Master Plan, Part Deux • Hacker News Board

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#671

Post by thesmok » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 8:35 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #567

chc wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems more like a sneer than a legitimate criticism. AFAIK Tesla's business is fundamentally pretty solid. They make a net profit on their cars, but they are currently investing it all into aggressive expansion. Is it surprising that a young, growing company is spending a lot on growth compared to a century-old company? Do you think it would be better for Tesla if they didn't invest in the future?

Unlike Ford, GM, etc... Tesla has a much narrower market potential. Yes Tesla's cars are "cool" and everybody wants one, but even the new "cheaper" model costs far more than the average person spends on a car. Right now, Tesla caters to the luxury market, and is viewed as a "cool alternative" to more traditional luxury makes. Ford, Toyota et al, have models that cover just about every price range and every type of cu…

> Yes Tesla's cars are "cool" and everybody wants one, but even the new "cheaper" model costs far more than the average person spends on a car.

You know, the same was said about the iPhone.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#672

Post by tigroferoce » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 10:02 AM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #582

tigroferoce wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dyin…

Yes, moderation is dead. To embrace moderation one need to have doubt about his beliefs, to accept that someone else might hold a part of the truth. It's difficult and tiring and imply to constantly change one's state of mind and ideas. Moreover, it's much more fun and easy to treat everything as a sport match where you choose one side and you are against the other side.

In some way I notice the irony that these incentives for automakers (aimed to reduce pollution, to keep jobs, to communitize part of the drawbacks related with cars, ecc...) are a form of socialism in the US. Well done Yankees.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#673

Post by Decade » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 10:22 AM UTC

jrv wrote: post #92

hackguru wrote: post #56

I am in no position to question EM. But I was hoping he would give some good explanation for spending resources on SolarCity acquisition but nothing. Nothing in this master plan explains why SolarCity was bought other than some hand wavy explanation about inherent difficulties of two separate companies working together. It still doesn't seem like a good purchase for Tesla specially at the moment. Solar car and SolarC…

If you're interested in learning more about the reasoning for the SolarCity acquisition, I can recommend listening to the conference call recording about that: http://edge.media-server.com/m/p/makhvjt8

I see. It’s not just a bailout, to stave off SolarCity’s looming demise, though it is partially about that. It’s also expected to be profitable, because they could consolidate SolarCity’s sales operations into Tesla’s existing showrooms, and sell a complete package that’s more attractive than solar panels or PowerWalls on their own.

Not entirely contradictory with my previous guess; being profitable by laying off the sales department is basically saying the company will not soon be profitable by itself; but Musk is so certain that it’s a good deal for the respective companies that he’s promising to recuse himself from the vote.

The other interesting aspect is that they don’t expect the sale to close and the details to be official for several months. It’s actually near the beginning of the negotiating process, with due diligence and stuff yet to be done. Since Musk is a large shareholder of both companies, they decided to announce it publicly this early.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#674

Post by bambax » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:17 AM UTC

> Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it

In cities, everyone needs their car at exactly the same time, that's why we have congestions. When I'm not using my car, no one else needs one (that's an exaggeration of course but not by much).

So in order to get to sustainability, we need to understand why remote working (for instance) hasn't happened yet.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#675

Post by creshal » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:31 AM UTC

dexterdog wrote: post #496

creshal wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Tesla wants to be better than a Maserati or Jaguar, they need to observe how much nicer the interiors of those cars are. Indeed. I was shocked when I first hitched a ride in a Model S – the interior is more spartan and cramped than that of a 90s Japanese keicar (an impressive feat, in a sense) apart from the entertainment system, which had an uglier, clunkier UI than what any web developer could have drawn you u…

That's his sales market. Tesla wants fanboy buyers who will be upgrading within five years and that's not a bad thing. They are such a small player that they can do this. I used to lease SUVs on 2-year lease. They had massive incentives and very high residuals because the manufacturers realize they can sell you 5 cars every decade if you are loyal. I did it because the savings were awesome, but I eventually stopped b…

> Tesla wants fanboy buyers who will be upgrading within five years and that's not a bad thing. They are such a small player that they can do this.

