Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#131

Post by snewk » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:22 AM UTC

tacticus wrote: post #82

manicdee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should humans be monitored and have driving privileges revoked if they drive erratically? Historically yes, if you cause problems your licence is revoked and in some cases your vehicle is seized. I look forward to the rise of the machines, with humans losing driving privileges for simple things like wandering across lanes without signalling, running red lights, hitting pedestrians or bumping other vehicles in the par…

"simple things like ... hitting pedestrians" That doesn't seem very simple to me.

its simpler than you'd think

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#132

Post by rjdagost » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:23 AM UTC

danhak wrote: post #89

Animats wrote: post #64

"A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018." What that really means: Tesla is going to lose a ton of money per car on the Model 3, or raise the price, until at least 2022. T…

Ford can have fewer employees per car because they're at full scale, they've outsourced nearly all their engineering and have outsourced their sales as well via an antiquated dealer model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk

Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#133

Post by sjtgraham » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #101

My points of skepticism: 1. Semis . A typical long haul semi gets well under 10MPG. In some cases not much more than half that. They are heavy and need a lot of energy to move. A Tesla Model S weighs 4650 lbs and has a range of a couple of hundred miles. A semi truck can weigh up to 80,000 lbs. That is a lot of weight to get rolling and a lot to pull up a grade. Semis spend a large part of their time driving at highw…

> Semis spend a large part of their time driving at highway speeds where air resistance is at a maximum.

Why would a self-driving cargo vehicle drive at highway speeds? A human truck driver can only drive 11 hours/day, an autonomous vehicle can be on the move 24/7 and so could travel at slower, more efficient speeds while completing trips on similar time scales.

> To achieve useful performance an electric semi will need a lot of batteries which will reduce its cargo capacity (Federal law regulates the maximum gross weight), which reduces its value to freight companies.

Don't forget about the solar roof unit. There is a lot of surface area on a trailer. This could offset some of the energy requirements along with other technology such as regenerative breaking. Also consider that a supercharger network might be constructed.

> Autonomy. I think this will take a lot longer to achieve than planned, both technically and socially.

I disagree. The evidence is to the contrary technically speaking. The matter is more subjective on the social front, but we've seen how popular attitudes change to technology. It might be a fatuous example but consider how it was once uncool to be online and then MySpace happened, and consider how it was anathema to be anywhere near online dating, the archetypal hallmark of a loser, then Tinder happened and now it's almost de rigueur in the mainstream.

> Enable your car to make money for you. I don't want anyone using my car. Legal liability is one reason. As owner of the car, I am liable for damage it causes.

Insurance (including public liability insurance) is already a thing. Insurance is priced according to risk, so when autonomous vehicles are here and much safer than human drivers the insurance will be priced as such.

> If I need to go somewhere, and my car is not here, I don't want to wait for another one.

The post alluded to making your car available when you're at work etc. I expect the intention is ensure it has returned to you by the time you want to go home.

> I don't want to get my car back from another user and find food wrappers strewn about and used condoms under the seat.

These are valid concerns I share too.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#134

Post by vacri » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

d_t_w wrote: post #106

"Coal is the future" - Tony Abbott, Australian PM, 2014. There are many things to take from Musk's master plan part deux, but the most important for me is the intent and aspiration. I live in Australia, the leadership here is absolutely dire both political and economic. A relentless cycle of vested mining interests and climate change deniers espousing at length on the cattle exports to Asia suffering if marriage equa…

Abbott is the last person anyone should quote to support an argument. He wasn't voted in; the other party was voted out. His policy for everything was "No!", and once in power, found out that "No!" didn't cut it anymore. He did do a lot of damage, but his leadership was so bad that he was ejected by his own party in his first term despite them using that 'they ejected in first term!' argument in their election campaign to win power. That's kind've promising, actually... the party was worried about the public enough that they'd eject a lunatic leader.

The leadership here isn't dire, it's just boring (in global terms) and a bit of a soap opera. The country is still a great place to live. If you look beyond the media, there is leadership - for example, in Gillard's tenure, more articles of legislation were passed than in any previous government, including some key items, despite the media loudly claiming (with plenty of misogyny) that the minority government was hamstrung and paralysed.

Turnbull is not the guy I want in right now, but his leadership is hardly 'dire'. Besides, if you use 'dire' for something as beige as Turnbull, what have you got left for something like Erdogan's latest activities in Turkey?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#135

Post by Bulkington » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

aerovistae wrote: post #9

To anyone who's paid close attention to Tesla and to Elon's various offhand remarks to the press and on Twitter, this was all easy to see coming, every bit of it. But now that he's confirmed it all officially: this NUTS . This is so awesome. The press is going to go crazy with this. I wonder what will happen to Uber...seems like it will be hard for them to compete with the rates of cars that don't have to pay their d…

Re: diesel pollution/electric semis (tangent)

The Tesla Autopilot crash in Florida has led directly to the Missouri governor's veto of a bill to allow big rig platooning--a semi-autonomous technology that lets trucks travel in close pairs (or more) for aero/fuel efficiency and safety benefits.

