"it's never the crime... its the cover up". So in this case, they are kinda screwed.
I've owned two Tesla's ( now a Rivian/Porsche EV owner). Hands down Tesla has the best cruise control technology in the market. There-in lies the problem. Musk constantly markets this as self driving. It is NOT. Not yet at least. His mouth is way way way ahead of his tech.
Heck, stopping for a red light is a "feature", where the car is perfectly capable of recognizing and doing so. This alone should warrant an investigation and one that i completely, as a highly technical user, fell for when i first got my model 7 delivered... Ran thru a red light trying out auto pilot for the first time.
I'm honestly surprised there are not more of these lawsuits. I think there's a misinterpretation of the law by those defending Tesla. The system has a lot of legalese safe-guards and warnings. But the MARKETING is off. WAY OFF. and yes, users listen to marketing first.
and that ABSOLUTELY counts in a court of law. You folks would also complain around obtuse EULA, and while this isn't completely apples to apples here, Tesla absolutely engages in dangerous marketing speak around "auto pilot". Eliciting a level of trust for drives that isn't there, and they should not be encouraging.
So sorry, this isn't a political thing ( and yes, disclaimer, also a liberal).
Signed... former Tesla owner waiting for "right around the corner" self driving since 2019...
Are there clear guidelines set for labeling and marketing of these features? If not, I'm not sure how you can argue such. If it was so clearly wrong it should have been outlined by regulation, no?
The oddity is that LLMs are sounding... too... Human... the reacting to information and regurgitating it a bit too much like the average "learned person". Adding a ton of extrapolation of the "facts", just as we would.
LLMs sound like any pundit on any random tv show/newspaper/blog. The goal was never "fact", it was sounding human, and "intelligence", for which the definition in this case has been.. sounding human. Not being right.
Now, the question of whether they should or shouldn't do this...
Why is Meta the wildcard? Meta has the largest track record of open sourcing everything. From hardware (OpenCompute suite of releases ) to pretty much all software ( HHVM, Hack, Buck, etc etc ) that would benefit wider use.
Even Meta's ML research has a history of open sourcing everything, hello PyTorch. So Llama is just a continuation
Only because all their open source didn't cost them billions to produce. Making a foundation model is at least a billion dollars in just hardware and power.
But you're right they do have a good history of open source, and they should get credit for that.
Because who then pays for the content? Time and time again, the average person has shown that they will rather spend X times more on a trivial thing than content.
This is more acute on hard news. Where a single page article may cost 100k to produce, yet wont be able to be monetized per its "cost to produce".
So yes, it would be a disappointment to lose "great content". now, here lies in the kicker. You get to decide great content with your patronage ( or lack there of)
I really really really dislike this whole trend to feel “victimized” while being some of the most successful people in earth. People are “turning” on Elon after being hugely beloved, purely cause he’s doing idiotic things. Plain an simple.
Furthermore, we should hold someone who’s the richest person on earth to higher standards.
"a political moderate"?? PG said this a month ago? (Nov. 17th) Wow. That tells us much more about PG's politics than I would ever have wanted to know.
Also, "rich white guy" adds a nice vibe of "all lives matter". It's a truth universally acknowledged that white people are victims. Esp. if they're male. And rich.
There are plenty of rich white guys I'm not actively rooting to fail. In fact, until quite recently, I really believed Musk was doing good, was as smart as he presented himself, and was a decent human being. Quirky maybe, but I love quirky.
He has since exposed himself as a massive asshole and idiot.
>Another example is the new Disney's Pinocchio, were the Blue Fairy is portrait by a black woman. The problem is not that she is black of course. but that the original story is set in Italy, Tuscany, mid 1800, were no black woman was ever seen
It’s quite clear that that is YOUR problem. It’s funny when people like yourself claim “I’m not X” while then clear laying the case.
And for the récord, i hope you open up a geography book. There’s been black people in Italy for pretty much all it’s history. You may want to also read a few history books. (Black moors, Alessandro de' Medici, etc )
Also, can people just chill with this racist crap. It’s freaking art, up to interpretation. An actor can be of any race or gender. Get over it.
> There’s been black people in Italy for pretty much all it’s history. You may want to also read a few history books. (Black moors, Alessandro de' Medici, etc )
I hate this argument because it's disingenuous. It's in great part a lie and undermines the push for diversity.
