla accidents should be reported until we get tired of viewing them.
But, they should be held responsible for defamation when they cover the story in a misleading, reputation-damaging way. For example, after the recent crash in Florida that resulted in two deaths, there were lots of articles with headlines like "Autopilot-equipped Tesla Crashes, Kills 2" or "Fatal Crash in Florida Involving Tesla with Autopilot," and the articles would start off with "A Tesla Model S equipped with Autopilot was involved in a fatal crash..." But when you get to the very end of the article, there'd be a throwaway sentence about how autopilot was not in use at the time. That's textbook yellow journalism.
Now, of course, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, they can't be held liable for defamation, because it's near impossible to prove actual malice (though how much do you want to bet someone at those papers shorts Tesla before publishing the article?). But that's yet another reason that decision should be reined in.
"Don't drive into stationary objects" - that's so basic, it isn't even covered in driving 101. Any driver who showed over and over he couldn't do that would have his license revoked. And if his excuse was that above 60 mph he was too busy with moving objects to do that, doubly so.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
OHMYFUCKINGGAWD! Teslas burn! We must ba them and go back to old school vehicles that never burn and are safe!
A guy drives with autpopilot screaming at him and runs into something.
OHMYFUCKINGGAWD! Teslas autopilots Are deadly cna Kill people!!!! At least no one ever ran into anything usingCruise con troy, which is percetly safe.
I would love to see every accident in the US given the same coverage as teh OHMYFUCKINGGAWD! Teslas get.
Now of course if one's head is stuck in the Petrofuel world, and even a hybrid Prius is a symbol of traitorism, then yeah, hearing about a Tesla getting a flat tire is happy proof that we should all be driving the biggest diesel pickups we can get and rolling some coal to show the snowflakes the error of their ways....
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Where is this article saying Teslas drive 2.67 billion miles per year in the US? Article is talking about global numbers.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The problem is that car accidents are in general vastly under-reported by the media. Until the last couple years, the single most dangerous thing you did was to get into a car (surpassed only recently by drug overdoses). On average, about 1 in 102 people you know are fated to die in a car accident. Compare to the odds of some of the other things the media devotes a disproportionately high (or low) amount of coverage time:
Suicide: 1 in 91
Police killed on duty: 1 in 104 (1.1 million officers / (135 per year * 78 year lifespan normalization)
Homicide by gun: 1 in 285
Drowning: 1 in 1,086
Fire: 1 in 1,506
Choking: 1 in 3,138
Killed by police: 1 in 4,336 (325.7 million / (963 * 78 year lifespan)
Complications from pregnancy: 1 in 5,965 (325.7 million / (700 * 78 year normalization)
Terrorism in U.S.: 1 in 28,033 (325.7 million / (3277 * 78 year lifespan / 22 years sample))
Killed by deer: 1 in 34,797 (325.7 million / (120 * 78 year lifespan)
Gun accident: 1 in 8305
Lightning: 1 in 114,195
School shootings: 1 in 121,033 (325.7 million / (138 * 78 year lifespan normalization / 4 years sample))
Dog attack: 1 in 132,614
Plane crash: 1 in 205,552
Terrorism in U.S. excluding 9/11: 1 in 248,954
Shark attack: 1 in 3,690,101 (325.7 million / (43 * 78 year lifespan / 38 year sample)
If news reports were truly unbiased, you'd expect to see:
Roughly 3x as many reports about fatal car accidents than gun homicides.
5x as many reports of women dying from pregnancy than reports of terrorism fatalities (including 9/11, 77x without).
39x as many stories about people dying of choking on food, versus school shootings.
43x as many stories about fatal car accidents than police shootings.
91x as many reports about suicides than gun accidents.
Over 100x as many stories about people being killed by deer, than killed by sharks.
The truth is the media picks and chooses which stories they want to publicize, whether it be because of their unusual and provocative nature (e.g. Tesla crashes, plane crashes, school shootings, shark attacks), or to serve a political agenda.
No.
Should be if the media should cover all the school shootings? The media needs to stop glorifying the shooters and the next shooting may not be so quick. At this point you know there are psychos out there trying to figure out how to get a better score and be more famous/infamous than the last shooter...
And it matches what the classic definition of Liberal is
Really? The classic definition of a liberal isn't someone who opposes arbitrary traditional restrictions on liberties?
Ezekiel 23:20
We see articles about school shootings, even though dozens or hundreds of people are killed every day from gun crimes and gun violence. We see news about airplane crashes, even though (as Musk says), there are so many more automobile crashes. The thing is, no matter how bad something is, as long as it's commonplace, it's not going to make the news.
If you actually don't think this, then you either haven't been paying attention or you're just a useful idiot.
The media is mostly owned by right-of-center interests
TESLA (and all things TESLA, like stock prices, what Wall Street thinks, who is buying and selling, financial analysis, current and future models, a half dozen Musk-related businesses that are not TESLA but invoke a brief note about TESLA none the less, and ... oh yes ... TESLA accidents that might involve self-driving features, and TESLA accidents where self-driving mode was confirmed at the time of the accident, and any story about electric automobiles or self-driving vehicles by any manufacturer will invariably invoke some reference to TESLA.
