> Simultaneously, I release a promo video that the report does not reference. You watch the promo video and then read the report, but then choose to not watch the actual video of the tests that are literally in the report you just read.

As far as I can tell:

* 2022-08-09 13:50PT (timestamp on video) - The ad is released, containing no mention or link to a report

* Lambert contacts the Dawn Project for comment and receives the affidavit and screen photograph

* 2022-08-10 08:56PT (timestamp on article) - Lambert's article is released. It uses press images provided by the Dawn Project ([0], [1]), but not anything directly taken by Lambert from the report, which I do not believe he has seen at this point

* Between 2022-08-09 20:43PT and 2022-08-10 14:27PT (closest Wayback machine snapshots with and without the campaign[2]) - the Dawn Project added the campaign to their website, including the link to the report

* Later in the day, Lambert updates the article addressing the newly released footage

I could well be missing something, but I don't see evidence that Lambert had read the report at the time of writing the initial article as you claim.

> You then smear whistleblowers [...]

> [...] you are applying a significantly higher standard toward whistleblowing about a dangerous and defective product rather than the product itself [...]

The Dawn Project is really Dan O'Dowd, a self-described "billionaire entrepreneur" whose company provides for competing automated driving systems[3]. According to his website[4], he's also:

* "Your Source for Software that Never Fails and Can't Be Hacked"

* The "World's leading authority on cybersecurity", "World's leading authority on software safety", "World's leading authority on software reliability", and "World's leading authority on software performance"

* Designer of "the only operating system that never fails and can't be hacked"

* The one who "rescued the Macintosh and Apple Computers at Steve Jobs' request"

* "I can make any computer system unhackable", "I can program any system so it will never fail"

* "I can find every bug in any program I write", "The last time I couldn’t find a bug, it was 1975"

* "I can make your software run up to 4 times faster than anyone else. No one else even claims to be an expert in software performance."

Not to turn this into just ad hominem about O'Dowd's quackery, but he shouldn't be presented as some legitimate impartial organisation or sincere whistleblower - it's one rich schmuck with a business interest and vendetta against another rich schmuck. That doesn't mean O'Dowd's interests can't happen to align with the public's, or that he can't perform valid tests, but I do think a large dose of scrutiny for his claims is appropriate.

An Internet debate/investigation of any kind is a far lower standard than the rigorous testing Tesla's "FSD" should be subject to - don't take my comments as arguing that should be lowered.

> [...] and the people who are known cheerleaders and shills. That both they and the manufacturer have actively rejected every invitation to reproduce the results with their own cars should make it clear who is scared of the burden of proof here.

Is there some specific invitation from O'Dowd you're referring to? I can see plenty of people testing it, even including a couple testing on real children[5] which is horrendous.

[0]: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Willow-Sp...

[1]: https://dawnproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Results.p...

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20220810044304/https://dawnproje...

[3]: https://www.ghs.com/products/auto_adas.html

[4]: https://danodowd.com/

[5]: https://abc11.com/north-carolina-tesla-full-self-driving-tes...