Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#181

Post by justin66 » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 12:39 PM UTC

la_barba wrote: post #177

justin66 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they just don't realize just how much potential there is for improvement. It's way more than they think Most people would follow a statement like that by contrasting his ideas with the ideas of his competitor to demonstrate why his ideas are likely to be more effective. You know, make an actual argument. He doesn't do that. He just makes statements about his own superiority, and occasionally when reality intrud…

Nope. Most people wouldn't do that actually. The quotes were a tiny part of a conference call with wall street suits regarding Teslas 2017 fourth-quarter earnings. The topic was finance, not a lecture on lean manufacturing. Your demands do not make much sense to be honest. A CEOs job is to run the company and take advise and input from other subject matter experts. It seems like you genuinely are curious about this,…

> Your demands do not make much sense to be honest.

Who's making demands? I think Musk's demonstrated understanding of auto manufacturing is quite superficial and I'm fishing for evidence to the contrary. I'm not bothered by the fact that the evidence does not exist, I think it actually says something.

> A CEOs job is to run the company and take advise and input from other subject matter experts.

Hopefully it's obvious to you, based on how this thread started and more generally Musk's history of statements about manufacturing, that if Musk's attitude were simply "I'm just running the company and taking advice from the experts" we would not be having this conversation.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#182

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:17 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #178

cptskippy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rarely being below 35F does not mean routinely 35F as you're implying.

You're just deflecting, those people complaining have a point. Even excluding the "comforting fact" that it's only literally freezing "rarely", having to work full shifts even at an average low of ~6-8C/43-46F, and an average high of ~16C/62F (official weather data for Dec/Jan/Feb) for ~3 months is still damn uncomfortable if not dangerous. Enough to warrant taking dangerous measures in such an environment like using…

> You're just deflecting

I'm not deflecting anything. You quoted some PR that said "we have a large number of employees who request to work on GA4" and said "Off the top of my head I can't imagine a reason why the tent would be such a great place to work."

I pointed out that, by your own admission, for ~9 months of the year the climate is fine AND it's outside as possible reasons for choosing to work in the tent.

The original quote doesn't say employees requested permanent positions or even year round. Two employees requesting to work 1 shift in the tent during ideal conditions would still make the statement true.

Why is that so far beyond your comprehension? You're fixated on the fact that it gets cold at night in the middle of winter as proof that no one would ever request to work in the tent ever.

I think you're just being contrary and difficult which may or may not be because you have a hidden agenda.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#183

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 1:18 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #125

cptskippy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your description suggests the tent is actually better than the factory building in such climates (even ones with occasional below freezing temperatures). No, the op was struggling to think of a reason why a worker might request to work in a tent. I suggested that it might be due to the climate. You're arguing that it's inconceivable that anyone in that climate might volunteer to work outside because one time in the…

I am the OP and I’m still struggling to understand how working in a tent at potentially freezing outside temps (see link above for minimums and average minimums) can be anywhere close to comfortable. You have to keep in mind that work doesn’t stop on those days (or nights). And I’m pretty sure it’s not just a 9-5 shift. Obviously the people found the need for radiators which can be very dangerous in that environment.

No one ever said it was. You're making up a fiction you can defeat.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#184

Post by kosievdmerwe » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #172

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well why is Musk listed as a Founder in the side bar then? Here's a quote from the article: "Eberhard and Tarpenning were the original founders and incorporated Tesla, while Musk, Straubel and Wright joined in a Series A round later on. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five to call themselves founders."

Founder is a label assigned by a company, it doesn't have the absolute meaning you appear to think it has. Two of the three Silicon Valley startups I've founded have founders who were not full-time on day zero.

I'm not sure why you mention "full-time". A founder is someone involved from day zero or at least before and up to incorporation. Whether they spend time or money doesn't matter. What matters is when

If you're talking about people who have plans to join the startup at day zero but will only manage it a month or so after founding due to logistics, then it's more interesting. It gets more debatable.

However, Musk isn't a founder since he was not involved until the series A as far as I'm aware. Despite what Tesla and Eberhard agreed to, I don't think he's a founder.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#185

Post by close04 » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 3:52 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #182

close04 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just deflecting, those people complaining have a point. Even excluding the "comforting fact" that it's only literally freezing "rarely", having to work full shifts even at an average low of ~6-8C/43-46F, and an average high of ~16C/62F (official weather data for Dec/Jan/Feb) for ~3 months is still damn uncomfortable if not dangerous. Enough to warrant taking dangerous measures in such an environment like using…

> You're just deflecting I'm not deflecting anything. You quoted some PR that said "we have a large number of employees who request to work on GA4" and said "Off the top of my head I can't imagine a reason why the tent would be such a great place to work." I pointed out that, by your own admission, for ~9 months of the year the climate is fine AND it's outside as possible reasons for choosing to work in the tent. The…

> for ~9 months

The year has 12. If you have to selectively pick the part of the year or of the job that supports your point then you need to widen your view. You can't just ignore whatever contradicts it. I'll rephrase: off the top of my head I can't think of a reason for a "large number of employees" to want to work in that tent without any significant disclaimers attached to the request. "Only in good weather" or lack of awareness (not realizing that work conditions are bad part of the year) would be such disclaimers.