Just because there were 1-2-5-100, in major cities, in countries with populations of millions, didn't make them common and frankly more than a curiosity people would gawk at everywhere except for their immediate residential area.
The vast majority of people until 1900 or so lived and died within 100km from where they were born, most likely a village.
The average Congolese in 1700 died without ever seeing a European or a Chinese person.
The average Chinese in 1700 died without ever seeing an African or European.
The average European in 1700 died without ever seeing an African or Chinese person.
Heck, even today, go to poorer and less developed countries and tell me how many outsiders from far away you see. Moldova, Belarus, Tadjikistan, etc.
I don't mind character switches and such in media, but reaching a point in conversation like the one above, where the comment I'm replying to is asking everyone to RTFM history books to discover this supposedly hidden massive diversity in the Middle Ages is frankly, just a bad comment.
Racism certainly plays a big part in the frequency of such complaints, but it nonetheless raises some important questions.
Ultimately, nobody really, genuinely holds the opinion that an actor can be of any appearance for any role. There will always be exceptions that will break their immersion, because unlike with theatre there is the expectation that the movie is WYSIWYG.
To give an extreme example, would you be completely undisturbed if the main character in 12 years a Slave was portrayed by John Malkovich? Or if a Jewish camp inmate in Schindler's list was portrayed as a black person? I don't think either example would sit well with the vast majority of people, no matter how racist or not racist they might be.
That's why pointing out that black people did exist in Italy is correct but beaide the point. The real debate is around the acceptability of certain expectations, and what determines the criteria for this acceptability.
> [would you be completely undisturbed] if a Jewish camp inmate in Schindler's list was portrayed as a black person?
Why would you be disturbed in the slightest? Hitler hated blacks, and yes, some WERE actually in concentration camps:
"Although no exact figures exist, it is known that a significant number of black people were detained in concentration camps and forced labour camps during the Nazi reign, and that many were murdered. Nonetheless, there seems to be little interest in Hitler’s black victims. Their plight is not talked about enough. This is partly because unlike Jews, Roma and Sinti, black people were not marked for destruction. But they were denied their human rights, sterilised, persecuted, experimented upon and murdered in camps."
I am aware of this historical reality, but note that I specifically mentioned a Jewish camp inmate. Now, you might say that it's entirely possible that an Ethiopian Jew, somewhere somehow, was caught in the Holocaust's net and shot by Amon Göth, but let's be honest, we would be verging on bad faith argumentation at this point.
Taking the example even further, what about a specific Jewish inmate whose appearance is solidly documented an in the popular imagination, such as Anne Frank?
Ultimately, some expectations are seen as socially acceptable, others are not. But there are always expectations.
I was surprised to learn (about myself at least) that this isn't really true, when I saw the musical Hamilton. Of course, the characters also break out into song, etc.
Well that is to be expected, because much like theatre musicals don't have that WISYWIG immersion expectation at all.
To test your belief, it would make more sense to picture a "serious" historical movie where the actors portraying the founding fathers don't look much at all like the faces on the dollar bills.
Not quite that level, but plenty of people seem fine with Bridgerton swapping the race of its characters, which I believe is otherwise a standard period drama.
> It’s quite clear that that is YOUR problem. It’s funny when people like yourself claim “I’m not X” while then clear laying the case.
if you don't see a problem in changing someone else's literature and culture (I am Italian and have read Pinocchio since I was a kid) than you probably don't know what respect for different cultures is.
I would never think of a movie were Kunta Kinte is Dutch and is portrait by Chris Hemsworth.
A quick search shows results saying his ancestors were all from northern Africa and the Middle East. He doesn't even look black in various busts/statues depicting him. He definitely looks north African. I'm pretty into Roman history, and this is the first time I've ever encountered someone suggesting there was a "black" (in the modern sense of the word) emperor.
Not commenting on Severus specifically, I’ve noticed that it seems really common in modern times for some reason for people to believe “white” means European, even though “white” people lived indigenously throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia - including people with blue eyes or red/blonde hair.
Similarly, “African” is for some reason taken to exclusively mean “sub-Saharan” even though as you note most people would not identify most North African ethnic groups as black.
Don't worry, it's not you. People who are quick to call someone racist are nearly always struggling internally with their own racism. To their credit they feel quite a lot of shame about that, but until it's resolved they can be quite unpleasant.
