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

Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 410 posts

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#231

Post by mathattack »

grellas wrote: post #211

Paternalistic meddling with free consumer choices is always fraught with peril. Sometimes it is necessary to protect important principles in society. You can't discriminate based on race - that limits choice but who would support the contrary? You can't defraud people in selling products - ditto. You can't buy land to build a smokestack plant in a quiet residential neighborhood - ditto. Many other examples might be c…

New Jersey has a lot of these strange laws. They also force you to have full service at the gas station. The lobbies force the issue.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#232

Post by mikecarlton »

rst wrote: post #108
peeters wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the distribution mechanism in itself affect the quality? It's just a way of getting new software on the car. You can have the exact same standards of quality for an update installed over the air as one installed at a service centre.

For one thing, an OTA update mechanism is obviously more subject to third-party spoofing than an update delivered by physical ethernet from the dealership. (BTW, do Teslas apply OTA updates while the car is underway, or store them up for application when parked? If the former, then applying even a correct update to a car in motion could have all sorts of nasty consequences if it resulted in a sudden change to, say, r…

No, of course it does not apply the update while under way. When there's a firmware update available you get a nice big dialog box telling you so and button that says "would you like install tonight at [3 AM]". You can change the time or even cancel the update.

Furthermore, the message tells you it won't install unless the car is plugged in or has a certain level of charge.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#233

Post by bane »

The truth is, car dealerships, which are mostly locally owned, are a way for a state to boost revenue capture and generate jobs. In New Jersey, not being able to pump your own gas is the same deal.

Look at the economics of a Tesla dealership, for every car sold in New Jersey, how much of that money stays in New Jersey? And let's be honest, being a car salesman is not the most lucrative or respectable of trades. The jobs are usually temporary so down on their luck folks can try and earn some money while looking for something else. Ensuring a state has dealerships possibly out of work people can fall into for temporary jobs is like having a social welfare program without having it on the books.

It sucks, but if you were a legislator in NJ, would you rather Tesla's profit went all out of state to Tesla, or if your citizens could get a crack at some of it and have it circulate around in the local economy for a bit.

It's unpopular, and us tech folks don't like it, but from a NJ legislator's position it's pretty rational.

The correct answer of course is to foster a local auto industry and get a company to make and build and sell cars from out of NJ elsewhere. But that's too impossibly forward looking.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#234

Post by doorhammer »

maratd wrote: post #229
grellas wrote: post #211

Paternalistic meddling with free consumer choices is always fraught with peril. Sometimes it is necessary to protect important principles in society. You can't discriminate based on race - that limits choice but who would support the contrary? You can't defraud people in selling products - ditto. You can't buy land to build a smokestack plant in a quiet residential neighborhood - ditto. Many other examples might be c…

While I agree with the spirit of your post and that of Mr. Musk, there's something missing here. Contrary to Mr. Musk's assertion of conspiracy, what seems to have happened here is that there were some unfortunate laws on the books that weren't being enforced. Various business interests (ie the car dealers) complained to the Motor Vehicle Commission. The MVC created a new regulation to reflect the laws already on the…

I'm not particularly well versed in the specifics of the Tesla situation, and I'm not a lawyer, by any means; I'm saying this as a general consideration. I would tend toward thinking that the selective enforcement or reinforcement of antiquated laws could be seen as just as negative, if the outcome is the same.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#235

Post by DavidAdams »

easymovet wrote: post #110
npizzolato wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you contact your congressman, local government, or other representative body about how you want them to vote on any particular law? They're a phone call away.

That's a good idea. I've written a few letters before, but never felt like I had the skill set to argue about these points on the phone, I'm also an introvert so cold calling is not something that I choose to do very often.

