|
On November 22 2024 10:41 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 10:24 ETisME wrote:On November 22 2024 09:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:
[quote]
Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite. I'm not even going to make an effort to explain why your reasoning is wrong. We have history regarding scientific papers, you tend to heavily misread them and then never acknowledge your mistake. I'll just let it stand cause I'd be wasting my time. your own paper doesn't even reference tesla having higher accident rate than other ADS. And it even states: On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs How did you interpret this sentence? I refer to the other links I posted earlier. You can ignore reality if you like. Btw I fully support autonomous cars, but the technology just isn't there yet. They may eventually be good enough to replace regular cars.
"The authors of the study, published in November, noted that Teslas with their advanced driving technology were safe cars but that did not mean their owners were safe drivers.
“Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue,” said the company's executive analyst Karl Brauer.
“The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behaviour and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.”"
Do you mean the website with this quote?
If we are to follow research data etcetc, then pretty sure your own link highlight research show consistent result for AV to be on par if not safer in general:
"On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs"
|
On November 22 2024 10:53 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 10:41 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 10:24 ETisME wrote:On November 22 2024 09:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite. I'm not even going to make an effort to explain why your reasoning is wrong. We have history regarding scientific papers, you tend to heavily misread them and then never acknowledge your mistake. I'll just let it stand cause I'd be wasting my time. your own paper doesn't even reference tesla having higher accident rate than other ADS. And it even states: On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs How did you interpret this sentence? I refer to the other links I posted earlier. You can ignore reality if you like. Btw I fully support autonomous cars, but the technology just isn't there yet. They may eventually be good enough to replace regular cars. "The authors of the study, published in November, noted that Teslas with their advanced driving technology were safe cars but that did not mean their owners were safe drivers. “Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue,” said the company's executive analyst Karl Brauer. “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behaviour and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.”" Do you mean the website with this quote? If we are to follow research data etcetc, then pretty sure your own link highlight research show consistent result for AV to be on par if not safer in general: "On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs"
What are we in disagreement about? Data may suggest either conclusion, so what are we arguing about? You can say that autonomous cars are doing fine, you cannot argue they're better. For now. Tesla has been reviewed as well, it performs worse than some regular brands.
|
On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4
I don't want to go into this too deeply, as the main message from that paper appears to be that we don't know, the data isn't there yet, and anyway to do any kind of statistics analysis we need to combine vastly different levels of autonomy and generations of the technology to say anything at all.
That said, there is a very obvious bias here, which is that self-driving cars switch the self-driving part off in challenging conditions. Snow on the road? Noping out. Hard rain? Noping out. Busy inner city? Noping out.
It's fairly obvious to me that AI is going to.reduce incidents on highways where the 2 main reasons for accidents are driving top fast, and getting distracted/falling asleep. That is exactly the sort of thing AI is going to be good at. Predicting that a child outside of vision might run into the street when a ball rolls into said street? Not something AI is going to be good at (yet).
Further comment is that Elon Musk intentionally and very personally disallowed the use of any non-vision tools on Tesla's AI platform. It seems like an extremely dumb self-pwn and I've talked to engineers who are 100% convinced that Tesla would still be leading the field in self-driving if they hadn't changed course. Instead other providers have caught up and even overtaken Tesla in this domain. Vision is notoriously hard, so why limit yourself if you can equip the thing with LIDAR and a host of other sensor technology that is better at detecting things both further away and very near to the car. I really didn't understand the choice at the time and in hindsight I have seen nothing to change my mind.