I think GP is not arguing his case well, especially not to Americans, who come with a preset cluster of expectations and arcane protocols to signal that we "get it".
And, sure, anti-Black racism might be his prime motivation. But, just assuming it's so, when someone questions American appropriation of his own culture's literary traditions is ... it's frankly imperialist.
"Americans agree: Italian who questions American depictions of Italian cultural traditions is just a bigot"
Have a hypothesis and then do your best to falsify that. Give him all of the charity he needs to refute your guess that he's a bigot.
"So you say that there is a convention in Italian literature of depicting other-worldly beings as having freakishly white skin. Would you be ok with the Pinocchio reboot if the same African-descended actress portrayed the fairy, but were instead made up with freakishly white skin?"
If he doesn't refute your generous chances, then guess what? You found a bigot. Congratulations.
If everyone were more parsimonious about it, calling someone a racist or white supremacist or a Nazi would actually have some meaning again. At this point it's just coming to mean "This person disagrees with me and I don't like it".
Remember, these depictions are intended to be immersive. If some element reminds the watcher that they are watching a story, and they find it difficult to suspend their disbelief, they're not going to like it. That could mean an actor with clearly incorrect ancestry for the role.
For example, in the real world, a rural village of people whose ancestors have been in the same region for hundreds or thousands of years are going to look a lot alike. This is why Finns do not look like Khoisan. Everyone knows this. No one has a problem with this.
If your fantasy setting has human beings (or humanoid beings) living for generations together in a small rural village, and you just throw a bunch of different real-world ancestries in there, a Khoisan burgher and a Finnish tavern keeper, that's going to need some kind of explanation. Highlighting that as a problem isn't automagically racist. Maybe it's "magic world" and people there just have that kind of reproductive variability. Cool. Whatever it is, it needs a reason. But without that, it comes off as immersion-disrupting tokenism.
So, no, I don't think "focusing on race" is an automatic signifier of racism.
"Would you be ok with the Pinocchio reboot if the same African-descended actress portrayed the fairy, but were instead made up with freakishly white skin?"
Including the word "freakishly" is deliberately setting up the expectation that nobody would think that was acceptable. But I'd like to think we should be able to live in a world where if being literally white-coloured was a key component of a character, then yes, a black actor should be able to play the character wearing whatever costume/makeup or using whatever special effects are necessary to pull off the part. Unfortunately I'm not sure we are in that world yet - the most well-known case of a black public figure appearing "white" still gets accused of betraying his racial background, even if it's almost certain it was entirely due to a skin condition (Vitiligo, a diagnosis confirmed on autopsy).
In another post, GP discussed how "wax-like, otherworldly" white skin is a signifier of supernatural goodness. My brain translated that into "freakish". If he had said "ruddy, tends to tan in the sun" or no adjective qualifier, I'd have just in turn said "white" without qualifier.
I'm not sure how what I wrote sounds like that, because if I wanted to write that, I would have. It's a lot simpler, for one.
It's a difficult concept, rhetorical charity, especially in today's climate of flinging the most reprehensible accusation in our repertoire at the slightest provocation.
As I said before, a lot of the excesses of "wokeness" is projected overcompensation for private shame about bigoted feelings.
> The only part of the depiction he’s complaining about is race
Am I?
Are you sure?
Can you quote me on that please?
The blue fairy is an important part of my culture, at least for me.
If someones rewrites it using all the power of a conglomerate like Disney, that puts at risk our shared culture and heritage.
For me she's gonna be a woman with blue air, for someone younger it will be a bald black woman, that has no direct representation in the society where I live.
I don't care who the actress is or what the color of her skin is, it's just not the "Fata Turchina", it's another character.
Simple as that.
Try doing that with Sherlock Holmes and see what happens.
What would happen if a Chinese company made a movie where Martin Luther King is an Albanian immigrant who came to Italy with the Vlora ship in 1991 to become a supporter of immigrants rights and got killed by a mobster in a fight over a pool game?
I would totally watch a Sherlock Holmes played by Benedict Cumberbatch dressed up as bald black woman!
Look, if having the blue fairy's character being reinterpreted in such a way is simply something you'd prefer not to watch, that's cool. Maybe it bothers you that a generation of new viewers will absorb a different version of a story for which the orginal has a particular place in your heart, but that's just how culture works - for most of human existence stories weren't written down and changed on each retelling anyway. It doesn't lessen their importance or impact.
