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

Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 376 posts

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#291

Post by MegaButts »

jodrellblank wrote: post #285
MegaButts wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally everything Elon Musk is doing has a strong element of trying to save the world. Maybe. Or maybe he's just saying that to make money. If Elon Musk ends up being completely successful in all of his endeavors, he will be the world's richest person by far . I suspect the truth is in the middle. He does want to change the world, but he's not willing to become poor (let's say a net worth of less than a million…

He's 79th richest person on the planet at age 45 with only Zuckerberg being richer while also being younger. He was foundationally involved in one of the biggest early online payment companies, one of few private rocket launch companies with NASA contracts, basically the single electric car company to change the world's views on electric vehicles, and a major solar / battery company. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/c…

"I do not mean to say he is not an incredibly accomplished person, only to say that he does not live up to his self-generated hype."

I think that summarizes how I feel, which is why I said it. I never said any of the things you imply. But let's take a specific example which shows why Elon Musk isn't as great as he says.

Tesla's autopilot function has killed at least 2 people (one in the US and one in China). Elon Musk continues to spin this technology as amazing, and completely overhype the technology by saying it can achieve level 4 autonomy. As someone who's spent over 10 years working on self-driving cars, I can tell you definitively that the sensor suite on the upcoming Tesla cannot do it. And now you'll say "well maybe he knows something you don't" You're right - maybe he does. But if he doesn't then he's a liar and he should be called out on it because people have literally died and he has shirked himself of responsibility for it.

Elon Musk is a salesman first and foremost and people have literally died as a result of it.

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#292

Post by bkanber »

jkchu wrote: post #262
NeutronBoy wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which other car is 400,000 people waiting patiently to buy for two years, even putting down a $1,000 deposit? None, but I would hazard a guess that's because if you want to buy a BMW, a Mercedes or an Audi, you don't need to. You can simply go and buy one!

But the closest thing to a $35k electric car from BMW, Mercedes, or Audi is BMW's i3 - which I think is targeting a different market.

Don't forget about two car households. We have an x1 and an i3 as our commuter car. The i3 will eventually be replaced with a Tesla, the x1 will not.

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#294

Post by bkanber »

wott wrote: post #277
smilekzs wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines. That's why trains are electric wherever possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive

> Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines. I don't think so. > That's why trains are electric wherever possible. 1. Thing is, you don't have to refuel electric locomotives, so that saves time and logistics. Unless you plan to install a pantograph on the roof of your Tesla, you still have to refuel it. 2. Unlike cars, diesel locomotives do not use any ki…

> Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines.

I'm an automotive engineer specializing in hybrid vehicle powertrains. Published and everything.

As of two years ago the only country in the world where the power source makes an EV not worthwhile, well-to-wheel emissions-wise, was India. Every other country in the world has clean enough power production to make EV cars an environmental net positive.

And I believe India's power is getting much cleaner over the next few years, so it may not be the case much longer.

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#295

Post by bkanber »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #178
dmix wrote: post #120

Tesla recently announced they are ramping up their Model 3 production even more than what some people thought was already optimistic numbers: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-27/tesla-mod... > For Musk to hit all of his targets, Tesla would need to build about 430,000 Model 3s by the end of next year. That’s more than all of the electric cars sold planet-wide last year. > Even if half of the Model 3 in…

> environment as well It's not going to do anything great for the environment and we've been over this on previous Tesla threads (years ago). Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

> Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

As of two years ago the only country where that was the case was India. Right before that, South Africa and China both became clean enough for EVs to be an environmental net positive.

Power produced in the US is some of the cleanest in the world, and getting cleaner every day as coal plants are decommissioned. We are well above the environmental net benefit line.

> Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

There are no longer significant areas where this is the case. Even most coal markets in the US are clean enough (not sure what will happen with new de-regulations). The US, on average, is by far clean enough.

Source: I'm a hybrid vehicle powertrain engineer

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#296

Post by Arizhel »

nickjarboe wrote: post #246
Arizhel wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, but silly. Why would people want to live in other places in the solar system? Earth, the Moon, and Mars are the only places that really make any sense at all. Even Mars is iffy because the gravity is rather low, it's far from Earth, the atmosphere is barely there, it's cold, and there's no radiation protection without going underground. The Moon is even worse, but at least it's close to Earth so it'd be really…

Political freedom has often been the primary motivation for groups of people to emigrate. Hypothetical sea-steading aside, moving somewhere with no existing political system in place is not possible on Earth. Wealthy patrons might sponsor the pioneers. This was how much of early New England was settled by Europeans.

