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

351–360 of 705 posts

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#351

Post by puranjay »

jonny_eh wrote: post #14
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…

Uber's been likely working on self-driving cars, potentially in partnership with Google. What Tesla has as an advantage though, is an assembly line to produce lots of quality cars. In other words, Tesla will likely be ready for the future of transportation before Uber.

If Tesla can pull off this transportation + energy revolution, it would be a trillion dollar company

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#352

Post by kriro »

garyclarke27 wrote: post #264
intrasight wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reminds me of the old accounting joke. CFO -> CEO We have a major problem, recent price cuts mean that we are now making a loss per unit on our major product lines. CEO -> CFO Don't worry about that, We'll make it up on the volume!

I have this bookmarked just for these types of discussions. It's surprising how often I have used it:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#353

Post by sp527 »

a13n wrote: post #349
sp527 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I utilize comment sections to keep my writing and argumentative faculties sharp. This is not how I'd normally communicate. I don't care about karma.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#354

Post by danhak »

sp527 wrote: post #341
danhak wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 u…

The last sentence of your post is strange and difficult to parse. You love it when people communicate in ways that align with their worldview? OK fair enough.

But you're really just throwing around a bunch of innuendo and five-dollar words to suggest the incentive structure that Tesla (and all other automakers) have at their disposal is bogus. You've provided no evidence, and Occam's Razor offers a much more reasonable explanation: becoming energy independent and sustainable would be in our national interest in a massive way, and policymakers decided these incentives offer a reasonable risk / reward for accelerating that goal.

If you object on some philosophical / libertarian grounds then fine, I disagree with you but can understand where you're coming from. But don't throw around unsubstantiated claims of corruption and "insidious realities" and expect anyone to be sympathetic to your argument when you're not actually saying anything of substance.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#355

Post by chc »

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

This seems more like a sneer than a legitimate criticism. AFAIK Tesla's business is fundamentally pretty solid. They make a net profit on their cars, but they are currently investing it all into aggressive expansion. Is it surprising that a young, growing company is spending a lot on growth compared to a century-old company? Do you think it would be better for Tesla if they didn't invest in the future?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#357

Post by ams6110 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #332
ams6110 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It probably is, because there are no superchargers within 100 miles of where I live, and perhaps not coincidentally, Teslas are a very rare sight.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#358

Post by anjc »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #129
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

This, citing employee numbers is somewhat meaningless without any data on the number of non-employees working in your supply chain. Could indeed very well be a case of outsourcing differences rather than a difference in productivity.

No industry counts the number of employees within a supply chain. It might be impossible and it's half the point in having separate SC entities...it's irrelevant to a car manufacturer how many miners various aluminium companies feel they need to hire, say.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#359

Post by BurningFrog »

mahyarm wrote: post #222
BurningFrog wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No because you have to account for peak usage and have the capacity for it. There will be car savings, but the math wont be as simple as you say it is.

Sure, it's a simplified model to illustrate the mechanism radically lowering the need for parking spots.

Which is quite different from "car savings", if we're being picky.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#360

Post by d_t_w »

vacri wrote: post #338
d_t_w wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I don't know what you think this hyperbole adds to the conversation?
Post reply on HN