Have full self driving hardware != full self driving software != full self driving capabilities.

Auto pilot - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

"An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.[1]"

You are doing the exact conflating I am referring to.

If you want to be maximally pedantic, advanced autopilots are indeed capable of flying the plane by themselves. Modern commercial and military aircraft can take off, fly a route, and put the plane back on the ground, all by themselves. And autonomously flying a route is not unusual at all even in better-equipped small aircraft.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1026435

Autoland has been around for more than 80 years and been used commercially for 60 of those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland.

It's pretty obvious what Tesla is getting at when they are advertising "every car sold with self-driving hardware".

The asterisk is of course that the hardware is self-driving capable, but the software isn't. But it's not hard to see where people are getting that idea from - it's Tesla's advertising and sales material.

Tesla sells a car that everyone from the sales people to the CEO says can drive itself, has a feature called Autopilot where the car drives itself and you're saying no one should be confused that the car can't drive itself...

Regardless, the actual people who have gotten into an accident because of this should be proof enough that Tesla is misleading people.

Those accidents and these comments and downvotes are a greater proof that people like to mislead themselves.

You must have missed the definition of autopilot in my comment.

I thought the car crashing into the parked police car, a parked fire engine, decapitated, and driving straight into a road divider at full speed were better proof that people are mislead by the term "autopilot."

Tesla likes to play both sides, it is "autopilot" when it works, but when it doesn't then the driver has literally under six seconds (according to Tesla) to avert a fatal accident.

>the driver has literally under six seconds (according to Tesla) to avert a fatal accident.

This is what gets me the most. Right after a tragedy Tesla is always quick to put out a victim blaming PR piece claiming that it's all the driver's fault and that they had i.e. "6 seconds" where they could see the divider yet they never publish anything like how long they had between when the car left the lane and the collision. Sure it was 6 seconds where they could see the barrier but how long was it between when autopilot went into casual murder mode and when it hit the barrier?

We've all seen videos like this one https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/8a0jfh/autopil... where autopilot swerves towards an obstacle and the driver only has a split second to react or be the next fatality. I think it's about time that Tesla acknowledges that their sensor platform is fundamentally dangerous. They never should have made such huge promises without lidar of any form. They aren't just going to be able to magically fix this with a software update.

No, it is always autopilot, you must pay attention and it never is or has been fully self driving.

Honestly the whole system is in the "uncanny valley." It is just effective enough to leave people with a false sense of security but just buggy enough to continue to kill people.

Any system that randomly needs a massive correction in under six seconds between potentially several minutes of inaction is too dangerous to be used on public roads.

I didn't sign Tesla's little disclaimer, I shouldn't have to share roads with people beta testing dangerous software.

You mean you shouldn't have to share roads with bad drivers. I do think that this probably makes bad drivers worse and good drivers marginally assisted.

It's great that you're willing to take a prescriptivist rather than descriptivist linguistic stance, but it's not that useful when it comes to consumer behavior.

I hardly think that is the distinction. The word is literally accompanied by a definition after its first use.

"Your Tesla will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes without requiring driver input, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway when your destination is near, self-park when near a parking spot and be summoned to and from your garage.

Tesla’s Enhanced Autopilot software has begun rolling out and features will continue to be introduced as validation is completed, subject to regulatory approval. Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time."

Don't pretend that Tesla doesn't know exactly what people think when they hear "autopilot". It can be literally true and still deceptive marketing, like a jar of yogurt labeled "light" because it's lighter in color than the regular kind.

Like how you're ignoring the repeated assertions that Tesla salespeople and Musk are misrepresenting or outright lying about the "autopilot's" capabilities?

If you want to debate the point, you can't just ignore all the parts that you inconveniently have no answer to.

I ignored what Tesla sales people say because it is anecdotal and contrary to what I experienced when I bought mine.

Far from ignore the parts "I have no answer to", I acknowledge the parts that are misleading like the video. I can only presume that you ignored reading my comments and enjoy misleading yourself.

I'll place it here for you again to read.

"I will admit showing a video of full hands off video, not on a highway, underneath a statement about the hardware, showing off software being used in a way that is not recommended in the manual is bad."

Good on you for editing "smug pedant" out of your comment.