All of this is not some conspiracy to "call out" TESLA when it's cars are involved in accidents while other, rather ordinary autos from mainstream manufacturers are less widely reported (but do make local news; which is a broad hint as to what is going on).
What is the public interest in TESLA versus, say, a Hyundai SUV that left the road in rural Arkansas? And by "public interest" I'm not referring to the political sense, I'm referring to how many people want to read the story and how many people do read the story, and how much advertising revenue you can obtain from the TESLA story versus the Arkansas story.
Musk making some fuss over what is in essence a reflection of the public's appetite for everything TESLA is, at best, naive, and at worst, contrived.
Where is this article saying Teslas drive 2.67 billion miles per year in the US? Article is talking about global numbers.
I did miss that, but since over 50% of Tesla owners are from the US, and European drivers drive much less than US drivers (7k-11k per year as opposed to 12k-15k in the US), it's likely that around 1.6-1.8 billion of those miles are in the US. So I guess a Tesla is only around 2-3 times safer than an average car.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Media should cover Tesla accidents as long as it's fair and of public interest, and that is not something that Musk should have any right to say if it's ok or not... he should just shut the fuck up and have a better PR strategy than whinning about it being unfair, like Trump with it's "fake media" claims.
If you are gonna offer a disruptive technology that is going against traditional brands and whatnot, of course it'll get coverage, and that includes the bad stuff. I don't see Musk complaining about tech bloggers who are constantly babbling and licking his sack about Hyperloop, selling flamethrowers and other far fetched idiotic ideas.
And he'd better get used to it because when some of those plans comes crashing down, the media will cover the downfall too. Just as much as they are covering good results like SpaceX and others. You don't get to pick and choose what media will publish on your stunts, unless you are a dictator.
You forgot support for North Korea and MS13!
Crazy, isn't it? Trump derangement syndrome bites deep.
Human: Hey look we're travelling towards that stationary object at 60mph, I think we should slow or change course.
Auto-pilot: Hey look we're travelling towards that stationary object at 60mph. Lets just continue.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Why yes, yes they should be news even if normal crashes get ignored. The entire premise of self driving tech is that you get a failure condition and a crash, the problem gets fixed and it never again fails the same way.
Media coverage is one of the things that enforces that. With news articles out, the companies will make much more of an effort to fix the problems and that is a good thing. And if a company fails to fix a problem and the same type of crashes keep happening again and again, that too is important information to get out to the public.
Translation: liberal means everything I'm not
Doesn't hate foreigners
Doesn't hate immigrates
Doesn't support cops shooting black people
Doesn't think all Muslims are terrorists
Doesn't hate poor people and doesn't think people should starve to death if they can't work
Doesn't mindlessly support dear leader's platform
Doesn't think guns are the next best thing to white Jesus
Doesn't think minorities should be deprived of the rights the majority enjoys
Doesn't think whites are better than people of color
"Liberals" who don't agree with the above are actually Republicans who are ashamed to admit that they secretly want to suck Trump's dick
It should be insurance companies
That's a pretty big assumption. I'd like to see actual US numbers to come to that determination. Also, you would need the accident numbers for other luxury cars, not just any car.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
How will do airplane autopilots deal with concrete barriers? Oh wait, I guess there are no concrete barriers in the sky, thus leading people into a false comparison.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Doesn't hate foreigners
I don't hate foreigners either. But I don't think we should be mass importing them, or allowing just anybody to walk into the country.
Doesn't hate immigrates
See above.
Doesn't support cops shooting black people
I bet you would if it was your life on the line. Also, your comment implies you're ok with cops shooting non-black people.
Doesn't think all Muslims are terrorists
I don't think all Muslims are terrorists, either. However, I do recognize that Islam is a uniquely violent and supremacist religion, and it would be foolish to not acknowledge this fact and act accordingly.
Doesn't hate poor people and doesn't think people should starve to death if they can't work
I don't hate poor people. I also believe in workfare. Open-ended welfare encourages people not to work. Combining that with open borders is even more foolish.
Doesn't mindlessly support dear leader's platform
It's not about "mindless support". It's about authoritarian censorship of what others may say.
Doesn't think guns are the next best thing to white Jesus
They are a constitutional right.
Doesn't think minorities should be deprived of the rights the majority enjoys
No transperson is being "deprived" of a right that the majority enjoys. It tramples other people's rights to insist that 99.9% must bend to the will of 0.1%.
Doesn't think whites are better than people of color
"It's okay to be white" is considered a racist slogan. No other race has been subjected to such self-guilt that they are expected to hold their heads in perpetual shame.
Unfortunately, the "hyperbolic stereotypes" are all too real. And it's far more intellectual than your vapid name-calling.
... the media should cover any stories that attract eyeballs.
That's the business model for the media.
yw
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Tesla, like all others Elon Musk's endeavors rely heavily on media attention. "Autopilot", "ludicrous speed", "bioweapon defense", ... They even sent a car into space FFS. They have more clickbait than the YouTube "trending" page.