Fortunately/unfortunately, there's no arguing on the phone involved. What happens is a junior staffer answers the phone and keeps a tally of which constituents come in on either side of an issue. Of course, if you're willing to make an extra effort, you can make an appointment to visit the congressperson's office, though unless you're a donor, you're unlikely to have much success meeting with the congressperson in person, but your voice would probably be heard louder nonetheless.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#236

Post by mncolinlee »

bfe wrote: post #119
cylinder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that the US is not pro-business, it's corporatist. It's a government that is able to be easily captured by incumbent, monied interests. Starting businesses and operating them on a small level is much easier in other developed nations.

Acting in favor of individual businesses is usually orthogonal or antithetical to acting in favor of the free market. Big businesses and the politicians who love them often rely heavily on erasing the perception of that difference.

It depends whether you're describing "the free market" religion or "the free market" reality.

In practice, most politicians mean an economy tilted in favor of multinational corporations when they use these dog whistle terms. It is an offense to everything Adam Smith stood for, but it's what they really mean by "free market." The real Adam Smith believed modern-style multinational corporations were a recipe for corruption.

"The directors of such [joint-stock] companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.... Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company."

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#237

Post by DavidAdams »

jliptzin wrote: post #65
easymovet wrote: post #4

Very saddened by the blatant corruption in our government. Where do I vote for a new government based on ethics and accountability (apart from New Zealand).

The HN community should band together and buy an island and create our own government there.

What should actually happen is that the US-based tech crowd should put together a political action committee and start lobbying. That would have a better chance of real-world impact.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#238

Post by doorhammer »

mikestew wrote: post #189
stcredzero wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An even bigger conflict of interest with auto dealers is that they make most of their profit from service I am old enough to remember what owning a car was like when things were changing away from mechanical devices one could understand and tinker with and becoming nondescript hunks of plastic you had to buy from a manufacturer. (I'm talking about the ignition system, as one specific example.) There was always a bit…

Yeah, I remember those times, too; perhaps less nostalgically than you do. Take your ignition system example. Sure, one could dig in there and replace and adjust the points. But you did it because you had to, you had to do it regularly, and it would be adjusted correctly exactly once: after you did the job. From there, the points immediately started wearing and it would not be exactly right until you did it again. So…

Hah, I'm glad you mentioned points and carbs. Those are the two examples of systems I just don't want to have to screw with ever again.

Carbs are great until something in the environment changes and they're not perfect anymore. I want MAF's, o2 sensors, etc, thanks.

I think my favorite car was my late 80's toyota truck with a 22RE. For my taste (which would vary wildly for another person) it had the perfect blend of technology while keeping things reliable and easy to work on. But it was still just something I enjoyed working on because I enjoy working on things.

For a day to day car, I'd rather have something I never had to touch. I'm hoping the move to electric vehicles picks up speed.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#239

Post by mcv »

nlh wrote: post #24

His best line: > The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures 'consumer protection'. If you believe this, Gov. Christie has a bridge closure he wants to sell you! Unless they are referring to the mafia version of 'protection', this is obviously untrue. Nicely done, Elon. Nicely done.

He starts off pretty neutral, addressing an issue of course, but not in a mean way. And all of a sudden you notice this subtle knife twisting in your ribs.

Re: Elon Musk: To the People of New Jersey

#240

Post by jccooper »

jusben1369 wrote: post #78
thedufer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're currently selling Teslas in NJ (without a middleman) and not having any legal problems because of it, so your example's premise seems to be flawed.

You have to dig deeper on the story than his post. They've been told for a long time that the license shouldn't have been issued and would be revoked and that a change in legislation was needed. Again, Musk knows all this. But it doesn't fit the dialogue.

Apparently what Tesla was initially told when NJ "discovered" a problem with their not-entirely-clear dealership law was that they would allow Tesla to keep selling until the legislature had a chance to clarify the issue.

Recently they were told differently: that the executive has made the decision, and they're shut down. Not much wonder that Elon's unhappy with the situation. Nobody likes the rug removed from under their feet. Plus it feels like (and probably is) inside ball when something like that happens.

Post reply on HN