Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#341

Post by sp527 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

danhak wrote: post #333

sp527 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 teleco…

DARPA et al do not represent an analogous scenario. As for portfolio theory: I'm not questioning something that fundamental. I'm saying the government has little to no hope of deploying it efficiently. If you had a technocracy of highly intelligent people perfectly resilient to corruption, then this might be a different story. And if you know anything about VC, you know that there's a long tail of failing ones that underperform standard benchmarks (you probably do know; that's why you said "top VCs"). Also, if you want to view USG market interventionism as an aggregate portfolio, guess which way that's going to go.

I love it when people champion entities like Tesla benefiting from incentive structures when it's conveniently aligned with their personal beliefs about the superiority of the tech industry, their political agendas, and/or the idolzation of people like Musk, but forget that there's a far broader and more insidious reality here.

Reply to Below: Not libertarian. I believe strongly in government regulations where appropriate and that limiting our personal liberties in certain ways is essential to guaranteeing economic and physical security. I happen to agree with the sustainability agenda as well. I disagree with the mechanism being employed to advance it. USG should instead focus on taxing/penalizing for carbon emissions as a negative externality, which would have an ancillary benefit of making alternative energy companies overall more competitive. Asking the government to make decisions about structuring incentives, by contrast, is positively asinine (you get things like ethanol). Furthermore, I have a serious problem with the government deploying tax dollars to directly benefit corporations when there is no immediate and tangible return, regardless of the context.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#342

Post by robszumski » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:55 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #219

pdq wrote: post #139

I still don't understand the SolarCity part. Tesla is atop the best rated electric cars, and has a good trajectory toward that product line future, with lots of innovation ahead. Successful companies like Apple focus on best-in-class products, so Tesla is smart to continue focusing their resources into those product lines. Meanwhile SolarCity has been burning cash on a consistent basis [1], and is sitting in a hyper…

> I still don't understand the SolarCity part. People who buy electric cars are far more likely to buy solar panels. And storage batteries. And wiring they would need for the electric car. It's all directly related. So when I buy a Tesla ... I have to hire a 3rd party to install the wiring to charge it. I can buy the storage battery from Tesla, but again, need to hire someone else to install it. And if I want solar p…

This is a huge problem and you're right, Tesla is set up well to solve this. Think of a buying experience where you stick a pack on the roof, and only have to run two cables, one for the house and one for your garage. The roof unit could contain the batteries, panels, inverter hardware, and cooling system. Not exactly unboxing a Mac, but with some creative thinking I bet they could find a way to sidestep enough of the painful parts.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#343

Post by andys627 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:59 AM UTC

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…

Proven technology around since the beginning of time - walking. The rest of the world love it. We should give it a try.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#344

Post by threatofrain » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:00 AM UTC

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…

It's not a requirement that electric vehicles principally derive energy from fossil fuel infrastructure. Electric vehicles are the most flexible vehicles in terms of dependence on any specific energy source or infrastructure.

In Germany, solar power is much more widespread, and so it is more likely that a German electric vehicle user would be riding in a vehicle charged from solar power. This is not to say anything about solar power or Germany, but rather to speak to the flexibility of the electric vehicle. Electric vehicles can depend on an infrastructure running on nuclear energy, or anything else, making it extremely adaptive to the ecological and energy needs of the future.

On the other hand, traditional combustion engine vehicles absolutely depend on fossil fuels, and they depend on a massive infrastructure that is specific to supplying fossil fuels. For a traditional combustion vehicle to shed its utter dependence on fossil fuels would mean finding an alternative and abundant fuel source to combust, and even then it would require a highly specific infrastructure to deliver those alternative fuels.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#345

Post by robszumski » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:00 AM UTC

arcticfox wrote: post #184

dpcx wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you live, but my daily commute is never the same. They either start/end at different times, or I have to take different routes, or the weather is different. I think it would take a lot longer than 3 years before they start seeing actual diminishing returns on mileage collection.

More than 3 years? I would confidently wager that noticeable diminishing returns would occur after 3 days, and very significant diminishing returns after 3 weeks.

Think about seasons, varying weather, light levels, traffic fluctuation, construction, changing parking patterns, delivery drivers/stopped trucks...the list goes on. It would be very useful to have that occur within a relatively known route, where you can isolate and model what isn't understood already.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#346

Post by rz2k » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:00 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #64

"A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018." What that really means: Tesla is going to lose a ton of money per car on the Model 3, or raise the price, until at least 2022. T…

How about the employees at all of the subcontractors each of the incumbent manufacturers uses for completed components?

Number of employees per car output is one metric meant to be a proxy for something else. Use it in a TED Talk or a newspaper editorial to make some larger point, since it is a compelling takeaway, but it's actually pretty meaningless on its own.

Being boring, and looking at sustainable production costs and what consumers are willing to pay is far closer to what matters than the shorthand of looking at employees per car.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#347

Post by puranjay » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:01 AM UTC

This is just mind blowing to me.

This man is dreaming the future. Nay, he is building the future.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#348

Post by puranjay » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:03 AM UTC

rjdagost wrote: post #132

danhak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford can have fewer employees per car because they're at full scale, they've outsourced nearly all their engineering and have outsourced their sales as well via an antiquated dealer model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk

Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit

I find the obsession with "turning a profit" when it comes to Tesla a bit weird, especially on this forum.

Remind me again: this is Hacker News run by Y Combinator, right?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#349

Post by a13n » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:04 AM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #244

Joof wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you just utilize an analogy concerning destruction to make a point about production?

Did you just use the word utilize to make your argument sound more coherent?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#350

Post by ams6110 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:05 AM UTC

nommm-nommm wrote: post #146

ams6110 wrote: post #101

My points of skepticism: 1. Semis . A typical long haul semi gets well under 10MPG. In some cases not much more than half that. They are heavy and need a lot of energy to move. A Tesla Model S weighs 4650 lbs and has a range of a couple of hundred miles. A semi truck can weigh up to 80,000 lbs. That is a lot of weight to get rolling and a lot to pull up a grade. Semis spend a large part of their time driving at highw…

>Legal liability is one reason. As owner of the car, I am liable for damage it causes. Ummm... Where the hell do you live where this is the case?

Where do you live that this is not the case? I know some states have (or had) a "no-fault" approach to automobile liability claims but I thought it was a minority and perhaps had been mostly abandonded?

Who else would be responsible, if not the owner?