However it also means that everything that go wrong gets reported too. Should it? For the publishers, definitely, a Tesla story gets more views than anything.
Indeed, the BBC has admitted [jalopnik.com] that the
Why is BBC admitting things on jalopnik.com ? Appears fishy. Do you have a BBC or topgear page about it ? Especially since the widely quoted statement from Andy Wilman is completely different : https://www.theguardian.com/en... .
Though it is also fishy that the blog is not accessible anymore - but I don't see people worrying too much about keeping blogs for 7 years. Topgear seems to have moved to blogging in different ways - unlikely they would move their whole blog platform for a Tesla controversy.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
The definition of socialist, also, then, should be uncontaminated with politics. Socialism was hijacked long before liberalism - so its contamination has reached the root - but actually socialism just means a perspective of the welfare of the society as opposed to individuals looking out for their own welfare.
"Ownership", "means of production", "government", "goods" are all concepts tacked on to it by the hijack. In the real un-hijacked definition, none of these things even need to exist or matter.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
No other race has been subjected to such self-guilt that they are expected to hold their heads in perpetual shame.
Would Christianity make any sense without the original sin - that the individual believing in Christianity hasn't even committed himself ? Isn't a Christian self-selected for propensity for holding their heads in perpetual shame for no fault of their own ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Would Christianity make any sense without the original sin - that the individual believing in Christianity hasn't even committed himself ? Isn't a Christian self-selected for propensity for holding their heads in perpetual shame for no fault of their own ?
Yes, it's possible that Christianity is driving a large portion of this guilt. But to counter that, I'd say much of this white guilt emanates from lefty types that had no trouble bashing Christianity for the past 20 years, so I'd say it's more of a social "justice" issue, that is, cultural Marxism.
Why the hair splitting? Did the BBC admit to it in court (what the link covers) or did they not? All the sexual harassment lawsuits against Fox - they only happen if Fox reported on them?
This argument is also invalid.
The demographics of the driver magically DO make Teslas less likely to get in wrecks. How many teenagers do you know who drive Teslas? The people with the highest accident risks don't drive such expensive cars, so you would automatically expect many fewer accidents, assuming all else is equal.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It is difficult to prove a negative, but I only find evidence of a judge throwing out the claim of Tesla twice. I don't find any evidence of TopGear admitting anything in court in this case.
Of course, if you find evidence, I will admit it freely.
As of hair splitting, Uberbah has already admitted that he loves hair splitting , I quote :
I love hair splitting - Uberbah
Hence proved that Uberbah loves hair splitting ;)
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
See every single article on the subject where the BBC says it was a representation of what would have happened if it had ran out of a charge, as opposed to saying it did run out and actually had to be pushed into a garage. Which would have been the first thing they would have said in court if that had actually been the case.
So feel free to stop being willfully obtuse at any time.
It's not the stats that is the real point here. Wrong context.
It is the tendency for the car to be in a crash due to the situation created: dumb driver not paying attention while the PARTIAL-autopilot failed.
Solution 1: Make autopilot unarguably perfect.(Really? Do you think this is possible?)
Solution 2: Outlaw autopilot to force drivers to pay attention!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Tesla told TopGear that the car would last 55 miles on TopGear's track, remember ? So TopGear pretended to drive 55 miles and then pretended to push the car, charge the car, all the motions one would go through if Tesla is not lying about its own car. It's a TV programme, everything is staged.
Anyway, since you like people admitting on behalf of others : I can admit for you that YOU are being willfully obtuse. Whenever you want.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
No I don't - because that was Top Gear's claim. Not Tesla's.
Which BBC knew about as soon as it got them in court, which was the point to begin with.
You were saying? I'll leave you now to get back to mashing beetles.
No I don't - because that was Top Gear's claim. Not Tesla's.
That is OK, I am looking for more evidence but not finding any. Not that you helped. Nor did the original poster who is filling slashdot with fanboyism of Tesla. Other websites "admitting" on behalf of TopGear is not my idea of evidence.
I am completely open to TopGear being in the wrong. But the court did not convict TopGear , and did not entertain Tesla's complaint. It is a mild evidence in favour of TopGear.
If you needed evidence to believe things, you would be as undecided here as I am. So there is a mild evidence to show you don't need evidence to believe things. It is possible that you have the evidence and you are not providing it. In which case you are the classic case of troll - not that I mind.
So TopGear pretended to drive 55 miles and then pretended to push the car, charge the car, all the motions one would go through if Tesla is not lying about its own car.
Which BBC knew about as soon as it got them in court, which was the point to begin with.
No, TopGear knew about it much before "it" got them in court because they did the whole thing. This was definitely not the point to begin with. The point is that you believe Superman actually flies in a TV programme and it is not "staged".
Talking about BBC here might confuse things further - you are already quite confused about who is authorized to admit on behalf of whom, so keeping things simple by talking about TopGear vs Tesla. If your actual point is about BBC (as opposed to TopGear), you have not made it yet.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.