The backlash is going to get worse before broad public acceptance gets better. The rest of the US ain't SV.

Veto: http://trucker.com/blog/autonomous-tech-honeymoon-over

Platooning: http://peloton-tech.com

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#136

Post by akira2501 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

thucydides wrote: post #109

akira2501 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you're an American you're more likely to die from suicide than you are from motor vehicle related injuries. You're more likely to be poisoned than to die in a motor veh…

There are 30,000 motor vehicle deaths in America each year. In perhaps 30 years, fully autonomous vehicles could cut all of that needless carnage to nearly nothing. And what about the hundreds of thousands of injuries we'll be spared? Worldwide, fully-autonomous vehicles will be a public health victory on the scale of vaccines or antibiotics.

> Americans spend a million days each year in the hospital due to injuries sustained in motor vehicles.

Sustained _due_ to motor vehicles. The base statistics also include pedestrian deaths. There's also a skew due to vehicles being multi-passenger.

Interestingly, it _is_ the leading cause of deaths for Americans between 15 to 29 years old. For females 15-24 the motor vehicle related death rate is 8.7. For males 15-24 the death rate is 21.5. From 24-75 the rates drop a few points for both sexes and then increase again after 75.

> In the medium term, fully-autonomous vehicles will eventually cut both of those numbers to virtually zero.

My point is, the statistics may be painting a different picture when viewed in the whole. Even if this specific case is true, we may just be trading one cause of death for another. There's no guarantee overall injury or "suffering" will be reduced.

> When they're available worldwide, fully-autonomous vehicles will be a public health victory on the scale of vaccines or antibiotics.

Maybe, and maybe when everyone can afford them. Yet still, even today in America, more likely to die to the Flu than you are to motor vehicle related injuries.

I'm all for automated cars, but I'm skeptical of the rhetoric that gets tossed around.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#137

Post by batiudrami » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:29 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's more that it's time consuming than boring, which obviously gets worse with urban sprawl. Sure, I can do all my "down time" entertainment, but I can't schedule anything else while I'm commuting which is the real issue.

Though many US city demographics are different to anywhere else in the world due to white flight - the "wealth donut" around a poor inner city rather rather than people getting poorer as you move further out in the suburbs.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#138

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

aerovistae wrote: post #65

orky56 wrote: post #52

I was hoping to see another zero to one approach with the master plan where he is taking on some other industry goal. I totally get that part deux is still very, very ambitious and one that no other company can truly realize. But if we're just talking about Musk's master plan, I'm curious why he didn't talk about the synergies with his other company, SpaceX. Tesla and SpaceX both rely on vehicles & transport while Sp…

I suspect Tesla will move into aircraft and oceancraft in the long-run, if you're interested in "other industries." He's mentioned the electric jet enough times. And why would he create a new company for it when he's got all the expertise and business structure at his fingertips already? Solar harvesting in space sounds really cool, but how do you get that power back to earth? Even if there were a way, it's not neces…

If there were a way to collect additional solar energy in space and somehow get it back to earth, that is now a net increase in energy, which will ultimately end up as heat, being delivered to the planet. At a large enough scale and over time this would be a global warming contributor.

Solar power collected on earth is just using energy that is already being delivered to the surface -- no net change.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#139

Post by pdq » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

I still don't understand the SolarCity part. Tesla is atop the best rated electric cars, and has a good trajectory toward that product line future, with lots of innovation ahead. Successful companies like Apple focus on best-in-class products, so Tesla is smart to continue focusing their resources into those product lines.

Meanwhile SolarCity has been burning cash on a consistent basis [1], and is sitting in a hyper competitive solar panel industry, where I don't see their competitive advantage. It seems foolish to bring that business inside of Tesla, as if it failed, the debt risk would now affect Tesla's future. As many others have mentioned, a long term licensing deal or partnership avoids those risks.

[1] http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/musk-says-solarcity...

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#140

Post by nommm-nommm » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

thucydides wrote: post #109

akira2501 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you're an American you're more likely to die from suicide than you are from motor vehicle related injuries. You're more likely to be poisoned than to die in a motor veh…

There are 30,000 motor vehicle deaths in America each year. In perhaps 30 years, fully autonomous vehicles could cut all of that needless carnage to nearly nothing. And what about the hundreds of thousands of injuries we'll be spared? Worldwide, fully-autonomous vehicles will be a public health victory on the scale of vaccines or antibiotics.

Specifically car crashes are the number one cause of death in people between the ages of 15 and 24.