|
On November 22 2024 11:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 10:53 ETisME wrote:On November 22 2024 10:41 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 10:24 ETisME wrote:On November 22 2024 09:18 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 08:33 BlackJack wrote:On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 The analysis suggests that accidents of vehicles equipped with Advanced Driving Systems generally have a lower chance of occurring than Human-Driven Vehicles in most of the similar accident scenarios. However, accidents involving Advanced Driving Systems occur more frequently than Human-Driven Vehicle accidents under dawn/dusk or turning conditions Based on the model estimation results, it can be concluded that ADS in general are safer than Human-Driven Vehicles in most accident scenarios for their object detection and avoidance, precision control, and better decision-making. So your evidence for your claim "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars" is a study that concludes that autonomous cars are safer than human driven vehicles in "most" scenarios but are less safe in dusk/dawn conditions and when turning. You're not even a stone's throw away from proving your claim. In fact you're closer to proving the opposite. I'm not even going to make an effort to explain why your reasoning is wrong. We have history regarding scientific papers, you tend to heavily misread them and then never acknowledge your mistake. I'll just let it stand cause I'd be wasting my time. your own paper doesn't even reference tesla having higher accident rate than other ADS. And it even states: On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs How did you interpret this sentence? I refer to the other links I posted earlier. You can ignore reality if you like. Btw I fully support autonomous cars, but the technology just isn't there yet. They may eventually be good enough to replace regular cars. "The authors of the study, published in November, noted that Teslas with their advanced driving technology were safe cars but that did not mean their owners were safe drivers. “Most of these vehicles received excellent safety ratings, performing well in crash tests at the IIHS and NHTSA, so it’s not a vehicle design issue,” said the company's executive analyst Karl Brauer. “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behaviour and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities.”" Do you mean the website with this quote? If we are to follow research data etcetc, then pretty sure your own link highlight research show consistent result for AV to be on par if not safer in general: "On one side, numerous studies support the view that AVs are generally safer than HDVs.....On the other hand, some research challenges this view, suggesting that the safety of AVs may not always exceed that of HDVs" What are we in disagreement about? Data may suggest either conclusion, so what are we arguing about? You can say that autonomous cars are doing fine, you cannot argue they're better. For now. Tesla has been reviewed as well, it performs worse than some regular brands.
You're the one making the positive claim that "All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars." The disagreement is whether you've made that case, especially when your only evidence is a study that conclues accidents have a lower chance of occuring in ADS than in human driven vehicles in most scenarios.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.12675
This paper analyzes the safety of Waymo's (parent company Google) autonomous cars. They found human driven vehicles were 5x as likely to be in an injury-reported crash than their autonomous vehicles. I guess in this reality that we are denying "5x more" actually means "less."
|
United States41567 Posts
On November 22 2024 19:50 BlackJack wrote:
This paper analyzes the safety of Waymo's (parent company Google) autonomous cars. They found human driven vehicles were 5x as likely to be in an injury-reported crash than their autonomous vehicles. I guess in this reality that we are denying "5x more" actually means "less."
Bold words from mr "defunded is when the budget goes up".
I'll bite. Yes, the human vehicles get in fewer injury reported crashes. Fight me.
|
|
|
This doesn't really make your case, there's a global systemic trend of more police spending on years we have data until 2017, then there is not enough data, which is why the claim lacks evidence and is rated mostly false.
If there had been a defund of the police, the article wouldn't end with "there’s not enough current or comprehensive data to back the claim that police budgets are the highest ever", because we would be able to substantiate the opposite claim. "It's unclear whether we're at the highest ever or not" isn't exactly a good sign for the claim that there has been a defund of the police happening.
|
I like how BJ just ignores the headline/report from the Yahoo article.
"Tesla cars have the most fatal crashes, US safety report finds"
And it's a very recent report, too.
|
To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740
His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has.
Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie.
|
On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie.
TBF, I don't have a fucking clue what a Director of Climate Diversification is, and wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a bullshit job for some bureaucrat to fail upwards into.
Please do educate me about how one diversifies the climate.
Now I don't have a clue what the whole department does, let alone its director and jumping to the conclusion that it's bullshit off the title alone is dumb as all fuck. But the title is definitely not convincing.
|
On November 23 2024 00:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie. TBF, I don't have a fucking clue what a Director of Climate Diversification is, and wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a bullshit job for some bureaucrat to fail upwards into. Please do educate me about how one diversifies the climate. Now I don't have a clue what the whole department does, let alone its director and jumping to the conclusion that it's bullshit off the title alone is dumb as all fuck. But the title is definitely not convincing.
The goal is apparently to optimize the process of funding and developing etc.
"Climate diversification" refers to technology or economy, it's an overarching term. You can find more specific terms online for various climate/green jobs.
I don't think there's anything surprising about this kind of job existing. It's pretty basic.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
On November 23 2024 00:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie. TBF, I don't have a fucking clue what a Director of Climate Diversification is, and wouldn't be surprised to learn it's a bullshit job for some bureaucrat to fail upwards into. Please do educate me about how one diversifies the climate. Now I don't have a clue what the whole department does, let alone its director and jumping to the conclusion that it's bullshit off the title alone is dumb as all fuck. But the title is definitely not convincing.
Sounds kinda like the Department of Government Efficiency eh?
