Tesla Q2 2019 Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#181

Post by BoorishBears » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

mavhc wrote: post #174

BoorishBears wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I even state that I'm oversimplifying the problem. Other manufacturers do have to account for legacy systems, you don't need to be in the industry to understand the relationships manufacturers have with companies like Bosch and know they're not in full control of their destiny. But their advantage is not a "let's ignore dumpster fire financials quarter of quarter to earn them a multi billion dollar market cap" big. T…

Everyone else not doing updates is the symptom of the larger issue, everyone else is a slow moving hardware company that outsources their software. Tesla is a software company first. And software beats hardware whenever you're doing something complex. Plus lack of legacy self competition, no one else wants to cannibalise their other sales, and no one else has really invested in batteries. Most other car companies can…

Treating safety critical software like a web server is not being fast moving, it's being reckless.

We've seen regressions in AP behavior.

Situations where a route that was safe yesterday will send your Tesla into a concrete barrier if you don't catch it

Simply. 100%. Unacceptable.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I do not want to be on the road with these people. I did not sign away my life to be someone's SDC test environment after all.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#182

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:13 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #164

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they have to be evaluated as a car company" Take a look at the rate of growth in capacity both of their cars and their batteries. I don't know what it is, but with Shanghai Giga coming online this year, Model Y next year, Pickup + Semi thereafter, the growth in capacity and the capital requirements to install it, is not matched by any other car company, possibly in the history of car companies (Musk's posit, to be f…

Building production plants is folded into GAAP numbers. Those are real assets with real depreciation. Actual production at Tesla's battery "gigafactory" is only around 23GWh/yr.[1] That puts them well behind BYD and Contemporary Amperex Technology. About five other companies have battery factories in the 10-100GWh/yr range under construction or operating. [1] https://electrek.co/2019/04/14/tesla-gigafactory-1-battery…

>Actual production at Tesla's battery "gigafactory" is only around 23GWh/yr.

It has already increased to 28 GWh per the latest earning call, and it is still growing. Panasonic said they already installed the equipment for 35 GWh of production and will invest further as soon as they're able to reach that rate.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#183

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:20 AM UTC

justapassenger wrote: post #161

LeoPanthera wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was such a huge failure, that to this day, portion of Model 3 production is happening a tent. With forklifts, leaking roof and space-heaters. Citation needed?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/tesla-workers-in-ga4-tent-de... Tent was temporary, and year later - it's still there

>Tent was temporary

So what? It ended easier and cheaper to design, set up and operate than a traditional building (the GA in the tent is already far more efficient that the other ones). It can last for decades, too.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#184

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 10:22 AM UTC

techntoke wrote: post #3

Here's to hoping that they hire some creative talent to help make letters that don't look like they are from the 90's.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ really needs to be redesigned, too.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#185

Post by 693471 » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

tracer4201 wrote: post #162

693471 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that OTA updates undercut the dealership network and could be seen as servicing vehicles which in many states is illegal for the manufacturer to do so they could suffer consequences, maybe getting banned from selling in that state?

Seems like those states should change their laws. There’s no law guaranteeing me a job. Why are dealers so special?

I agree they should change their laws. This is where Tesla has an advantage. People are importing the cars in states that don't allow it.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#186

Post by mavhc » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 8:57 AM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #178

mavhc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone else not doing updates is the symptom of the larger issue, everyone else is a slow moving hardware company that outsources their software. Tesla is a software company first. And software beats hardware whenever you're doing something complex. Plus lack of legacy self competition, no one else wants to cannibalise their other sales, and no one else has really invested in batteries. Most other car companies can…

This is a glorified bumper car. Why does it needs updates at all? It should be KISS... instead they complicate for the sake of complication.

Mostly because people ask for features. And to support new charging stuff. Everyone loves Sentry mode, automatic video recordings of people damaging your car while it's parked.

Then there's "entertain people while charging" stuff.

And then there's autopilot stuff. NoA, Stop light detection, emergency lane departure avoidance, automatic lane changing, conditional speed limits (eg slower in winter)

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#187

Post by mavhc » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 9:04 AM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #181

mavhc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone else not doing updates is the symptom of the larger issue, everyone else is a slow moving hardware company that outsources their software. Tesla is a software company first. And software beats hardware whenever you're doing something complex. Plus lack of legacy self competition, no one else wants to cannibalise their other sales, and no one else has really invested in batteries. Most other car companies can…

Treating safety critical software like a web server is not being fast moving, it's being reckless. We've seen regressions in AP behavior. Situations where a route that was safe yesterday will send your Tesla into a concrete barrier if you don't catch it Simply. 100%. Unacceptable. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I do not want to be on the road with these people. I did not sign away my life to be someone…

Are you referring to https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/b36x27/its_bac... ?

Not good, and they fixed it again.

They should probably put a warning like: Warning: Autosteer is intended for use only on highways and limited-access roads with a fully attentive driver. When using Autosteer, hold the steering wheel and be mindful of road conditions and surrounding traffic. Do not use Autosteer on city streets, in construction zones, or in areas where bicyclists or pedestrians may be present. Never depend on Autosteer to determine an appropriate driving path. Always be prepared to take immediate action. Failure to follow these instructions could cause damage, serious injury or death.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#188

Post by BoorishBears » Sun, Jul 28, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

daryas wrote: post #179

BoorishBears wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of this unapologetic Tesla hand holding. > No other company has the infrastructure to be able to do that. Because they don't want it. They don't want AP regressions we've already seen happen. They don't want engineers testing code out on real people's lives. You really think other companies just don't know how to send OTA updates to an ECU or other car components? I could literally put that together with…

> They don't want engineers testing code out on real people's lives. When Tesla pushes and runs code in the shadow mode, it is run in parallel to the "production" version of the software. The actual behavior of a car, even with the test code in, still relies on decisions made by the "production" version of the software[1]. The purpose of such testing is to compare decisions made by the updated code vs those made by t…

So? Tesla is still changing the production mode code on their cars with forced updates and no oversight in addition to running code in "shadow mode"

They've used this capability to introduce regressions in the safety of autopilot before.

When a stinky old "traditional automaker" wants to update a safety critical component, they spend months developing and testing before slowly rolling out to dealers. They want to change as little as humanly possible to limit their liability if something goes wrong.

Now some of you think this attitude is a bad thing, and that safety critical systems should be something you can update on a whim like you update your web server and keep iterating on.

But knowing developers like I know developers, being one myself, slow-as-molasses processes for safety critical code is a feature, not a bug for me.

Re: Tesla Q2 2019 Letter

#189

Post by dkonofalski » Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 12:17 AM UTC

leesec wrote: post #100

dkonofalski wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not way ahead but definitely ahead. Waymo has hundreds, if not thousands of fleet vehicles driving all day, every day around various parts of the country too and they can also check when people took over or when the brakes were hit. I think Tesla's approach is a little neater and nicer but that's just an opinion.

Tesla has hundreds of thousands driving and growing rapidly?

There are a lot of Teslas that do not have the hardware necessary to do the training required. Additionally, Waymo cars are driving all day long while most Teslas are still commuter vehicles.