It does bring up a point I've made here before. Why not just get SOME of the things right and REALLY RIGHT first, then move on to the much more lofty aspirations like FSD? I have the feeling they have the huge aspirational goal out there, since they've told customers they can do it, since they've told THE STREET they will do it by X, since they've built a lot of their value and appeal on at some date, X, being able to have the car go from A (insert any point in the USA) to B (insert a different point in the USA) all on it's own. Forget the regulatory implications - which I've said before are going to take much longer than current projections, but it's the MOST complicated solve to do.

Why not just NOA (or at a minimum TACC with lane changes) REALLY rockin'!. If I as a driver could be confident that 99% of the time the car on the highway, could do 100% of the driving, up to and including gettting over close to my exit, that would be MUCH better than what we have now. I'm just not satisfied or frankly confident in the cars ability AND CONFIDENCE to make appropriate lanes changes, take approprirate initiative, accelerate when it's needed, de-celerate when that is a better solve for the objective or current situation and just do the damb driving.

I have the feeling that the above answer/solve is being lost in the objective to solve it all (FSD) and it's having a negative impact on just getting the basics right.