Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#481

Post by makomk » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:32 AM UTC

aerovistae wrote: post #65

orky56 wrote: post #52

I was hoping to see another zero to one approach with the master plan where he is taking on some other industry goal. I totally get that part deux is still very, very ambitious and one that no other company can truly realize. But if we're just talking about Musk's master plan, I'm curious why he didn't talk about the synergies with his other company, SpaceX. Tesla and SpaceX both rely on vehicles & transport while Sp…

I suspect Tesla will move into aircraft and oceancraft in the long-run, if you're interested in "other industries." He's mentioned the electric jet enough times. And why would he create a new company for it when he's got all the expertise and business structure at his fingertips already? Solar harvesting in space sounds really cool, but how do you get that power back to earth? Even if there were a way, it's not neces…

Satellite solar panels are very specialized devices that use different technology from ground-based ones. For a start, efficiency is much more important on satellites because of space and weight limitations, so they're generally multi-junction gallium arsenide solar cells rather than the cheaper single-junction silicon used in ground-based solar power.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#482

Post by samolang » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:33 AM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #415

> 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…

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/756004029239472132

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#483

Post by k__ » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:34 AM UTC

Somehow these discussions about human driven cars feel like the discussions about smoking or owning a gun to me.

The world could be a better place for so many people, but somehow a bunch of other people think it's okay to continue doing them until they die.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#484

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:39 AM UTC

thesehands wrote: post #441

agumonkey wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sounds like diazepam

No different and stronger I suppose, paroxetin/SSRI. Body is weird this thing impacts my overall blood flow. I expected to feel awkwardly stupid happy but it's not, it just makes you calm.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#485

Post by rjdagost » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:46 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #355

rjdagost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I admire what Tesla has been able to achieve from a technological and a marketing point of view but I wouldn't call their business "fundamentally solid". Tesla stock has been one of the most heavily shorted equities for some time and it's because their balance sheet is a train wreck while their valuation is sky-high. Tesla burns cash at a phenomenal rate and regularly has to take on debt and / or raise new capital through equity offerings in order to stay in business. Of course they have to invest in the future- automobile manufacturing is a highly competitive, extremely capital intensive business and every OEM (Ford, GM, Toyota, Volkswagen,..) has to regularly invest huge sums of money in staying relevant. Tesla is no different in that regard.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#486

Post by realo » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:48 AM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #415

> 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…

You have to think forward to understand Musk.

Which would you prefer? Going at 100 km/h with autopilot on today's highways, sharing the road with people without autopilot, or going at 250 km/h with autopilot on a highway where everyone else is also on autopilot?

We will have to follow a likely tortuous path to get from now to then, but I am totally convinced we will get there.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#487

Post by makomk » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:49 AM UTC

samolang wrote: post #482

kybernetikos wrote: post #415

> 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…

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/756004029239472132

That's what the rest of the industry refer to as autonomous emergency braking with pedestrian detection. It's a few years old now, there's been some vague talk of eventually making it mandatory, and you don't have to automate normal driving in any way to get the safety benefits from it. (In fact, I suspect it's probably better if it's not part of Autopilot, since then there's going to less risk of the driver not paying attention in the first place.)

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#488

Post by t_fatus » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:52 AM UTC

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 just false, amazon just announced profit for 20015 & q1 20016

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#489

Post by rjdagost » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:53 AM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #348

rjdagost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Remind me- is Tesla a for-profit corporation or are they a non-profit organization? Making a profit is sort of the main point, though obviously not the only point. They've been around since 2003 so it's not like they're a scrappy Y-Combinator incubator company.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#490

Post by restalis » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 11:53 AM UTC

tikl1 wrote: post #424

kybernetikos wrote: post #415

> 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…

"Sadly very good drivers die every day and not only because of someone else's mistake."

Indeed, and that may often be because of taking warranted risks. It bothers me that when making comparisons of driving safety people tend to suffer from absence blindness and discount other important things like the death avoidance cases. Let's say you have a bleeding injured person which requires urgent access to a medical facility. Here the driver can take some risks in order to save a life. Or any number of causes that may warrant risk taking. Now, take away the control from that driver and leave it to an autopilot that may compute the driving parameters in order to satisfy minimum pollution, safety (from the manufacturer's judicial liabilities prospective), and whatnot. Heck, I foresee cases when the autopilot won't even approve any movement due to whatever considerations when there may be passengers in risk of loosing their lives if won't reach somewhere soon enough. For now people can take risks, which may be both good and bad. Don't look only at the bad side.