Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Update from Elon Musk

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#111

Post by stephenhuey »

lkozma wrote: post #62
reneherse wrote: post #27

I'm a huge Elon Musk/Tesla/SpaceX fan, and have often felt it would be the ultimate opportunity to work at either company (Tesla would be my first choice, as automotive interface tech is one of my passions). However, doing a quick bit of research earlier today, a search for "Tesla working environment" turned up more than a handful of reports by former and current employees that hint at an unpleasant company culture.…

I know nothing of Tesla/SpaceX, but be aware that how glamorous/hip a company/industry/etc is, often correlates negatively with how well they treat employees by objective measures, i.e. working hours, salary, etc. Just read some posts about the gaming industry. It's supply and demand, really.

I was going to assume everyone is happy there since they should realize when joining that they're facing big challenges, but I was surprised to see so many disgruntled people on Glassdoor:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Tesla-Motors-Reviews-E43129...

Tough to say what the stories were behind all of these, but I can see how they might feel the need to push people way harder than normal, because during yesterday's presidential debate Romney lumped Tesla in with a list of losers that the government has given money to. Plenty of people are expecting them to fail even though many of us are excited at their prospects. In such an environment, I can see how Elon Musk might push some workers beyond what they can handle. However, I'd expect many of them are still happy to be part of the team even though the work is hard, because a Tesla employee really is part of something more world-changing than an Electronic Arts coder is.

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#112

Post by schiffern »

confluence wrote: post #105
ta12121 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until fusion. As nice as fusion is on paper, there is so much cheap coal in the ground that it is economically unfeasible.

See here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

A vacuum chamber containing 150,000,000 K plasma surrounded by molten lithium blankets surrounded by liquid-helium cooled superconductors. Yeah, that sounds cheap.

Solar, anyone? Somehow I don't see $73/watt 7 years from now competing with $19/watt right now (of which about $5 is the panels) and falling fast. I'm assuming 13% capacity factor for solar here, which is pessimistic (Northeast US).

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#113

Post by schiffern »

confluence wrote: post #104
pge wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given your thesis here, why do you think electric cars such as the chevy volt and nissan leaf have had such disappointing sales numbers? I was hoping that those two cars would be the beginning of a mainstream adoption of electric cars, but the car-buying public seems not to have embraced them. Curious if you had any thoughts why?

Because they suck. Specifically their range - you must appease consumer's range anxiety otherwise you have a golf cart on your hands. Tesla does this. Furthermore have you seen those cars? They are essentially undifferentiated from their ICE counterparts.

>you must appease consumer's range anxiety

How does the Chevy Volt not do this?

>They are essentially undifferentiated from their ICE counterparts.

What would you suggest? Furthermore, if a certain gizmo sell cars, wouldn't you use them to sell all your cars?

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#114

Post by ta12121 »

confluence wrote: post #105
ta12121 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until fusion. As nice as fusion is on paper, there is so much cheap coal in the ground that it is economically unfeasible.

See here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

I am aware of iter. The proposed claim to be defended is "commercial fusion power by 2040", not "there exists an international experimental project to figure out how to create a fusion reactor with a positive energy balance and an economic durability, neither of which we know how to do yet."

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#115

Post by mkramlich »

newbie12 wrote: post #67
droithomme wrote: post #10

Musk's public statements are the nicest and most logical ones I've seen made by a modern CEO. No sense of spin. Always a pleasure to read.

Really? All of that wordsmithing is saying how he is technically defaulting on the loan from U.S. taxpayers. The loan is now "repay us someday, if you have the cash". Total spin.

false

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#116

Post by mkramlich »

001sky wrote: post #33
chintan wrote: post #9

What a timing - "Romney Calls Tesla a ‘Loser’" in first debate: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/romney-tesla-loser/

Romney then name-dropped a few beneficiaries including the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra and Tesla Motors, the car maker that has gotten a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy, which it is paying off. Romney then quipped that “One of my friends said, “You don’t pick the winners and losers. You pick the losers.” --(1) They defaulted on a fed subsidized loan[#]; (2) They make $90k cars for rich people;…

> Tesla does not need US handouts, subsidized loans and other craptrap. If the biz/product is a winner it will do fine.

If that's truly your belief, let's carry it out across the board to be fair and complete. No more subsidies, exemptions or bailouts for banks, Wall Street, oil companies, mining companies or religions (via income tax exemptions). Oh that's right. Those are approved and supported by the Republican party. So those are perfectly ok.

