robotaxi is the name of the tesla unsupervised driving program (as stated in the title of this hn post) and if you live in a parallel reality where they're currently operating unsupervised in a blue state, or if texas finally flipped blue for you, let me know how's going for you out there!

for the rest of us aligned to a single reality, robotaxis are currently only operating as robotaxis (unsupervised) in texas (and even that's dubious, considering the chase car sleight of hand).

of course, if you want to continue to take a weasely and uncharitable interpretation of my post because i wasn't completely "on brand", you are free to. in which case, i will let you have the last word, because i have no interest in engaging in such by-omission dishonesty.

> robotaxi is the name of the tesla unsupervised driving program

“robotaxi” is a generic term for (when the term was coined, hypothetical) self-driving taxicabs, that predates Tesla existing. “Tesla Robotaxi” is the brand-name of a (slightly more than merely hypothetical, today) Tesla service (for which a trademark was denied by the US PTO because of genericness). Tesla Robotaxi, where it operates, provides robotaxis, but most robotaxis operating today are not provided by Tesla Robotaxi.

> Tesla 'Robotaxi' adds 5 more crashes in Austin in a month – 4x worse than humans

hm yes i can see where the confusion lies

You were using it in the general sense, unless you believe the "extensive road safety laws and civil liability precedent" only apply to Tesla branded Robotaxis. If you do believe that I'd love to hear why.

I'm not one to nitpick grammar but if you want to convey something is a proper noun you capitalize it.

> You were using it in the general sense

no, i wasn't. i am telling you i wasn't and i have already told you i wasn't. how many more times do you need to be told?

> unless you believe the "extensive road safety laws and civil liability precedent" only apply to Tesla branded Robotaxis

i was talking about tesla robotaxis, sure.

please quote me where i said that it only applies to them. otherwise, you're making shit up in your head and accusing me of it :)

> no, i wasn't. i am telling you i wasn't and i have already told you i wasn't.

Due to your poor writing, what you intended to write and what you actually wrote were different. Though you still don't appear to understand what you wrote, I am now satisfied you made the error unintentionally. Hope this gives you peace.

I do understand that there was minor ambiguity, but many people were able to understand what i was talking about (and upvoted me accordingly) without issue. I think that your interpretation is poor. Your failing is that you assumed the worst interpretation, and then attacked over a statement that made no sense to you without asking for clarification.

in addition, i made it explicitly clear to you MULTIPLE times what i was talking about, and you still struggled with resolving the ambiguity.

please count how many times i repeated it to you, and use that to inform your own knowledge of your limitations to absorb new information

anyways it's clear that this conversation is at an end, so i will let you have the last word, if you wish.