Having said all that - I've yet to hear many examples of modern adaptations of music in classical tradition written 100s of years ago that I can accept as any sort of improvement. I can't quite put my finger on why there's such a difference.
> What would happen if a Chinese company made a movie where Martin Luther King is an Albanian immigrant who came to Italy with the Vlora ship in 1991 to become a supporter of immigrants rights and got killed by a mobster in a fight over a pool game?
You're not very good at arguing your case. I see where you're trying to go with this, but that analogy sucks.
Look, Disney just ruins everything. I grew up with the A.A. Milne books for Winnie the Pooh. As a child, I had a picture in my mind for all of the characters, appearance, voice, manner. Disney's Winnie the Pooh is not it, and they have such cultural dominance that their vision can seem to overwrite the original.
I've had to just learn to not sweat it. Blade Runner 2049? Excellent movie, but I do not consider it canon. The original had a sense of humor and hopefulness that 2049 just absolutely lacked.
My Disney+ shows that I'll have access to Pinocchio on September 8th. Not sure if you have already seen it, but if not, give it a watch with an open mind. You might like it.
> For me she's gonna be a woman with blue air, for someone younger it will be a bald black woman
Weird that you spend more time complaining about her skin color than her hair.
> Try doing that with Sherlock Holmes and see what happens.
Shit yeah, sign me up.
> What would happen if a Chinese company made a movie where Martin Luther King is an Albanian immigrant who came to Italy with the Vlora ship in 1991 to become a supporter of immigrants rights and got killed by a mobster in a fight over a pool game?
They might well do that. But it’s different when it’s a real person than an imaginary fairy. And also when you change his appearance versus when you change what he stands for.
Collodi often used the Italian Tuscan dialect in his book. The name Pinocchio is a combination of the Italian words pino (pine), and occhio (eye); Pino is also an abbreviation of Giuseppino, the diminutive for Giuseppe (the Italian form of Joseph); one of the men who greatly influenced Collodi in his youth was Giuseppe Aiazzi, a prominent Italian manuscript specialist who supervised Collodi at the Libreria Piatti bookshop in Florence. Geppetto, the name of Pinocchio's creator and “father,” is the diminutive for Geppo, the Tuscan pronunciation of ceppo, meaning a log, stump, block, stock or stub.
It seems to me there's a lot of cultural references here that are elided for non-Tuscan audiences. I imagine that could be frustrating. I think it would not be easy for Americans to be sympathetic to this kind of thing.
Hey, this is a cool song. It's a bit how Europeans can feel about American hegemonic cultural dominance: https://youtu.be/Rr8ljRgcJNM
> I would never think of a movie were Kunta Kinte is Dutch and is portrait by Chris Hemsworth
Kunta Kinte was a slave in a story that heavily dealt with slavery, set in a time and setting where slavery was race-based, for an audience somewhat familiar with the history of that time and setting.
If you made him Dutch and portrayed by Chris Hemsworth you'd have to include in your movie all kinds of extra exposition and world building to set the background for the story.
Most of the race changes people have mentioned so far did not involve characters where their race was either important to the story or to reducing the amount of exposition and world building you need to convey the story's context to the audience.
Not dutch, but Chris Hemsworth could perfectly fit in the role of a --slavic-- people in an history of slavery. The first slaves with that name where white. In this particular case the history is easily translatable to a different location.
> did not involve characters where their race was either important to
I think the appearances of a character is quite important if the author took the time to describe it, don't you think?
Would a Little women adaptation where the three women are two trans gender people, one Black, one Asian and one South American person that identifies as woman, be a good idea?
We all know what "Little women" is about, we all expect that, not something else completely unrelated to the original IP.
Why isn't Jay Gatsby black in the movies and only black people in the book are also black in the movie?
Want my opinion?
People are making a big fuss about the ethnicity of actors, but I'm more inclined to think that Disney's worried about another failure like Tim Burton's Dumbo (the original Dumbo is considered unacceptable by today's standards and people staid away from the new one) and is playing it safe with a story (Pinocchio) that has no such bad legacy attached. it's so safe that there's even a "project Pinocchio" in my country against racism in schools.
> If you made him Dutch and portrayed by Chris Hemsworth you'd have to include in your movie all kinds of extra exposition and world building to set the background for the story.
That's exactly my point.
