Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll second this. Having suffered from chronic depression for decades, those symptoms are very familiar. While there are always ups and downs in life, general disconnection with the world would be good to dig deeper into.
I just realized the other pill beside magnesium complement my doctor prescribed to me was an anti anxiety pill (didn't know the name, thought it was a muscle relaxant). I have to admit that it made my mood smooth, and got out of bed in a way that I didn't since a year. Damn brain.
Master Plan, Part Deux
441–450 of 705 posts
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While true, it would mean the comparison is largely meaningless if one car company did their own aluminium mining/smelting and the other didn't.
But within the same strategic groupings, it might become more appropriate to say "outsourcing or more/less integration is/isn't a good choice for this industry due to xyz". So at some point you might expect to see (for example) the manufacturer who mines their own metal's revenue to increase if there's ever a global shortage, compared to competitors who rely on other companies. So as in, the mining car company might have lower production numbers per employee than competitors due to a larger staff, but if vertical integration makes sense in that industry, you'd expect revenue per employee to demonstrate that over time.
In this case, if Tesla have lower production numbers per staff due to less outsourcing then that's just necessity, due to the fact that it's a tentative young company which sells a highly niche product. It'll work out over time if they can establish themselves in the industry.
But basically yeah you're correct, it doesn't make sense to look at a single metric in isolation, without taking a wider view.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#443> "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…
Car-for-car I'd easily wager that manually-driven cars have been involved in far more accidents than the one or two Tesla accidents that have occurred over the same time period (not to dilute the terrible result of the most recent accident).
The problem is that a typical person doesn't care. Car accidents where a human is at fault are "normal." We live in a society where speeding, aggressive driving and/or DUI are routinely practiced. From personal experience: even when you dial the convenience factor to 11 (Uber/Lyft) people are still adamant that they are OK to drive. The driver is blamed, not the fact that the driver is doing something that evolution has never had to solve.
Additionally, the non-technical crowd are very used to machines breaking and doing the wrong thing. So when you come along with a story about how a machine killed a person in, what is very strictly, a motor vehicle accident everyone's built-in beliefs about machines are merely reinforced. Few step back and consider how embarrassingly incompetent humans are at driving, and how a machine that doesn't yet have the sensors required to properly perform the task still runs circles around our very rich set of senses.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#444> The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability. I don't think this is the correct comparison. A car used correctly is safe. We have huge numbers of road accidents because most people are unable t…
Humans are the very definition of imperfection and thinking that you are capable of "correctly using a car" that is, never make the mistake that will cause a terrible accident is a big problem. It's probably why so much people keep resisting evolution like autopilot, they can't admit that even them can someday fail and crash. They believe that if they are good drivers they will avoid it. Sadly very good drivers die e…
Maybe eventually, but what I'm interested in is right now, does the tesla autopilot fail more often than a human driving in similar conditions. My suspicion is that it does.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#445I 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…
So if they tout the idea of people not owning cars too much that is will only antagonize people in the short term.
If the ownership model changes they can easily adapt. I think they are very aware of the car ownership statistics and how cars being shared is a fundamentally better model in most cases.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#446Where I'm from, we call that trains.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't gas also subsidized by the government? http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
See above. That is a valid claim to subsidy, but it's not the one I'm referring to, which involves, depending on your view / word choices: total factor costs, solar emergy cost, or natural capital costs.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#448"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…
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
Sorry, but you don't understand Tesla's manufacturing or that of any automaker. A large amount of the assemblies are outsourced. For the larger companies even drive trains and transmissions can be but that is rare. Ford and GM cooperated on ten speed transmissions recently so that is a benefit of such sourcing.
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Re: Master Plan, Part Deux
#450> The most important reason is that, when used correctly, it is already significantly safer than a person driving by themselves and it would therefore be morally reprehensible to delay release simply for fear of bad press or some mercantile calculation of legal liability. I don't think this is the correct comparison. A car used correctly is safe. We have huge numbers of road accidents because most people are unable t…
Humans are the very definition of imperfection and thinking that you are capable of "correctly using a car" that is, never make the mistake that will cause a terrible accident is a big problem. It's probably why so much people keep resisting evolution like autopilot, they can't admit that even them can someday fail and crash. They believe that if they are good drivers they will avoid it. Sadly very good drivers die e…
the real shocking truth is none of these systems is capable of driving when even skilled drivers might need the assistance. think about it this way, car safety systems are designed to insure recovery of safe driving during some of the worst conditions yet self driving systems cannot handle most of these poor conditions as they cannot accurately see and assess the situation.