Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#521

Post by whatever_dude » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

unabst wrote: post #291

Tesla isn't a car company. It's building Rome. All great "startups" are not some good idea executed well. They are companies with a long term vision that generate ideas to execute that will get them there. Anyone might steal an idea or copy a product, but no one can steal a mission or a destination far in the future. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Google... all started as or at some point became "build Rome" comp…

After reading this master plan yesterday, I came to work today thinking along the same lines.

I feel like Musk's actions are a great example of McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message". Tesla is not a car company. They're doing cars because it's a way into their actual business. He wants them to invest in solar power because it's another way that ties into a general plan.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#522

Post by arscan » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #108

I'm always surprised when we get insight into Musk's plan, not because they're complicated but because they always come across as "no duh, why aren't we already doing these things? weren't we already on track to do these things decades ago?" As much as the Internet transformed society, I also can't help but feel like we were on the track to have achieved these things and got distracted by our global communications an…

Is he putting (or planning on putting) solar panels on cars as you mentioned? I think the "solar-roof-with-battery product" he was referring to was solar city + powerwall on a house.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#523

Post by Jeema101 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 1:37 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #193

jsprogrammer wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You know why Ford turns a profit? Because they've gotten those economies of scale. Ford was immediately profitable, was it not? Even before implementing an assembly line?

When ford came on the market, it only had to be better than a horse. A tesla has to be better than a masarati on the high end, a jaguar on the "medium" end, and a subaru on the "low" end.

They also had to be better than all the other competitors. There are hundreds of manufacturers from the early days that no longer exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_man...

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#524

Post by lorenzhs » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 1:37 PM UTC

realo wrote: post #486

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.

The problem with that is that aerodynamic drag grows with the third power of speed, so going faster requires much more energy, even after accounting for slipstream benefits that a self-driving mechanism could exploit.

For some numbers, see https://www.quora.com/How-long-can-you-drive-a-Tesla-S-P90D-... . The top comment is about racing, but the one below it lists 300Wh/km at 160km/h and 380Wh/km at 180km/h. That's a quarter more energy per km (!) for going 20km/h faster.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#525

Post by leot » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

greendestiny wrote: post #428

tikl1 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"but in comparison it will never fail as often as human do" Ok I know this is my little cause of the moment, but seriously why are computers apriori better at anything? Sure they don't make poor life choices but they are absolutely at the mercy of the quality of the algorithms, sensors, operating system, training data and physical computational hardware.

Every decision a machine makes benefits from the accumulated organized efforts of hundreds (if not many thousands). In a sense, so too do human decisions, but in practice we can much more quickly improve the decision-making of machines, over time leading to them having the advantage, especially in routinized tasks.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#526

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

greendestiny wrote: post #428

tikl1 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"but in comparison it will never fail as often as human do" Ok I know this is my little cause of the moment, but seriously why are computers apriori better at anything? Sure they don't make poor life choices but they are absolutely at the mercy of the quality of the algorithms, sensors, operating system, training data and physical computational hardware.

[deleted]

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#527

Post by giarc » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #15

> We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day. This seems very significant for Tesla vs competitors. Yes Google has a strong technology lead today, but how long will that last when Tesla is collecting more miles of data every day than Google has collected in…

Almost every other car manufacturer is working on autonomous vehicles. They will eventually start to contribute to the number as well.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#528

Post by syrrim » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #492

craigcabrey wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to provide a source to back up that claim?

They have basically a single source of revenue AFAIK which is selling cars. They sell X amount of cars per year making $Y. They don't turn a profit. Last year they lost close to $1B mostly because of their R&D costs. They need to either sell more cars (assuming that they can make money per additional unit like they say they can) or charge more for the ones they do sell, or both. Fortunately they are expected by inves…

>Mostly Because of their R&D costs

How is this not investing in their future?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#529

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #492

craigcabrey wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to provide a source to back up that claim?

They have basically a single source of revenue AFAIK which is selling cars. They sell X amount of cars per year making $Y. They don't turn a profit. Last year they lost close to $1B mostly because of their R&D costs. They need to either sell more cars (assuming that they can make money per additional unit like they say they can) or charge more for the ones they do sell, or both. Fortunately they are expected by inves…

[deleted]

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#530

Post by codeulike » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

Eiriksmal wrote: post #215

seanp2k2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: solar on the roof, agreed that it wouldn't do much: An ISO container that could fit on a truck trailer is typically 40'x8'. Solar panels are, on the sunniest of days, making 10-14 watts per square foot. This gives us: 40x8=320sqft assuming panels with no borders. Assuming 14 watts per sqft (optimal conditions) we'd end up with 4,480 watts. Assuming 100% efficiency converting this into usable motion, we'd get 6 BH…

Thanks for this math, which really demonstrates how... er, pipe-dreamy Musk is on this. The truck logistics industry has been struggling with this problem for years. How do we increase fuel efficiency from the days of 90s Caterpillar engines dragging 80K lbs at 4.3 mpg while simultaneously decreasing emissions while simultaneously figuring out how to make the truck itself lighter and able to move more cargo in a sing…

Thanks for this math, which really demonstrates how... er, pipe-dreamy Musk is on this.

It actually shows that neither of you are paying attention. Musks article did not say anything about putting solar panels on the roof of trucks. He only talks about solar panels on the roof of buildings.