> The caveat ("begin to enable") doesn't change things. You might be at the beginning of pregnancy, but you're fully pregnant.

That would be correct if the Musk quote said they would "begin to enable" full autonomy. That assertion is distinguishable from beginning to enable features related to autonomy.

You're changing the meaning by adding the word "related." Say Microsoft stated it would "will begin to enable full 8K features" on the XBox One. That would mean that something would be in 8K--maybe just for movies but not games. It wouldn't mean "features related to 8K" but not a actually being able to display 8K video anywhere.

If Microsoft said they'd begin to enable 8K on the Xbox One and released a feature that let you view 8K images (with the assumption that more features will come in the future), that'd be completely reasonable.

If Tesla said they'd begin to enable self-driving functionality and released a feature that you complete some part of that like parking for you, or bringing your car up front (with the assumption that more features will come in the future), that'd also be completely reasonable.

I don't understand the jump between "beginning to enable full self-driving features" and turning on full autonomy in any near future. Obviously, Tesla has been releasing functionality piecemeal when they can; see: "features".

Your interpretation seems to be that if the car is ever in a "fully autonomous" state, then it's "fully autonomous". Thus if a "fully autonomous feature" is enabled (such as on the highway), that's full autonomy even if that feature is disabled automatically in other situations (such as in the city). Some people would interpret "fully autonomous" to mean end-to-end autonomy, sort of like enabling a "full encryption" feature on a chat application doesn't make chats on that application "fully encrypted".

[EDIT: Given the medium and proposition, the appropriate interpretation seems to be the narrower one.]

Whether or not rayiner is correct in his interpretation, I think it's pretty clear his interpretation is not an outlandish one. By that I mean many other people in the general public will share his interpretation, and unlike rayiner many of those people will be blissfully unaware of the problems with automation Tesla has been having.

What this means is that a large number of people are going to be deceived by statements like this from Musk, even if you think what Musk is saying is technically true, because they interpreted/misinterpreted Musk's statement the same way rayiner did.

That is my interpretation, yes. "Fully self-driving features" means the car is self-driving at least some of the time. So a fully autonomous mode that's only active on the highway in good weather counts, but not modes where the human still has to pay attention, or features that only support but do not actually enable full autonomy at least some of the time.

Even limited full-autonomy seems totally out of the reach of Tesla given what we know to date.

If say, Tesla would now be able to parallel park all the time without human intervention or oversight, would that not be considered a fully autonomous feature?

So long as it could park without any human oversight, yes, I'd consider that to fit Musk's statement. But will Tesla be even there by August?

Yes, they will be. Q2 is going to be negative again, but Tesla has enough cash left for that. From all announcements it looks as if Tesla has made all investments needed into the Model 3 production to reach the 5k cars/week production goal at the end of the month. At that rate Tesla should be slightly profitable.

No, I mean, will Tesla be able to have something it'll be able to advertise as "full self parking" by August? That doesn't run over stationary dogs/children?

That's a valid question/concern but that we're addressing the correct interpretation of Musk's statement.

Some features of self driving, not the whole package. Eg. a better parking assistant.