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

Master Plan, Part Deux

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 705 posts

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#201

Post by swalsh »

maxander wrote: post #152

Elon Musk is like the cat who tried to jump from the sofa to the top of the bookcase, fell to the floor in a tangle of wildly gyrating limbs, and is now sitting there quietly licking its paw like it was intending to do that all along. Even with his brilliance he's fooling no one into thinking the SolarCity merger was actually in his plan- there are some synergies, sure, but they're easily outweighed by the added corp…

I don't completely buy into the idea it was intentional, but I think there's a really good possibility. Especially at the beginning, people questioned if electric cars were better for the environment or just shifting the source of the pollution. His response was that electric is a flexible energy source that can be generated from many different processes, many of which are very environmentally friendly including solar.

I think SolarCity is part 2, now that cars are running on electricity, it's time to make the electricity clean.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#202

Post by BurningFrog »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #76
BurningFrog wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parking becomes mostly obsolete, freeing up huge amounts of central city areas.

Cities already tend to have limited parking. We might see more parking structures located in cheap out-of-the-way locations rather than near places people want to go. And street parking could go away in favor of consolidated parking structures, freeing up road space for both car traffic (with extra lanes) and foot traffic (widen sidewalks). But I think it'll have an even larger effect on suburban areas. Shopping cent…

Let me spell out the argument more:

Instead of 100 people owning 100 cars they drive 5% of the time, they could own 10 summonable cars that drive them around 50% of the time.

The first scenario requires 95 parking spots. The second only 5. There is still as much traffic on the roads, and as much transport work being done, but most of the space now needed for parking can be put to other use.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#203

Post by aerovistae »

pcr0 wrote: post #192
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…

I don't think Uber and Tesla are competing in any way. In fact, Travis Kalanick stated he would buy half a million Teslas if they became fully autonomous[0]. [0]: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098997_uber-ceo-to-tesl...

But Tesla won't sell them to him, man. Why would they, when Elon's just said he's going to create their own autonomous fleet? Why would they hand it over to Uber? Of course they're competing! Elon's just said they're going to make a fleet of autonomous electric taxis!

Travis wasn't being literal; he knows there aren't going to be 500,000 available for a single company to buy for many years. And even if it weren't redirecting profits, Tesla still wouldn't allow a single entity to buy up the entire output of their factories, preventing nearly all consumers from getting any. That would be crazy. And Travis knows that. He was more just expressing Uber's enthusiasm about the idea of autonomous electric cars. If he could, he would, but he knows he can't.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#204

Post by aerovistae »

warfangle wrote: post #191
aerovistae wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually curious about the bus, too. Sounds weird. But I trust his judgement, I'm sure it'll be great. He has a track record, you know. Regarding missed promises, if you're saying that as if to suggest that what he's promised isn't nonetheless coming true at a pace faster than anyone else could have possibly delivered, I think you're wearing blinders. Regarding "most difficult".......are you aware of other compan…

Google's doing a lot better on the whole self driving front. At least in terms of fatalities per mile.

Google has a handful of their engineers driving around in weird-looking minicars.

Tesla has thousands of regular consumers driving all over the world in sleek sedans.

Let's see which bet pays off better in five years' time.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#205

Post by maratd »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #155
JeffL wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that would be a good thing? Without need for parking, commercial districts could get denser and denser, and people could have nice large homes far away for cheaper than ever. If the cars aren't causing pollution or gridlock, what's so bad about living in the suburbs?

Electric cars cause pollution; they run on mostly coal or natural gas and have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries. They also emit just as much particulate emissions as normal cars: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/electric-car-particulate-m... The way to "save the planet" is to not drive. Driving a 5000# vehicle around thinking you're doing good for the environment is just the marketing genius…

> have very toxic-to-mine, manufacture, and dispose-of batteries.

This is absolutely false. Lithium is not toxic to mine at all. It isn't even "mined".

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-sa...

> Electric cars cause pollution

They cause zero pollution when you have solar panels on your roof and the car is properly scrapped after you're done with it.

> The way to "save the planet" is to not drive.

This is silly and impractical.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#206

Post by d_t_w »

vacri wrote: post #134
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 campai…

"He wasn't voted in; the other party was voted out"

He won the 2013 federal election as the leader of the Liberals, that's fairly conclusive.

"The leadership here isn't dire"

We disagree.

"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?"

Criminal? The question is whataboutery.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#207

Post by gozur88 »

Joof wrote: post #196
usaphp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing premium tesla sedans with ford and Honda cars, of course premium car will take longer to build. Porsche for example produced 189,000 cars [1] in 2014 with 19,000 employees. And the average price of Porsche car is also lower than Tesla's. [1] - http://press.porsche.com/news/release.php?id=897

Calling it a logical fallacy that a premium car takes longer to build because it is premium.

Oh? Don't you think buyers of premium cars expect more in the way of difficult-to-manufacture details?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#208

Post by dingo_bat »

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.

Even if you don't consider the accidents, autonomous cars would relieve millions of people from the daily frustration of a commute on congested roads.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#209

Post by gozur88 »

JeffL wrote: post #41
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…

Maybe that would be a good thing? Without need for parking, commercial districts could get denser and denser, and people could have nice large homes far away for cheaper than ever. If the cars aren't causing pollution or gridlock, what's so bad about living in the suburbs?

>Without need for parking, commercial districts could get denser and denser, and people could have nice large homes far away for cheaper than ever.

If people are living farther away from their jobs, you're likely to get more congestion, not less.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#210

Post by Joof »

gozur88 wrote: post #207
Joof wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it a logical fallacy that a premium car takes longer to build because it is premium.

Oh? Don't you think buyers of premium cars expect more in the way of difficult-to-manufacture details?

I do. It just doesn't mean it's true or necessarily a requirement. Nor does it mean the car is better.

A better locksmith takes less time to open a door.

Post reply on HN