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

331–340 of 705 posts

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#331

Post by sidcool »

ams6110 wrote: post #269
sidcool wrote: post #256

A digression from the mainstream discussion. I woke up this morning feeling sullen (many factors involved). I didn't feel like going to work. I could hardly get out of bed. I just sat for a few minutes staring in the vacuumn. Something told me to check Hacker News (I am trying to avoid it in morning), and the top link was this. I went through it twice. It instilled hope and enthusiasm in me. I woke up in an instant a…

You might want to seek some help. Unless you're just being dramatic here for effect, there are some red flags in your post such as not being able to get out of bed, being filled with self-loathing and despair, etc.

I already am. That's why mentioned 'many factors involved'. Thanks!

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#332

Post by ChuckMcM »

ams6110 wrote: post #254
maratd wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There's more than lithium in the batteries, and other components such as Cobalt or Arsenic are not exactly nontoxic. On balance however, lithium ion batteries are less toxic than alternatives. Realistically, at present most EV owners will not charge their cars from solar panels but from the utility mains and that means coal-generated electricity in many if not most areas. Car manufacturing involves a tremendous inves…

It is perhaps an artifact of the bay area but there are many many Tesla vehicles here and many of them seem to use the superchargers for charging[1]. But the question of pollution and CO2 comparisons between ICE vehicles and electric ones, comes down firmly on the side of the electric vehicles (for the case of California at least). The thermal efficiency of converting gas to electricity is over 47% and the closest an ICE can come is about 38%. Lots of additional information from the EIA here [2].

[1] A friend of mine who owns one said the only thing worse than the 20 minute charge time is waiting 20 minutes to plug into an available spot.

[2] http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec17.pdf

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#333

Post by danhak »

sp527 wrote: post #303
jkestner wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abuses? How about "utilizes"? The subsidy is there to get more electric vehicles on the road.

I don't trust the government to manipulate the free market efficiently. It's comprised of hapless morons who don't know what they're doing and whose favor is for sale to the highest bidder. Case in point are the tremendous number of bankrupt alternative energy companies built upon favorable treatment by the government. Market intervention doesn't suddenly become justifiable simply because the outcome of advancing the…

> Case in point are the tremendous number of bankrupt alternative energy companies built upon favorable treatment by the government

That's like saying the top VC firms are all inept because most of the startups they fund fail.

It has often been the role of our government to make risky bets in order to advance step-changes in our society's progress. Those bets have resulted in such things as spaceflight, modern telecommunications, lasers and the internet to name just a few.

If Tesla indeed transforms the world as they are poised to do, their success will far exceed the cumulative failures of Solyndra and the like.

Not to mention, Tesla's competition are subsidized in many ways, most of which are more subtle than the tax credits for alternative fuels that you allude to. Failure to price in the health and climate externalities of fossil fuels amounts to subsidy, as do the trillions of dollars spent on overseas entanglements to secure fossil fuel supplies.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#334

Post by sidcool »

tdy721 wrote: post #286
sidcool wrote: post #256

A digression from the mainstream discussion. I woke up this morning feeling sullen (many factors involved). I didn't feel like going to work. I could hardly get out of bed. I just sat for a few minutes staring in the vacuumn. Something told me to check Hacker News (I am trying to avoid it in morning), and the top link was this. I went through it twice. It instilled hope and enthusiasm in me. I woke up in an instant a…

Did you catch the SpaceX Launch on Sunday night? Always does the trick for me... Especially when they stick the landing! But regardless, it's a few min's where I can forget myself and cheer for the future. https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Yep, sublimely beautiful.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#335

Post by sidcool »

steve_taylor wrote: post #285
ams6110 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to seek some help. Unless you're just being dramatic here for effect, there are some red flags in your post such as not being able to get out of bed, being filled with self-loathing and despair, etc.

Don't be so dramatic. This is me every day. It's ADHD meets debt, family obligations, and dead-end job. A lot of entrepreneurs/wantrepreneurs and devs have ADHD. Can't do much about it unless I pop pills, which I'm not overly keen on doing. I'd rather find something to do that motivates me to get out of bed at 5am every day.

:)

I wanted to give it a creative twist, sad it turned out dramatic. And I agree with you. Sometimes what motivates you brings you down due to the burden of expectations.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#336

Post by adventured »

intrasight wrote: post #229
8611m wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was the only thing that mattered for businesses, we wouldn't have Amazon as Walmart has consistently produced more net profit over Amazon since the last 22 years. 1 1. http://revenuesandprofits.com/amazon-vs-walmart-revenues-and...

As Amazon looses money on every sale, and makes it up with funding from new shareholders, I'm going to call it a Ponzi scheme and not a business.

That's of course incorrect. Amazon doesn't lose money on every sale. Their business is profitable and generates a lot of cash. Their retail business is also profitable. They lose money in retail only on new segments and similar, not on the older existing segments. That has been well known about them for years now.

For fiscal 2015 they were positive on net income: $596 million.

Q1 2016: $513 million in net income

They'll be generating $3 billion in annual net income in just another year. Sounds like a business to me, even if half of that net income comes from AWS.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#337

Post by int_19h »

ams6110 wrote: post #254
maratd wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There's more than lithium in the batteries, and other components such as Cobalt or Arsenic are not exactly nontoxic. On balance however, lithium ion batteries are less toxic than alternatives. Realistically, at present most EV owners will not charge their cars from solar panels but from the utility mains and that means coal-generated electricity in many if not most areas. Car manufacturing involves a tremendous inves…

It's kinda meaningless to look at the hypothetical future with automated cars all around (how far away is that? at least a decade, I'd bet), and assume that the current distribution of power sources still applies.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#338

Post by vacri »

d_t_w wrote: post #206
vacri wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, you're right. Rather than living in one of the most stable and wealthy societies on the planet, we're actually falling fast towards a Mad Max-style dystopia. I must remember to weld some more armour onto my car tonight...

Just because we're not living in an impossible utopia doesn't mean the situation is dire. We haven't had great leadership since the Hawke/Keating years (over 20 years ago), yet still the country is going grand - not having great leadership doesn't mean we must be having the polar opposite.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#339

Post by int_19h »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #250
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?

Suburbs destroy public life, create anxiety and a sense of atomization, and turn natural spaces into scar tissue. Even if you could perfect transportation technology, suburbs are the least optimal configuration for humans to live in the world.

Dense urban areas create anxiety for me, while suburbs give the nice quiet retreat with plenty of open space, and no random annoyances. I bet I'm not alone in this. Don't assume that your subjective personal experiences translate to everyone.

Here's a question for you. If suburbs are "the least optimal configuration", then why did urban sprawl occur in the first place? Why did so many people leave the cities and sought bigger homes on wider lots?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#340

Post by int_19h »

gkya wrote: post #230
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…

I don't understand, why would you need self driving cars if you don't want to drive? Public transport is here, is cheaper and safer. Also it allows to multitask.

Because I don't want to be crammed into a tight space with several dozen other people?
Post reply on HN