But if it is about say solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal energy, or about science, education, helping the unemployed, the sick, disabled, elderly, retired -- those are what we should be spending less on as taxpayers and just let nature take its course. Let the "market" decide the winners and losers. If they can hack it on their own, the market will reward them with enough cash. Otherwise they die. There is absolutely no other long term consideration we should be taking into account, no strategic concerns, no follow-on effects, no externalities (those don't exist in a proper capitalist/rightwing/libertarian mindset, it seems), and certainly no moral considerations to be had. And there is no such thing as climate, ecosystems, or species other than humanity or the ones we pet or put on our plates -- that's liberal hippy talk. Science? A thinly-veiled conspiracy against my Bible. Also there's no need for any business or startup to ever do any R&D spending up front that doesn't have an immediate return via product revenue. That's just insane and asking for trouble. Any new idea must be profitable and able to stand on its own legs in year one, on day one -- nay literally within moments of conceiving of it. Period. No exceptions for ramp-up time, for execution risks, experimentation, taste shifts, refinement, pivoting, serendipity, or market events beyond one's control. That's all weak-minded liberal talk.

$500M loan to one particular solar company that folds? Travesty. Trillions spent on unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by the last Republican administration? Crickets chirping because apparently perfectly ok. Chance a few more blacks or elderly or college students might get to vote -- and not for the candidate I want? Tragedy. Billionaires now being able to spend effectively unlimited amounts of cash to flood media with dishonest ads backing their favored candidate? Perfectly ok. Because the market is always right. Government always eeeevil (eg. Social Security, teachers, firefighters, roads, libraries, schools, defense). Market always guuud (eg. Enron, Deepwater, Goldman Sachs, AIG).

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#117

Post by mkramlich »

codex wrote: post #37

As of last quarter, Tesla had $777M in assets and a whopping $715M in liabilities--leaving a net balance of only $64M. Given that their balance sheet is decreasing by an extraordinary $30M a month, that would have left only two months until the company was insolvent. No wonder the U.S. government wants their $465M paid back more quickly than planned. The company has lost over $850 million since being founded in 2003.

> The company has lost over $850 million since being founded in 2003.

Lost? Literally? Since it's been lost I'd love to be the guy that finds those money bags laying around somewhere. But seriously, I'd suggest rather it's been spent, and probably spent mostly on R&D, which is precisely what any reasonable observer would expect an innovative new electric car company to be doing. Musk said even today I believe that within a month they appear to be headed to cash-flow positive. That's a huge good milestone for a new company to achieve, even more so in a bleeding edge one as theirs. And they've already built, sold and shipped 2 models of new product already, in customer hands. That significantly de-risks them. Completely de-risks? Of course not. But if you look at accomplishments to date, their momentum, and the degree of talent on board, I think the smart bet to make on them is up/long.

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#118

Post by mkramlich »

samstave wrote: post #11
knodi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly believe TSLA stock is a good investment. TSLA is on its way to be the Apple of car manufactures. $ whoami > nobody

I wish we could buy stock in Elon directly which would translate into a spread between all his ventures.

great idea. somebody make that happen (via index fund or whatever financial instrument is equivalent)

and then shutup and take my money. :)

Re: An Update from Elon Musk

#119

Post by 001sky »

mkramlich wrote: post #116
001sky wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Romney then name-dropped a few beneficiaries including the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra and Tesla Motors, the car maker that has gotten a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy, which it is paying off. Romney then quipped that “One of my friends said, “You don’t pick the winners and losers. You pick the losers.” --(1) They defaulted on a fed subsidized loan[#]; (2) They make $90k cars for rich people;…

> Tesla does not need US handouts, subsidized loans and other craptrap. If the biz/product is a winner it will do fine. If that's truly your belief, let's carry it out across the board to be fair and complete. No more subsidies, exemptions or bailouts for banks, Wall Street, oil companies, mining companies or religions (via income tax exemptions). Oh that's right. Those are approved and supported by the Republican pa…

How about no more subsidies for interest on Debt, in particular real estate-residential? Isn't it great getting tax breaks on that $1-3 million home? Every year for you? A working couple at median income pay THEIR ENTIRE TAX BURDEN to offset your nice house subsidy in SF? Isn't that great?

But, like the above example, you are completely missing the point. There is little new or interesting. Just re-hash of political talking points.

THERE IS ALREADY TOO MUCH MONEY investing in the Valley. Where do you get the idea there is a shortage? Gov't stepping up might be OK if there was actually a shortage of opportunity (but there is not).

Elon Musk has every advantage of raising capital. He's rich. Friends in high places (also rich). Proven ability to get publicity. Proven ability as a business entrepreneur. The only reason for people to invest with him, is they don't think it's a great idea.[1]

Point of fact, though, he just refinanced.

________

[1] Relevant> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Post reply on HN