Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#581

Post by Tiktaalik » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 3:53 PM UTC

The best part of this is automated semi trucks. I think that's the perfect sort of business for Tesla to be in.

I have a lot of trouble understanding the public transportation part. The ideas presented fall apart when you remove the baffling assumption that traffic congestion decreases with the introduction of autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles will expand the possible set of drivers. That will dramatically increase the amount of vehicles on the road. If anything our future with autonomous vehicles will be unbearable gridlock.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#582

Post by sp527 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

tigroferoce wrote: post #451

sgc wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence they are subsidized. People with a bit of forward vision realize that without an economic incentive today, there may not be an economic rationale tomorrow, since the technology will not miraculously develop itself.

What I think people do not realise is that incentives to adopt cleaner car are just one side of a coin. The alternative would be making petrol-car drivers paying for the actual costs of cars including healthcare for diseases related with pollution, possibly at any level of the production chain and so on. Hidden costs are often cut away and offloaded on community (I couldn't find anything specifically related with car…

Exactly. Maybe I should have been more clear earlier that I'm referring to incentives- driven intervention. Penalizing companies for the negative externalities they inflict on society is practically a first principle of good governance, and USG has failed dramatically.

What's sad is that so many people seem to take an all-or-nothing stance on this politically. Either laissez faire or nanny state. Moderation is a dying art.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#583

Post by rsync » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:01 PM 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…

"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."

A human, with proper training and heuristics, can reasonably be expected to never make a mistake that causes a terrible accident.

Unfortunately, a large part of "proper training" involves being driven around as a passenger for your entire childhood, immersed in a car culture. Further, the heuristics are commonly ignored by males younger than, say, 25.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#584

Post by restalis » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #568

restalis wrote: post #490

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…

This is a very interesting point and I wonder if this might at some point turn into an advantage once there are enough self driving cars. Here is a potential feature: I am in an emergency and request "emergency override" or whatever you want to call it. Maybe someone pops up on the screen asks a question or not, maybe the override gets activated immediately and deactivated if it gets identified that I don't actually…

Yes, that is an interesting solution. Either letting the driver to take risks or allowing the autopilot to have a special mode so it can override a lot if not all of the limiting factors that would otherwise be commended. It's something like "give me 110% now, I'll gladly answer for that later if I'll have to!"

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#585

Post by TillE » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:02 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #581

The best part of this is automated semi trucks. I think that's the perfect sort of business for Tesla to be in. I have a lot of trouble understanding the public transportation part. The ideas presented fall apart when you remove the baffling assumption that traffic congestion decreases with the introduction of autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicles will expand the possible set of drivers. That will dramatically inc…

No, look at the whole system. Instead of four people with four cars (or even two cars and a couple bikes), you can have one autonomous shared cab driving an optimized route.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#586

Post by tanderson92 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:07 PM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #380

LAMike wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tone, rigor, formality? This is the same guy joking about smoking crack and listening to Tupac while writing this plan, I don't think he really cares about making a good impression to anyone

Yea. The point is maybe he should care if he's running a company whose market capitalization is related to investor perceptions. Time will tell I guess. And, Tesla may still prevail.

And, you can always short the stock...

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#587

Post by slouch » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

OliverJones wrote: post #502

pdq wrote: post #139

I still don't understand the SolarCity part. Tesla is atop the best rated electric cars, and has a good trajectory toward that product line future, with lots of innovation ahead. Successful companies like Apple focus on best-in-class products, so Tesla is smart to continue focusing their resources into those product lines. Meanwhile SolarCity has been burning cash on a consistent basis [1], and is sitting in a hyper…

I'm doing business (in my household) with both Tesla and Solar City. I can tell you this about Solar City: They're doing with roofing and power meters what Tesla is doing with vehicles. They're promoting a location-aware distributed electric-distribution grid. We're lucky right now that the government's promotion of PV is putting the burden of power storage on the power-grid operators. Without net metering, this stag…

PV = Photovoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#588

Post by chriswarbo » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:14 PM UTC

greendestiny wrote: post #457

doppel wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better is probably a poor word, but consistent at least. Even good drivers may run the speed limit and be "perfectly safe", but the autopilot will always stay at the speed limit and will always make the same choices in a given situation - there's no emotion or influence (alcohol, drugs, bad mood, etc.). In short, they are boring but safe.

"boring but safe." But seriously, the most important part of that sentence 'safe' is absolutely unproven.

I agree. It's like arguing that autonomous weapons systems are better than human-operated because they don't get tired, whilst neglecting to mention that, say, their object detection algorithms can't tell the difference between combatants and civilians.

Autonomous systems, as a technology, are capable of performing better than humans; that doesn't imply that some particular autonomous system (e.g. Tesla's Autopilot) does so right now.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#589

Post by D_Alex » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:16 PM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #63

stephenitis wrote: post #7

"So, in short, Master Plan, Part Deux is: - Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage - Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments - Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning - Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it" I take this as... Having solar powered superchargers power autonomous sem…

Note the Tesla focus on solar, since wind power doesn't work so well on Mars :)

Neither does solar :(

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#590

Post by sp527 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #563

sp527 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust the government to manipulate the free market efficiently. It's comprised of hapless morons who don't know what they're doing and whose favor is for sale to the highest bidder. Case in point are the tremendous number of bankrupt alternative energy companies built upon favorable treatment by the government. Market intervention doesn't suddenly become justifiable simply because the outcome of advancing the…

> It's comprised of hapless morons who don't know what they're doing... This sounds exactly like the free market to me. Hapless morons who don't know what they're doing—but try to reach their goals nonetheless—as far as the eye can see.

You'd be surprised what happens when people are risking their own money. But now we're just getting into Capitalism 101..

Edit: I feel like I have to clarify this everywhere perhaps because it's an unorthodox viewpoint: of course companies need to be regulated; I'm arguing against government-sponsored incentives and subsidies. Stick to making it more expensive to burn fossil fuels, thereby increasing receipts (use it to fund alternatives research, studies, etc similar to how Big Tobacco has to pay for anti-smoking ads) instead of less expensive to buy someone's product, at the cost of taxpayer dollars.