The potential negative effects of vaccines have been studied many, many times, and new vaccines tested many, many times before being released to the public. Autopilot is a public “beta” that puts other people at risk. Not nearly the same thing.

A bunch of “smart guys” who can’t make the car’s sensors stop it from driving under a trailer and turning itself into a convertible?

A naming scheme should always be tested, to see what emotions and preconceptions it brings up in the target audience.

First off, shoutout to another Badger fan!

I’ve listed, multiple times, what I would have Tesla do to ensure that Autopilot is properly explained and to make sure that users are obeying safety warnings.

“The laypeople are wrong” is not going to be good marketing. People understands words a certain way, even if they define them different than the technical definition of that work. That lay-person definition is what company have to work with and understand. “It is better to be understood than to be [technically]…

Tesla deserves fault for picking a word that, to the public, implies more capabilities than the system has.

It’s Tesla’s fault for not focus-testing their naming scheme. They’ve chosen a word that many people take to mean the system is more capable than it currently it. Tesla are also responsible for properly explaining those limitations, and the “terms and conditions” text is something that most people do not read. They…

What would I have Tesla do?

I’m not mad at you, I’m simply saying it’s unproductive.

Insulting people really doesn’t make your argument better.

In response to your cell phone example: a phone that that is designed to require a charge to exactly 67%, when the engineers know that people tend ignore instructions and will charge to 100%, is bad design. It’s bad because it ignores human nature.

Tesla still needs to make very clear the the driver needs to be paying attention, and enforce that somehow. Even if the system can do these things much of the time, the driver needs to be prepared for the times when the system can’t, and Tesla isn’t doing enough to enforce that. Require hand input more often. Use…

People don’t “choose” to think it means something else. People simply don’t know the technical definition, and are left with only the colloquial one. That colloquial definition would be of a system that has much more control than the technical definition says, and Tesla is at fault for using that word and allowing…

The “problem” is that FCA (and Tesla) have designed systems that don’t take into account how people actually act in the real world. A system can be technologically-engineered perfectly, but if people don’t know how to use it, then it fails at its job, and that’s bad design.

“Sir, were you driving this vehicle without your autonomous car certification?”

Tesla can be faulted for picking a word that, while technically correct, has a colloquial meaning among laypeople that is different from the technical definition. Their marketing is presenting this word to people who have a different understanding of what “autopilot” means, and allowing people to continue believing…

Good design doesn’t require a manual. Good marketing will clearly explain what the system can and cannot do, and it should explain it in such a way that the users understand. Clearly, that is not occurring. Tesla can and should do better about explaining the limitations of Autopilot, and not allow customers to do…

Profit Margins.

It’s a question of “how much money would it cost to revamp the production line to produce the different sizes of battery” vs “take the minor monetary loses, and hope that most people buy the upgrade later on.” Apparently Tesla weighed the options and found that they’d lose less money if they just sold the 75kWh as a…