Nah I don’t think it’s a great title either, maybe it refers to diversifying industry to help combat global warming. Perhaps to look at how climate changed affects diverse groups of people across geographic or social-economic lines
Whatever this particular post is me Google let me down, so I’m still in the dark.
Perhaps it is total bs and Musk is aware of the particulars, but it really wouldn’t surprise me if he just saw the word diversification, thought ‘diversity is woke!’ and took that to his merry band of anti-wokesters
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
On November 22 2024 17:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 07:54 Magic Powers wrote:On November 22 2024 07:08 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 21:15 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 20:38 BlackJack wrote:On November 21 2024 19:56 Magic Powers wrote:On November 21 2024 14:52 Turbovolver wrote:Not really a big deal. Tesla was higher by being 5.6 (fatalities per billion miles) as compared to 5.5 for Kia. Autonomous vs non-autonomous, my friend. "Not a big deal"? Reality says otherwise. Hyundai has 3.9 Good lord... The article showing the fatality rate says it used data from 2017 to 2022. Tesla didn't even have a wide release for FSD until November of 2022 and even then only 2% of their drivers paid for it after the free trial. Not only have you provided zero evidence that Tesla's slightly higher fatality rate is related to autonomous driving but the timeline makes it an implausibility. You're a fedora-wearing conspiracy theorist with an Elon Musk hate-boner trying to connect dots that don't even make sense. But at least we found out who is the audience for the fearmongering news stories. All autonomous cars have a higher accident rate than regular cars. More fatalities by Tesla are completely expected. The finding is that Tesla is no better than its competition and certainly not better than regular cars except environmentally. *citation needed* Citation for what? The first sentence? Here you go. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48526-4 I don't want to go into this too deeply, as the main message from that paper appears to be that we don't know, the data isn't there yet, and anyway to do any kind of statistics analysis we need to combine vastly different levels of autonomy and generations of the technology to say anything at all. That said, there is a very obvious bias here, which is that self-driving cars switch the self-driving part off in challenging conditions. Snow on the road? Noping out. Hard rain? Noping out. Busy inner city? Noping out. It's fairly obvious to me that AI is going to.reduce incidents on highways where the 2 main reasons for accidents are driving top fast, and getting distracted/falling asleep. That is exactly the sort of thing AI is going to be good at. Predicting that a child outside of vision might run into the street when a ball rolls into said street? Not something AI is going to be good at (yet). Further comment is that Elon Musk intentionally and very personally disallowed the use of any non-vision tools on Tesla's AI platform. It seems like an extremely dumb self-pwn and I've talked to engineers who are 100% convinced that Tesla would still be leading the field in self-driving if they hadn't changed course. Instead other providers have caught up and even overtaken Tesla in this domain. Vision is notoriously hard, so why limit yourself if you can equip the thing with LIDAR and a host of other sensor technology that is better at detecting things both further away and very near to the car. I really didn't understand the choice at the time and in hindsight I have seen nothing to change my mind.
My theory, or at least the only one that makes sense is Musk chose this course precisely because it’s harder. Pull it off and still be leading, or equal with your competitors in functionality, while doing it the hard way and it’s a bit of a flex and shows you’re still leading the field.
I can’t say that seems a wise course of action, but there perhaps is some logic behind it too. ‘We can achieve as much with vision alone that our competitors need all sorts of additional sensors to accomplish!’ would be quite the flex if they nailed it.
|
Northern Ireland23017 Posts
On November 20 2024 10:43 KwarK wrote:
Asperger’s doesn’t exist anymore. If I recall the story correctly Dr Asperger was an Austrian doctor running a home for children with autism spectrum disorders and other issues. The Nazis took over Austria and demanded that he turn over all his patients for liquidation. He didn’t want all his kids to be murdered but he couldn’t stop them so after some quick thinking he came up with good autistic, which he called Asperger’s, and bad autistic. He talked them into thinking that good autistic was actually potentially valuable and wasn’t defective, just different, unlike bad autistic which had to be destroyed.
Problem was that he couldn’t tell them that all his patients were good autistic because they’d see through his bullshitting. But he didn’t want to be too conservative because every kid he didn’t claim had Asperger’s was going to be murdered. He had to find the sweet spot where the Nazis would believe in special autism. Must have been a tough spot to be in.
Anyway, Asperger’s is just Nazi friendly autism which actually lines up very nicely with Elon claiming to have it.
