Live data from Hacker News

Master Plan, Part Deux

tesla.com

571–580 of 705 posts

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#571
post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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?

The answers to those questions are simple if you care to look for them - or even listen to the "SV messiah". Sure increased electricity demand may mean upgrades to infrastructure, but this happens anyway as peoples' dependence on electrically-powered devices grow. Nuclear waste is an utter non-problem, it only seems so because of unfounded fears. The fact is we can manage it. As for using fossil fuels, even that outcome would be a huge win - power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines in cars, so even by just centralizing the burning of that oil you're saving lots of energy.

I'm not going to take a position on "statistics manipulation" - I haven't seen anything besides few HNers jumping to conclusions, and I recall that the actual outcome turned out to favour Tesla's position even more. But maybe I'm missing something, I'll happily read up if you could point me to a good source.

Circling back to the point about companies - what you described is the mechanism how companies work. What I was talking about is the reason to found them. As it is today, most companies are what I fondly call "toilet-paper companies" - ones that couldn't care less about what they're actually doing as long as it turns in profit, and would gladly switch to selling toilet paper if it was more profitable than their current operations. Tesla and SpaceX are the rare kind of companies for which their stated goal is the terminal value, not an instrumental one. That's why their decisions keep baffling people - because we're not used to see businesses actually driven by ideas (as opposed to saying so for PR benefit) very often.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a friend who is a psychologist, and she hates it when someone refers to anti-depressants as "happy pills" for this reason.

I can't even recall why I/we think of goofy people when thinking of pills. If my sensation is not placebo driven, then these things really are re-balancing tools. I don't feel overly anything, just ok without trying.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#573
post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do…

> Currently the US averages 1 fatality for every 89 million miles driven.

This is the average for all cars on all roads, in all driving conditions.

To have a meaningful comparison, we would need to know the fatality rate for new luxury sedans on divided highways in good weather conditions.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#574
post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 facili…

Well you can say it would be infuriating to be unable to take risks to save let's say your wife dying in the car but you can't argue that it's a GOOD thing to take those risks... who are you to decide that it is worth risking others lives to try to save one ?

"you can't argue that it's a GOOD thing to take those risks... who are you to decide that it is worth risking others lives to try to save one ?"

That's exactly what I argue about. In a rare (but very important) occasion where risk taking would be needed, you're forcing the moral dilemma of an even rarer occurrence with a presumed victim. We don't know if it would come to that. For all I care there might be only some speeding on a rainy road. My car will recommend going slowly for my own sake, but in that moment I care less for me personally and more for avoiding wife's impending death. Actually, I fear that my car will not limit itself to recommending, it will force that on me, because it knows better, because the people behind the said decisions won't be only the engineers trying give their best, but also lawyers doing "mercantile calculation of legal liability", politicians trying to score on public safety through their regulations, and so on!

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#575
post #358

Earlier 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.

What's an SC entity? EDIT: must be subcontracting...?

I believe it's 'Supply Chain' entities.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#576
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Uber and Tesla are competing in any way. In fact, Travis Kalanick stated he would buy half a million Teslas if they became fully autonomous[0]. [0]: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098997_uber-ceo-to-tesl...

But Tesla won't sell them to him, man. Why would they, when Elon's just said he's going to create their own autonomous fleet? Why would they hand it over to Uber? Of course they're competing! Elon's just said they're going to make a fleet of autonomous electric taxis! Travis wasn't being literal; he knows there aren't going to be 500,000 available for a single company to buy for many years. And even if it weren't red…

Tesla can make the hardware and Uber can make the app, that's not a bad deal for either. And there's no reason why Tesla couldn't sell to Uber's competitors as well.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#577
post #80

I didn't understand what enables them to get rid of aisles inside buses? People still need to reach their seats right?

Also sounds like it's written by someone who has never used public transport his entire life. In my bus in the morning 70% of the passengers are standing not sitting.

Absolutely. I'm on board with some of this document, but the public transportation part makes no sense. What Musk is suggesting would make public transit less effective.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Tesla also subsidized by the government?

That's not the subsidy I'm referring to. How much would it cost you to create a barrel of crude oil? Not "extract from the ground", the usual meaning of "producing oil", which borrows rather more from "produce the evidence" than "manufacture the good". But actually start with high-entropy substrates and some energy source and synthesize oil. Why do markets not account for this cost? (Hotelling's Rule is ignored, and…

That's actually not THAT expensive.

We've had biofuel for quite a while now.

Post reply on HN