Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#591

Post by sp527 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:20 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #430

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…

And I don't trust that a profit-based only incentive is good overall, for example: if it wasn't for governments meddling with making oil less desirable as an energy resource (higher taxes, stricter regulations about pollution, more incentives for alternative technologies) we wouldn't be seeing a shift so early as we still have plenty of oil to burn and it's very profitable to do it. These blanket statements are often…

Agree completely. I said somewhere else that I'm treating incentives and subsidies as distinct from regulation and penalties.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#592

Post by tokipin » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:27 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.

I don't think there is a cutoff point in company size or whatever above which writing suddenly needs to become sterile. What you have is actually more a cultural thing I think. People thinking that a "professional" message is needed, when straightforwardness would be a superior goal. (On the other hand, a good reason to aim for "professional" is that everything released by a company has a consistent voice/tone.)

Notice that Musk runs his companies the same way - by trusting what's really important vs what isn't. And anyone who has invested in Tesla is already familiar with his irreverent character. (See this[1] interview for example).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajP3B0gYJlo

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#593

Post by bobwaycott » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #590

bobwaycott wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Oh, I doubt I'd be surprised. :)

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#594

Post by tajen » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #29

aerovistae wrote: post #9

To anyone who's paid close attention to Tesla and to Elon's various offhand remarks to the press and on Twitter, this was all easy to see coming, every bit of it. But now that he's confirmed it all officially: this NUTS . This is so awesome. The press is going to go crazy with this. I wonder what will happen to Uber...seems like it will be hard for them to compete with the rates of cars that don't have to pay their d…

Where has he mentioned semis or buses? I thought I had been paying close attention.

He mentioned them in the blog post (Title 2, paragraph 3).

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#595

Post by Double_Cast » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

> A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle.

How does one calculate this? Does there exist some canonical Productivity-Equation?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#596

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

aerovistae wrote: post #203

pcr0 wrote: 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…

Why wouldn't they sell them?

They are in the business of making money, and if Uber offers to pay a premium or sign a contract, it would allow Tesla to grow much quicker, expand capacity, and make even MORE money.

A self driving car bought by Uber would pay for itself in under 2 years easy. I am sure Uber would pay quite a lot for THAT opportunity.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#597

Post by tajen » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

Vik1ng wrote: post #80

mrfusion wrote: post #22

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.

... not having a seat is reason #1 why people ditch public transport in Europe (dense areas, hot & sweaty rides, not able to read a book or work on a computer, not able to sleep). Give a seat to everyone and you'll have more commuters.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#598

Post by antisthenes » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

wycx wrote: post #377

int_19h wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dense urban areas create anxiety for me, while suburbs give the nice quiet retreat with plenty of open space, and no random annoyances. I bet I'm not alone in this. Don't assume that your subjective personal experiences translate to everyone. Here's a question for you. If suburbs are "the least optimal configuration", then why did urban sprawl occur in the first place? Why did so many people leave the cities and soug…

Dense urban areas provide excellent opportunity for rent seeking by urban land owners. The mobility provided the automobile (also rail and bicycles) made it practical to live outside urban areas where land is cheaper, which also permitted lower density. Urban land rent decreased significantly between the late 19th century and the mid 20th century. The alternate future would have seen everyone living in dense urban ar…

> The alternate future would have seen everyone living in dense urban areas paying most of their wages as rent to the descendants of gilded age land owners.

Which is what is happening now anyway. The suburban sprawl merely delayed it by a few decades (okay, maybe half a century, to be generous), but all the underlying issues with it are still there.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#599

Post by maratd » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #233

maratd wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still don't understand the SolarCity part. People who buy electric cars are far more likely to buy solar panels. And storage batteries. And wiring they would need for the electric car. It's all directly related. So when I buy a Tesla ... I have to hire a 3rd party to install the wiring to charge it. I can buy the storage battery from Tesla, but again, need to hire someone else to install it. And if I want solar p…

> People who buy electric cars are far more likely to buy solar panels. And storage batteries. And wiring they would need for the electric car. It's all directly related. Is this true? I'd be interested in learning more about the data behind this. Anyway, for the sake of discussion let's say it is. Does that mean there is a correlation that scales to the whole population? Or is it just that electric cars and solar pa…

> Or is it just that electric cars and solar panels appeal to the same small segment of the population? That would show a strong correlation, but not scale well.

Tesla is a luxury product company. All of their products are either luxury or commercial. Their strategy scales well in that segment.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#600

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

asymmetric wrote: post #535

dredmorbius wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly not. Except for, say, powering auxiliary electronics, concentrations of solar power are far too low for on-vehicle collection. Put the panels alongside the road . Not on the vehicles. Not on solar freaking roadways , which are the stupidest idea since stupid. But in medians, on extant construction, and in concentrated high-insolation solar farms (deserts, etc.). We're going to need one hell of a lot…

Why are solar roadways stupid?

There is tons of space to put solar panels. We don't NEED to come up with a clever solution of where to put the solar panels.

Just put them anywhere, it doesn't matter. Space is cheap. Rooftop space is even cheaper.