IIRC it’s one of those topics that is genuinely controversial with quite a lot of disagreement both in the particulars and also how to address them moving forwards. Reading up on it a bit there was quite a lot I had wrong, or simply didn’t know. I’d assumed he’d coined the term, but it was actually folks reading up on his research when it became more widely available.
Diagnostically, aye the term has been largely discontinued, everyone’s just autistic now just to varying degrees.
In the vernacular, for many it still persists as a short-hand for someone on that spectrum in the autistic side, but are still broadly functional.
Which I think is actually quite useful to have, but could be replaced with an alternative and I’d have no objection.
Anyone who tells me their child is autistic say, are they just a bit socially awkward or are they non-verbal and screaming in distress half the day?
|
On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie.
Can you point out misinformation in his tweet??
I'll point 3 in your post:
"example of Elon spreading misinformation"
"His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI"
"right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie"
|
On November 23 2024 02:05 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie. Can you point out misinformation in his tweet?? I'll point 3 in your post: "example of Elon spreading misinformation" "His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI" "right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie"
There is no connection to DEI.
|
On November 22 2024 22:26 Magic Powers wrote:
I like how BJ just ignores the headline/report from the Yahoo article.
"Tesla cars have the most fatal crashes, US safety report finds"
And it's a very recent report, too.
I acknowledged that headline and I also already explained to you the fault in the logic of Teslas have most fatal crashes ---> Tesla is pushing hard for autonomous vehicles ---> therefore the most fatal crashes must be related to autonomous driving. The data was from before Tesla even rolled out their full self driving. It follow the logic of someone that believed Tesla was only making 4,000 vehicles a week by only looking at the output of their Berlin factory and nothing else. You're clearly too blinded by hate to see anything clearly.
|
On November 23 2024 02:12 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2024 02:05 Razyda wrote:On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie. Can you point out misinformation in his tweet?? I'll point 3 in your post: "example of Elon spreading misinformation" "His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI" "right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie" There is no connection to DEI.
I think Razyda's point is that the ideas you presented aren't supported purely by your link, which is a four-word tweet replying to some other tweet. I trust on some level you've read enough to make the connections necessary, but they're not being presented/referenced. I think that's reasonably fair criticism, if that's what they're after.
|
On November 23 2024 05:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2024 22:26 Magic Powers wrote:
I like how BJ just ignores the headline/report from the Yahoo article.
"Tesla cars have the most fatal crashes, US safety report finds"
And it's a very recent report, too. I acknowledged that headline and I also already explained to you the fault in the logic of Teslas have most fatal crashes ---> Tesla is pushing hard for autonomous vehicles ---> therefore the most fatal crashes must be related to autonomous driving. The data was from before Tesla even rolled out their full self driving. It follow the logic of someone that believed Tesla was only making 4,000 vehicles a week by only looking at the output of their Berlin factory and nothing else. You're clearly too blinded by hate to see anything clearly.
I acknowledged my mistake about the production. Between the two of us, I'm not the one who's blinded by bias.
|
On November 23 2024 05:48 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2024 02:12 Magic Powers wrote:On November 23 2024 02:05 Razyda wrote:On November 22 2024 22:55 Magic Powers wrote:To stay true to the thread title, lets give another recent example of Elon spreading misinformation. It's a fun little pastime when he doesn't try to spread more fascism. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1858916546338590740His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI and so he has to post it on Twitter with the minimal impulse control he has. Not exactly the smartest egg in the basket to begin with, but his right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie. Can you point out misinformation in his tweet?? I'll point 3 in your post: "example of Elon spreading misinformation" "His first thought is that "climate diversification" refers to DEI" "right-wing bias turns him into a literal zombie" There is no connection to DEI. I think Razyda's point is that the ideas you presented aren't supported purely by your link, which is a four-word tweet replying to some other tweet. I trust on some level you've read enough to make the connections necessary, but they're not being presented/referenced. I think that's reasonably fair criticism, if that's what they're after.
Read the tweet Elon referred to.
"I don't think the US Taxpayer should pay for the employment of a "Director of Climate Diversification (she/her)" at the US International Development Finance Corporation."
The "she/her" remark is a direct logical leap from "Diversification" as it's being interpreted as "diversity" and it's intended as an attack on wokeness, more specifically on DEI in this instance. This is right-wing logic, not normal people logic. Of course to normal people the logical leap makes no sense because the job position has nothing to do with DEI or wokeness.
There are no other explanations for the "she/her" remark in regards to "Diversification". DEI also happens to be among the main things Elon's been obsessed with in recent years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