> Why is that so far beyond your comprehension

Because if people hate it 25% of the time it still makes Tesla's statement disingenuous and supports the complaint.

> may or may not be because you have a hidden agenda

Why is this always the go to response whenever someone criticizes Tesla (short sellers!)? If you need to try to discredit me to counter my argument then I'm making a pretty strong argument.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#186

Post by la_barba » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #181

la_barba wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Most people wouldn't do that actually. The quotes were a tiny part of a conference call with wall street suits regarding Teslas 2017 fourth-quarter earnings. The topic was finance, not a lecture on lean manufacturing. Your demands do not make much sense to be honest. A CEOs job is to run the company and take advise and input from other subject matter experts. It seems like you genuinely are curious about this,…

> Your demands do not make much sense to be honest. Who's making demands? I think Musk's demonstrated understanding of auto manufacturing is quite superficial and I'm fishing for evidence to the contrary. I'm not bothered by the fact that the evidence does not exist, I think it actually says something. > A CEOs job is to run the company and take advise and input from other subject matter experts. Hopefully it's obvio…

He has stated what he believes his company can achieve given the information he has. He is not professing to be a subject matter expert on anything. You seem to be off on a ridiculous tangent here and this conversation is not really productive. Goodbye!

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#187

Post by refurb » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #112

refurb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic solvents are by no means a carcinogenic class. Ethanol is an organic solvent and has very low toxicity. Methyl ethyl ketone, like acetone, isn't all that toxic.[1] [1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents...

The two rounds of forms to sign are pretty curious then. To counter your .gov link: "The principal health effects most typically associated with organic solvent exposure include nervous system damage (central and peripheral), kidney and liver damage, adverse reproductive effects such as sperm changes and infertility, skin lesions, and cancer." https://www.osha.gov/archive/oshinfo/priorities/solvents.htm...

The key statement on your source is "Individual solvents may cause one or more of these."

There are some solvents that are really dangerous. My comment is just that methyl ethyl ketone isn't one of them. It's very similar to acetone, which your body creates by itself when it breaks down fats.

Now that's not to say you shouldn't try to limit exposure (you'd be stupid not to), but in the grand scheme of solvent toxicity, MEK is one of the safer ones.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#188

Post by greglindahl » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #184

greglindahl wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Founder is a label assigned by a company, it doesn't have the absolute meaning you appear to think it has. Two of the three Silicon Valley startups I've founded have founders who were not full-time on day zero.

I'm not sure why you mention "full-time". A founder is someone involved from day zero or at least before and up to incorporation. Whether they spend time or money doesn't matter. What matters is when If you're talking about people who have plans to join the startup at day zero but will only manage it a month or so after founding due to logistics, then it's more interesting. It gets more debatable. However, Musk isn't…

I mentioned "full time" because in one of the two cases, the person labeled "Founder" was there on day zero, but only in a minor capacity. There's no concise way to express that concept, and I suppose I chose poorly :-)

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#189

Post by justin66 » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

la_barba wrote: post #186

justin66 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your demands do not make much sense to be honest. Who's making demands? I think Musk's demonstrated understanding of auto manufacturing is quite superficial and I'm fishing for evidence to the contrary. I'm not bothered by the fact that the evidence does not exist, I think it actually says something. > A CEOs job is to run the company and take advise and input from other subject matter experts. Hopefully it's obvio…

He has stated what he believes his company can achieve given the information he has. He is not professing to be a subject matter expert on anything. You seem to be off on a ridiculous tangent here and this conversation is not really productive. Goodbye!

> He is not professing to be a subject matter expert on anything.

I don't think much of your posts in this thread but I'll give you credit, that's probably the first time that particular sentence has ever been written about Elon Musk.

Re: Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through harsh conditions

#190

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Jul 17, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #185

cptskippy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're just deflecting I'm not deflecting anything. You quoted some PR that said "we have a large number of employees who request to work on GA4" and said "Off the top of my head I can't imagine a reason why the tent would be such a great place to work." I pointed out that, by your own admission, for ~9 months of the year the climate is fine AND it's outside as possible reasons for choosing to work in the tent. The…

> for ~9 months The year has 12. If you have to selectively pick the part of the year or of the job that supports your point then you need to widen your view. You can't just ignore whatever contradicts it. I'll rephrase: off the top of my head I can't think of a reason for a "large number of employees" to want to work in that tent without any significant disclaimers attached to the request. "Only in good weather" or…

The statement you questioned didn't provide any context, you're being presumptuous (e.g. An employee will only request to work outside year round, no less) which is why you couldn't fathom why someone might ask to work outside and thus concluding the statement was false.