Yeah, but the problem here is that it seems unlikely that it'll be affordable to set up a self-sustaining colony any time in the foreseeable future without the resources of a large nation-state. And again, remember my previous post is talking about (and questioning the idea of) colonizing places other than Mars and the Moon (see the line about "except for a couple of somewhat-convenient places"), which are certainly the two easiest places in the solar system to colonize. I see I've been downvoted by some jerk, but of course no one can come up with a logical response to my question; how typical. So again, why would anyone bother colonizing one of these places (again, *other than Moon or Mars)? If you have that much money, and want to set up a self-sustaining colony and those two worlds aren't available for some reason, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just build an independent space station? Then you could just stick it in Solar orbit not too far from Earth, or at a Lagrangian point, so you're not too far from or too near to the Sun, you're close enough to Earth for resupply in case that becomes necessary, you're close enough to Earth/Moon to take advantage of and participate in any space-based industrial activity there, and there's effectively unlimited space for space stations.

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#297

Post by toephu2 »

smilekzs wrote: post #195
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> environment as well It's not going to do anything great for the environment and we've been over this on previous Tesla threads (years ago). Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines. That's why trains are electric wherever possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive

Side topic: just curious what powers Caltrains's trains?

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#298

Post by nickjarboe »

MegaButts wrote: post #291
jodrellblank wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's 79th richest person on the planet at age 45 with only Zuckerberg being richer while also being younger. He was foundationally involved in one of the biggest early online payment companies, one of few private rocket launch companies with NASA contracts, basically the single electric car company to change the world's views on electric vehicles, and a major solar / battery company. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/c…

"I do not mean to say he is not an incredibly accomplished person, only to say that he does not live up to his self-generated hype." I think that summarizes how I feel, which is why I said it. I never said any of the things you imply. But let's take a specific example which shows why Elon Musk isn't as great as he says. Tesla's autopilot function has killed at least 2 people (one in the US and one in China). Elon Mus…

World annual traffic deaths in 2010 were estimated by the WHO to be 1.25 million. If Elon Musk has the guts to let people voluntarily test out a system that ends up killing 100 people (and this estimate seems very high. The system could save more than it kills during development) but develops a system that reduces traffic deaths by just 50% one year earlier, that would be saving 625,000 lives. From a practical human suffering perspective, I am glad he is pushing hard to develop automatic cars a soon as possible.

Also: reusable rockets.

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#299

Post by MegaButts »

nickjarboe wrote: post #298
MegaButts wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I do not mean to say he is not an incredibly accomplished person, only to say that he does not live up to his self-generated hype." I think that summarizes how I feel, which is why I said it. I never said any of the things you imply. But let's take a specific example which shows why Elon Musk isn't as great as he says. Tesla's autopilot function has killed at least 2 people (one in the US and one in China). Elon Mus…

World annual traffic deaths in 2010 were estimated by the WHO to be 1.25 million. If Elon Musk has the guts to let people voluntarily test out a system that ends up killing 100 people (and this estimate seems very high. The system could save more than it kills during development) but develops a system that reduces traffic deaths by just 50% one year earlier, that would be saving 625,000 lives. From a practical human…

The problem with this is he is selling it as a working product. Imagine if pharmaceutical companies could eventually cure diseases by testing a drug on consumers, but sold it to them as working - when in reality it is going to kill a bunch of people while the company figures out what works. In the long run this could be a win, but would you be okay with that?

The obvious solution to my complaint - rename Autopilot something else so people don't confuse it as a self-driving car (and many people do think this).

I don't think Elon Musk is interested in educating the public. I think he's interested in dazzling them. Which is why he strikes me as a salesman.

Re: Tencent buys 5% of Tesla

#300

Post by NeutronBoy »

jkchu wrote: post #262
NeutronBoy wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which other car is 400,000 people waiting patiently to buy for two years, even putting down a $1,000 deposit? None, but I would hazard a guess that's because if you want to buy a BMW, a Mercedes or an Audi, you don't need to. You can simply go and buy one!

But the closest thing to a $35k electric car from BMW, Mercedes, or Audi is BMW's i3 - which I think is targeting a different market.

Agreed, but it's not about the brand - it's just that in the market segment for a $35-40k mid-size sedan, there's not a whole lot of need to wait two years for a car, which is why it's so uncommon. The reason it doesn't happen to other manufacturers, is because although they have 3-4 year lead times on new models they produce, they're still continuously producing the current models
Post reply on HN