I mean, sure, but you have to be awfully fanatical to put up with just how uncomfortable the cars are right now.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#676

Post by tikl1 » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:33 AM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #510

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…

> should it saves its owner or the kids in front of it? If a driver ever has to make that choice, they were going too fast in the first place. You should never be going faster than the stopping distance to the nearest blind spot, unless you're driving on a controlled access highway.

Yep that's the theory and sadly we all drive too fast at one point.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#677

Post by Kutta » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:57 AM UTC

paul_milovanov wrote: post #648

For a bit of a reality check, go take a look at Financial Times coverage of Tesla. Tesla will require regular infusions of capital over, say, the next 5 years. The only source for that is more equity, and to do that you need to actually start meeting some of your self-declared profitability goals. Up to now, Tesla hasn't. The tactic of diverting attention with "but look, here's this great awesome world-changing thing…

Musk doesn't primarily raise capital by selling prospects of eventual dividend. He openly doesn't care at all about profitability, he only cares about the oft-stated SpaceX/Tesla goals, and is pretty much willing to take any money and opportunity that comes his way, be it public rounds or government support. Musk raises capital by selling the prospect of the achievement of his stated goals. Part of the investors care about Musk's goals, and another part invest in Musk because they think that other people caring about Musk's goals sets Tesla's market value.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#678

Post by bruce_one » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 12:39 PM UTC

dilemma wrote: post #467

aschampion wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of intelligence, but of attention. Few crashes are caused by wrong inferences; most are caused by lapses in attention or impaired judgement. Computer systems do not necessarily suffer from those.

Computer systems can't handle unexpected events, at all. They can only do what they're told (execute instructions). They do not have judgment.

True....

But... I quite like the theory that a developer has spent time (whilst not under much pressure) analysing crashes and potential crash scenarios, and programming to accommodate; rather than me trying to make a good-and-safe decision in milliseconds in the heat of the moment.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#679

Post by kilre » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #270

akira2501 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans spend a million days each year in the hospital due to injuries sustained in motor vehicles. Sustained _due_ to motor vehicles. The base statistics also include pedestrian deaths. There's also a skew due to vehicles being multi-passenger. Interestingly, it _is_ the leading cause of deaths for Americans between 15 to 29 years old. For females 15-24 the motor vehicle related death rate is 8.7. For males 15-2…

Blind "cause of death" stats are fairly meaningless. I believe a better standard is to look at QALY -- quality-adjusted life years. That deducts relatively little for, say, a heart-attack at age 85 (you're already at your maximum life expectancy), but would put a heavy weight to, say, a pre-teen girl crippled by an auto accident, but surviving for life. https://plus.google.com/+MarlaCaldwell/posts/BUZH36tmjso http://…

Are you weighing the life of a 85 year old person against that of a pre-teen girl? Why should the life of the old person be less valuable? I don't accept the argument of an average maximum life-expactancy. That is pure, delayed statistics. What if the old person would have lived on a happy life for 25 more years, dying naturally at the age of 110? Weighing up lives against each other puts you in a difficult ethical position.

A similar case was subject to a discussion by the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. This was in response to a law that in the aftermath of 9/11 granted the military rights to shoot an airplane that got hijacked in order to protect the lives of ohers. The law was declared to vioalte the constitutional right for human dignity (Article 1 of the German Constitution) [1], expressing that all lifes are to be treated as being equal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftsicherheitsgesetz

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#680

Post by visarga » Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 1:49 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…

Maybe it shouldn't choose, instead, it should pick at random, based on the probabilities of survival. If both have the same probability, then both should get the same chance to survive. Otherwise there will be endless bickering about how to decide every case.