Very much this is the reality. And moreover, people have been pointing this very, very obvious problem with the Tesla numbers out for years, and yet people continue to take Tesla's statements at face value. It is incredible to watch and the most solid demonstration of how weak the critical thinking skills are in the technology field.

For historical reasons, I have lots of friends who do what is now called "data science" professionally and literally every one of them has asked, unprompted, about whether the numbers Tesla reports are based on non-comparable sets, which they are, early in any conversation on Tesla FSD. It is totally obvious.

Do you have a source that constructs a story around existing knowns that does show AP to be unsafe, then? Because again, the deaths and accident counts simply aren't there. There's not enough of them to be "unsafe", no matter how you do the accounting.

That is, take the numbers we have and show that if you select out the right data set from public numbers about other kinds of driving, that the Tesla AP values are actually more dangerous. This surely isn't easy but it's absolutely doable (and, let's be clear, such an analysis would be worth a lot of money to Tesla's competitors -- there's a built-in incentive to do this). But no one has numbers like that anywhere I've seen. Likely because, as seems like the obvious hypothesis, there aren't enough events to make a story for a safety problem via any analysis.

So you are arguing about methodology and not results. That's pretty much the definition of "nitpicking". And it will never end. You'll insist that Tesla AP is somehow hiding phantom deaths for years, because it's your prior. But it's not supported, it's just not.