Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#111

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:08 AM UTC

danhak wrote: post #24

jonny_eh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber's been likely working on self-driving cars, potentially in partnership with Google. What Tesla has as an advantage though, is an assembly line to produce lots of quality cars. In other words, Tesla will likely be ready for the future of transportation before Uber.

Tesla's other advantage is a global fleet that is actively logging millions of real-world miles a day. I don't think that can be understated at this stage.

Google may have a lot fewer miles, but they're much higher quality miles. The sensor suite on their car is much superior, so they're getting much better data. Even if the eventual Google car uses cheaper sensors, the data they get from the superior sensors helps a lot training the algorithms.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#112

Post by yish » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #15

> We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day. This seems very significant for Tesla vs competitors. Yes Google has a strong technology lead today, but how long will that last when Tesla is collecting more miles of data every day than Google has collected in…

How much data has Google and Apple collected using LIDAR and such on their mapping/street view vehicles?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#113

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #15

> We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day. This seems very significant for Tesla vs competitors. Yes Google has a strong technology lead today, but how long will that last when Tesla is collecting more miles of data every day than Google has collected in…

It seems to me the data tesla are collecting are not unique. How many times logging the same driver driving the same 20 mile commute before you're in diminishing returns?

With deliberately chosen conditions, scenarios, and routes, it seems to me Google could be collecting data that are just as useful although maybe covering much a smaller number of miles.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#114

Post by Decade » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:10 AM UTC

hackguru wrote: post #56

I am in no position to question EM. But I was hoping he would give some good explanation for spending resources on SolarCity acquisition but nothing. Nothing in this master plan explains why SolarCity was bought other than some hand wavy explanation about inherent difficulties of two separate companies working together. It still doesn't seem like a good purchase for Tesla specially at the moment. Solar car and SolarC…

That's not what he said. Solar cars are dumb. They're good for tech demos, racing across the Australian Outback on a sunny day in the summer, but useless for normal commutes in traffic.

Musk said Tesla has always planned to provide solar energy. SolarCity provides solar energy. The odd part to outsiders is, why now?

I think Musk's investment in SolarCity was being threatened by the end of subsidized net metering. He needed to speed up the time table for energy storage to keep the company in business. SolarCity had the solar panels, but Tesla had the batteries. It would be a poor customer experience for SolarCity to have to negotiate with Tesla for the Powerwall, and it would be a waste of time and money for SolarCity to start its own battery sourcing.

If Musk could get the market valuation and accelerate the world's weaning from fossil fuels this way, it's a big bonus, but all this leveraging is pretty risky.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#115

Post by greendestiny » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

"I should add a note here to explain why Tesla is deploying partial autonomy now, rather than waiting until some point in the future. The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability."

That's a hell of a statement and I want to see much better stats than that. Just looking at the total distance per death in human driven cars and comparing it to the autopilot total distance is a gross simplification. At an absolute minimum you have to start by only comparing driving on similar roads. Tesla simply keeps hiding behind 'if used correctly' which includes the driver being alert and ready to take over - if we restrict human driving stats to similarly ideal conditions the accident rate will also drop. Additionally driver demographics is a big deal as is the safety features of the car itself.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#116

Post by clintonb » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #108

I'm always surprised when we get insight into Musk's plan, not because they're complicated but because they always come across as "no duh, why aren't we already doing these things? weren't we already on track to do these things decades ago?" As much as the Internet transformed society, I also can't help but feel like we were on the track to have achieved these things and got distracted by our global communications an…

Tesla and SpaceX required a lot of startup capital (relative to most other technology startups). Yes, their ideas are simple, but few people have the capital to implement those ideas.

Additionally, the existing players in the rocket market didn't have much incentive to innovate given how few players there were. Your guess is as good as mine on why the automobile industry didn't continue much EV research after the 90s.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#117

Post by lsllc » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

My favorite quote:

"Starting a car company is idiotic and an electric car company is idiocy squared."

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#118

Post by bps4484 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

thucydides wrote: post #23

> "When used correctly, [partially autonomous driving] is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves" If you're an American, you're twice as likely to die with a steering wheel in your hands as you are to die at the hands of a murderer. Human-driven vehicle deaths cause grave second-order suffering for families and friends - and hurt the economy. A shift to technologies safer than human-driven ca…

It may create more sprawl, but 2 of the big complaints I've heard about living in a city is how hard it is to get around, and it's hard to have a car that allows you to leave. Autonomous cars would solve both of these problems while freeing up cityscapes to also be more walkable/bikeable (you have to do something with what was former car parking).

This future is interesting because both living way out in the suburbs AND living in a city both become more attractive.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#119

Post by DrNuke » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

Nice plan, good luck! If that happens, though, I can't see why owning a car at all, ten to twenty years from now: just make an enormous fleet of electric unmanned buses running up and down every major road on Earth, uh? No jams, no accidents, only a regular and pre-determined flow of vehicles. One planet, one network.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#120

Post by melvinmt » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:15 AM UTC

thucydides wrote: post #23

> "When used correctly, [partially autonomous driving] is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves" If you're an American, you're twice as likely to die with a steering wheel in your hands as you are to die at the hands of a murderer. Human-driven vehicle deaths cause grave second-order suffering for families and friends - and hurt the economy. A shift to technologies safer than human-driven ca…

If you're human, you're 99.999999% likely to die.