Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#401

Post by has2k1 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #319

d23 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say. You think it's bad he wrote it himself, or good? Are you saying his writing it himself was a mistake, or wasn't? And it does or doesn't sound formal enough? It needs rigor and doesn't have it, or it does have it?

He should have written it with more formality and more rigor. Tesla is a public company and there is already a perception among investors that this is a facade. Musk needs to reposition Tesla as less of a personal experiment/quest and more of a legitimate enterprise that acknowledges its fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Tone and communication are very important in this regard. This release failed to adopt a tone a…

You are arguing for a more formal and rigorous statement because it would have certain advantages. You should also note that a less formal and less rigorous communication as a rhetorical strategy has it's own advantages.

So unless you do a more thorough analysis comparing the two strategies regarding this particular article of communication, your criticism is just quick opinion without "sufficient"[1] effort to limit any prior biases[2].

[1] Quoted because I have no quantification measure.

[2] If you are a communications expert then of-course this particular criticism against your quick opinion is not justified.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#402

Post by eridius » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:24 AM UTC

Tloewald wrote: post #399

I think the fundamental error here is assuming the existing car ownership model. I think the future is autonomous taxis (or Ubers). This actually reduces congestion, eliminates the need for parking, and plays to the strengths of electric vehicles. Building a master plan based on families owning cars is, I think, skating to where the puck was ten years ago (car ownership is dropping in the Western world, especially am…

If you send out your car to ferry other people for money when you don't need it (as the master plan suggests) then you get the same benefits.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#403

Post by eitland » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #386

rz2k wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

>> Number of employees per car output It's a very important metric. The number of man-hours per item is a good stand-in for production costs. It isn't perfect, materials are outside the math here, but it works. I'm interested to hear of how much staff time is put to new production/development and how much is dedicated to maintaining the current fleet. I have to believe that Toyota walks away in that area too.

> It isn't perfect, materials are outside the math here, but it works.

Not sure but we might be having an apples-to-oranges comparison here:

If man hours pr item are significantly better for one but the other has much lower materials cost pr item (motors, sales etc) or enormously lower fixed costs then it is not so easy to say anymore.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#404

Post by eitland » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #386

rz2k wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

>> Number of employees per car output It's a very important metric. The number of man-hours per item is a good stand-in for production costs. It isn't perfect, materials are outside the math here, but it works. I'm interested to hear of how much staff time is put to new production/development and how much is dedicated to maintaining the current fleet. I have to believe that Toyota walks away in that area too.

> It isn't perfect, materials are outside the math here, but it works.

Not sure but we might be having an apples-to-oranges comparison here:

If man hours pr item are significantly better for one but the other has much lower materials cost pr item (motors, sales etc) or enormously lower fixed costs then it is not so easy to say anymore.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#405

Post by tikl1 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:28 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #386

rz2k wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

>> Number of employees per car output It's a very important metric. The number of man-hours per item is a good stand-in for production costs. It isn't perfect, materials are outside the math here, but it works. I'm interested to hear of how much staff time is put to new production/development and how much is dedicated to maintaining the current fleet. I have to believe that Toyota walks away in that area too.

The point is that in nowadays automobile industry a HUGE part of the production is made outside the constructors facilities by contractors.

So considering only car constructors employees is a pretty inaccurate estimation of man-hours/item in that scenario.

EDIT: comma satan

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#406

Post by mvdwoord » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:29 AM UTC

Tloewald wrote: post #399

I think the fundamental error here is assuming the existing car ownership model. I think the future is autonomous taxis (or Ubers). This actually reduces congestion, eliminates the need for parking, and plays to the strengths of electric vehicles. Building a master plan based on families owning cars is, I think, skating to where the puck was ten years ago (car ownership is dropping in the Western world, especially am…

This only works in well connected/urban areas though. Waiting for 15 minutes or longer whenever you need to get somewhere is not acceptable for a lot of people. Also, cars act as mobile lockers for your stuff. Etc. Autonomous taxi's will supplement the car owner model, but that model in and of itself is not going anywhere. Don't underestimate the aversion people have for "public" transport, many people I know bend over backwards to not use a shared form of transportation.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#407

Post by briandear » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:34 AM UTC

andys627 wrote: post #343

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.

Is that why the streets are empty and you can always find a parking space in London? How about downtown Shanghai? Or Rome? Or the suburbs of Guadalajara? This qualifies as some of the rest of the world and all of the places mentioned are traffic nightmares. It must be all of the walkers clogging up the roads.

As far as the rest of the world loving it, that's ridiculous. The mom in rural Kenya walking miles each day for water.. I bet she'd love a car. When you have to get to a meeting and its 40C outside, I'm sure a brisk walk would be just adorable.

Not everyone can afford to live within walking distance.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#408

Post by rospaya » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:40 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #339

eyelidlessness wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soug…

Low density remote developments or just typical suburbs cause higher pollution, higher service costs, segregation, hurt smaller businesses and have a negative impact on health.

Modern urbanism is very opposed to urban sprawl because of those and many other reasons. Transport is just one aspect of it.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#409

Post by davnicwil » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:44 AM UTC

> increased passenger areal density [on buses] by eliminating the center aisle and putting seats where there are currently entryways

I can't picture the layout he's describing here - not sure if it's been discussed in more detail elsewhere - anyone got a better idea or a reference image?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#410

Post by sgc » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:47 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #327

jkestner wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

More electric vehicles will get on the road when there is a realistic economic rationale to buy them. Without the subsidy, an $80,000 car that can only go 200 miles is a lot less appealing.

Hence they are subsidized. People with a bit of forward vision realize that without an economic incentive today, there may not be an economic rationale tomorrow, since the technology will not miraculously develop itself.