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

551–560 of 705 posts

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#551

Post by sp527 »

has2k1 wrote: post #401
sp527 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That there might be two sides to the argument feels implicit. I did explain how Tesla's situation is relevant. We're not observing this in a vacuum.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#552

Post by gkya »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #429
gkya wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh he is the SV Messiah? Honestly enterprise is enterprise. Look what Google have become.

He's not SV Messiah, he seems to be simply the lucky combination of right perspective on the world and enough money to make it happen. The only bad thing about this is that it is so rare. > Honestly enterprise is enterprise. What I like about Tesla and SpaceX is that they're honest, plain companies. They exist as means to an end. Vehicles to achieve material goals - in this case, sustainable transport and making huma…

Companies are in the business of selling things for profit. That's essential to them, because they have to pay taxes, create capital and produce, which are all results of commerce. For this they need to maintain an image. And with the first danger to its image, we've seen how Tesla reacted: statistics manipulation and aggression, instead of admitting its their fault and promising to work for better. So we can't bet on companies' honesty, ever.

Elon Musk as a person, is a person. A single person. You say that he "seems to be simply the lucky combination of right perspective on the world and enough money to make it happen." According to whom? Interplanetary travel's possibility and practicality is questionable, let alone human chance of extraterrestrial survival. Some may well think that this is a waste of resources. Sustainable transport is nice -- and I love Tesla cars for being seemingly practical non-fossil cars -- but self-driving cars are a big change and actually requires moral adaptations. Would being killed by a self-operating machine equal to being killed by a manual car? Who is to blame if an accident happens? What do I do if my spouse goes under a self-driving car and it is not her fault? Do I sue the car? What happens if it is found guilty (i.e. it's AI is mistaken)? Do we jail the car? Is Tesla to pay me in indemnity? If my self-driving car hits another car's rear bumper, am I liable? Do I recompensate the other driver? Who is liable if an automatic vehicle breaks some traffic rule? What if it passes when it's red?

If all cars are electric, how we'll be affected by increased electric demand? This will mean increased CO2 production with geothermal production, and increased nuclear waste to be disposed off with nuclear production. Will we have to build more dams? Will we instead use the same dinosaur oil to to produce electricity, canceling out the gain?

We should think on these, and Musk being a SV angel figure is not an answer to these questions. We did not question anything till the end of the past century, and we are at the edge of a climate disaster. This tech (self-driving) means a great, big change to our daily lives, and it cannot happen because someone who "seems to be simply the lucky combination of right perspective on the world and enough money" wanted it to.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#553

Post by kybernetikos »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #541
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…

> A car used correctly is safe. A car is safe when it's used correctly, and all the other cars on the road are used correctly, and all the people and animals near the road behave correctly, and the weather behaves correctly.

Lots of people seem to have picked up on this.

It was in fact the whole point I was making that it's generally not possible in the real world for a human to consistently use a car correctly. That's why I don't care about statistics for autopilot 'when used correctly'. I'm interested in autopilot as it gets used in the real world.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#554

Post by radiorental »

chongli wrote: post #503
rjdagost wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

scrappy Y-Combinator incubator company. Right. What Tesla is attempting is orders of magnitude more difficult than your typical YC app shop with an exit strategy. I think they deserve a bit more slack than you seem willing to cut them. If it all blows up in their faces you can have your day with a smug "I told you so" but you won't be able to deny the benefits they've already provided to society via Musk's aggressive…

I agree with you but there is a very important difference. They're a publicly traded company and all that entails.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#555

Post by jobead »

lorenzhs wrote: post #524
realo wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the energy is free b/c it comes from the solar panels on the roof of my garage, why do I care?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#556

Post by jobead »

kybernetikos wrote: post #444
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. 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.

The data already gathered would indicate that your suspicion is wrong. Currently the US averages 1 fatality for every 89 million miles driven. Autopilot is at almost twice that with only 1 fatality. So autopilot already fails less often than a human.

Consider this anecdote: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/756004029239472132

Then rethink if you really believe that this pedestrian deserves to be dead because you don't trust the data and the world-class engineers for which this is literally their job everyday.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#557

Post by amluto »

qaq wrote: post #194
amluto wrote: post #85

Master plan part one made sense: it all lead to Tesla as it is today. But master plan part deux seems odd: what exactly does "One ordering experience, one installation, one service contact, one phone app" for solar have to do with the Tesla transportation part?

batteries :)

Could you clarify?

Tesla needs batteries. SolarCity does not need batteries except in jurisdictions that make having a battery significantly favorable over having one. Also, the high energy density batteries that Tesla needs are, IMO, mostly unnecessary for stationary use. Compare Powerwall prices to lead-acid -- lead-acid wins hands down. Sure, the lead acid batteries are heavy, but that's not a problem if you plunk them in the basement or crawlspace.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#558

Post by lorenzhs »

jobead wrote: post #555
lorenzhs wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the energy is free b/c it comes from the solar panels on the roof of my garage, why do I care?

Because it severely limits your range.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#559

Post by nchelluri »

anjc wrote: post #358
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's an SC entity?

EDIT: must be subcontracting...?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#560

Post by jobead »

lorenzhs wrote: post #558
jobead wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the energy is free b/c it comes from the solar panels on the roof of my garage, why do I care?

Because it severely limits your range.

I live 8 miles from work. "Limiting my range" from 200 miles to 150 miles between daily charge ups is irrelevant.
Post reply on HN