A black fairy is not an issue because she is black, but because it's a plot hole that the original story don't have.
>> If you made him Dutch and portrayed by Chris Hemsworth you'd have to include in your movie all kinds of extra exposition and world building to set the background for the story.
> That's exactly my point.
> A black fairy is not an issue because she is black, but because it's a plot hole that the original story don't have.
I just watched a couple trailers for the new Pinocchio movie and they included a scene with the fairy.
She's dressed in glowing white sparkly clothes, has translucent sparkly wings, a wand with a star on the end that is clearly a magic wand, is surrounded by sparkles, transfigured Pinocchio, and it looks like she travels in some sort of amorphous flowing light blob.
The amount of extra exposition and world building needed to let the audience know that the character is a fairy is zero.
The black bald fairy is just a stunt to create fake controversy, to sell tickets.
And if any children read this, let me tell you that either you run to ask money to your parents and go to itchy and scratchy land, or you are a bunch of little racists. You are warned. Gimme money.
I think you're right. Italian is not an ethnicity. Italy hasn't been a unified political entity for very long. There are Italians from all sorts of different ethnicities and races. Would it be okay for a Black person to play this role if they were Italian? If not, why is it okay for non-Italian white actors to play other roles?
Is a Corsican person Italian? Is an Italian-American? Is Mario Balotelli (for example)? Why does any of this matter?
> There’s been black people in Italy for pretty much all it’s history. You may want to also read a few history books. (Black moors, Alessandro de' Medici, etc )
I've always hated this disingenuous line of arguing. Yes, technically there were some black people in Italy, but these types of arguments always frame it in such a way that it seems like it was a common thing to witness for the average citizen. The large, large majority of Italians (we're talking in the past obviously) have never seen anything other than other Italians, and those few foreign black people were very much a rarity.
Hell, go to places like Serbia today as a black man and you'll be gawked at like you're an alien, even in the capital Belgrade, yet alone in the smaller cities. Or do the flipside, go to a remote part of a country like Indonesia as a white man, like a random village in Papua or even a city like Jogja (and it's not exactly a small or unpopular city either), and you'll similarly be gawked at.
I'm a Serb (so corpse-white when I don't tan) but lived in Indonesia my whole life, I can't tell you the number of times I've been in situations where people have looked at me in fascination because of my white skin, even in places where tourists are common. If you go to Borobudur as a white person, you're going to be asked to have your picture taken by a dozen curious Indonesians who have never in their lives seen a white person in real life, and this is a massively popular tourist spot in a pretty massive city with plenty of foreigners coming and going.
So sure, there were some black people in Italy, but let's not pretend like that was anywhere near the norm or something you could expect to see every day in 1700s Italy as an average Italian.
"go to places like Serbia today as a black man and you'll be gawked at like you're an alien"
But don't you agree this is something we should be trying to improve, and we could do so by ensuring that movie casting better reflects the more racially diverse situation we enjoy in the developed world (who produce much content exported to less diverse parts of the world)?
No amount of seeing black characters in a movie or show (or the flipside in Indonesia, seeing non-asian characters) is gonna make it any less strange for people when they spot them in real life if the reality for them is that every single person they ever interact with in their day-to-day lives looks like them.
I also don't see what exactly you're improving here either. Most people outside of the West that I've met don't care about diversity, at least not in the way American leftists seem to portray it. In my eyes, that Hollywood cast of elites making millions off of acting are all the same type of person regardless of their gender, skin color or any of the other superficial traits people usually judge diversity by, and I can relate to them as much as I can relate to a mosquito. Likewise, I might be Serbian by blood, but I feel about as Serbian as you probably do, considering I was born and have grown up in Indonesia. I relate more to Indonesians and stories revolving around Indonesia than I do anything coming out of the West (the influence of the Internet notwithstanding), yet by all superficial standards I definitely wouldn't be considered "diverse" enough for a lot of things considering I'm just another corpse-white dude.
I guess my point is that the US, and especially the Liberal/Hollywood idea of diversity isn't anything like what my friends and I would consider diverse at all, and I suspect a lot of people in the real world feel very similarly, though that's obviously hopeful conjecture on my part. I'll take my friend group consisting of every nationality that exists (and a lot of them are dual nationalities as well!) who have white skin color over the same number of Americans of every shade of the rainbow any day of the week if you ask me to make the most diverse crowd of people possible.
I'm not I entirely agree that frequently witnessing racial diversity in movies isn't going to affect the way you react to what you might see in your own neighbourhood. Our perceptions of what's "normal" absolutely are shaped by cultural norms and they can be spread by literature, TV and film as much as they can by lived experience.
I'm a bit baffled by your description of a group of friends from "every nationality that exists" but all being white skinned - how on earth does that even happen?
FWIW I'm not American but I have grown up surrounded by friends and colleagues from all over the world, and they very much do have a variety of skin colours, eye colours/shapes, and other superficial features that mark them as coming from various ethnic/racial backgrounds. There's literally no racial appearance it would be at all surprising to see featured among those in my suburb (e.g. there's a significant population of Somalians, who have very distinctive features, but plenty with an obviously Mediterranean background, likewise Chinese, Vietnamese, subcontinental etc. among a slight majority from the more obviously northern European ancestry that I share). I certainly would have found the experience of going to, e.g. Japan and seeing almost nothing but ethnic Japanese quite unnerving if I hadn't had some exposure to that reality via TV and/or movies beforehand.
When I do watch movies or TV shows made in the US that somehow manage to avoid casting anyone who isn't white in a substantial role it's hard not imagine that somehow the producers/casting agents felt uncomfortable about living in a multi-racial world and were subconsciously trying to project a world that only existed in their imaginations.
But, what this war has exposed is how bad the russian army is trained, and how not so great their equipment is. While a prolonged war would be hard for any country, they struggled from the get go.
I hope this doesn't embolden the US and Europe to be more aggressive. I really hope that cooler heads eventually prevail.
WRT to the really really far fetched ( I hope ), that Russia would launch any nuclear strike. The missile defense systems that NATO and the US have were built exactly to counteract Russian missiles in a situation like this. This will even accelerate the development of hypersonic interceptors ( afaik, already in final stages) .
It would mean total annihilation of russia, as their in flight missies would be intercepted, and it would guarantee a total attack by the us. ( we as a nation tend to over react... and not go tit for tat ).
I hope this never happens. The reason why countries need leadership changes often. And why stable leaders are needed everywhere :-/
Ah yes, nothing like building a "sustainable" community in the dessert.
Yes, there's sarcasm in there.
But part of long term human sustainability is well, figuring out the areas we should not fight the environment ( more than reasonable ) to be able to sustain a human population.
Or you know, you could just go to their website and confirm that in fact, they did win it[0]
There will always be naysayers, detractors, and people who will always question the value of exporation and human inventiveness.
Like in business, if it was obvious, it would have long been done. Yes, it does tak ea bit of brashness and self serving to do new things. and their practically is seldomly obvious at the beginning.
But this is EXACTLY how humanity moves forward!!! The crazy ones, the selfish ones. The ones that sometimes do it for the glory, or just because its' hard.
It's very easy to critique, but in the words or someone else... "what have you done that is so great?"
" In 2004, it signed a deal with Virgin Galactic to develop the Virgin SpaceShip, a suborbital spacecraft, for space tourism. Virgin Group and Scaled Composites have subsequently formed a joint venture, The Spaceship Company, to manufacture the spacecraft."[0]
I've owned two Tesla's ( now a Rivian/Porsche EV owner). Hands down Tesla has the best cruise control technology in the market. There-in lies the problem. Musk constantly markets this as self driving. It is NOT. Not yet at least. His mouth is way way way ahead of his tech.
Heck, stopping for a red light is a "feature", where the car is perfectly capable of recognizing and doing so. This alone should warrant an investigation and one that i completely, as a highly technical user, fell for when i first got my model 7 delivered... Ran thru a red light trying out auto pilot for the first time.
I'm honestly surprised there are not more of these lawsuits. I think there's a misinterpretation of the law by those defending Tesla. The system has a lot of legalese safe-guards and warnings. But the MARKETING is off. WAY OFF. and yes, users listen to marketing first.
and that ABSOLUTELY counts in a court of law. You folks would also complain around obtuse EULA, and while this isn't completely apples to apples here, Tesla absolutely engages in dangerous marketing speak around "auto pilot". Eliciting a level of trust for drives that isn't there, and they should not be encouraging.
So sorry, this isn't a political thing ( and yes, disclaimer, also a liberal).
Signed... former Tesla owner waiting for "right around the corner" self driving since 2019...