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

681–690 of 705 posts

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#681

Post by Tiktaalik »

int_19h wrote: post #661
Tiktaalik wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walking is good for your health. It's basically impossible to walk anywhere in the suburbs. Many don't even have sidewalks. In a car oriented suburb where you have to drive to literally every location you have to try extra hard to get even a basic level of exercise.

Again, you're pointing out issues that are about a specific implementation of low-density living, and not inherent to the concept itself. Why can't we have suburbs with sidewalks, for example? FWIW, the suburb where I live is on the edge of a wilderness area. There are several great walking, cycling and hiking trails within a 2 mile radius. Some of those are fairly steep, too, so even one mile provides a good workout…

Sure implementation details matter. There's lots of good, traditionally built, well crafted small towns (with sidewalks!) outside of major cities that are "suburbs." Typically when an urbanist is disparaging the suburb they're talking about the common strip mall, cul-de-sac suburb type that isn't this. There's studies that show that these poorly built suburbs discourage walking and negatively affect health. Pick up the book Happy City if you're interested. It discusses how the differences in design of cities has implications on people's lives

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#682

Post by drcross »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #659
BurningFrog wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me spell out the argument more: Instead of 100 people owning 100 cars they drive 5% of the time, they could own 10 summonable cars that drive them around 50% of the time. The first scenario requires 95 parking spots. The second only 5. There is still as much traffic on the roads, and as much transport work being done, but most of the space now needed for parking can be put to other use.

Why do you need autonomous vehicle technology to realize this? One could do this already by just taking taxis everywhere. This obviously doesn't happen that much. What is autonomous car technology going to change that will make this concept a reality?

A taxi driver has a salary of, let's say, $40k a year. When that's removed the cost to travel in an autonomous car will be so low that it's lower than most forms of public transport with the benefit that it brings you door to door.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#683

Post by vonmoltke »

dragontamer wrote: post #644
vonmoltke wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement you linked clearly shows a gross profit and net loss. "Selling, general and administrative" is not a cost of revenue, hence why it does not count against the gross profit. These are fixed costs not tied to the sales volume that covers the basic operation of the company, advertising, executive compensation, and other overhead costs not directly tied to generating revenue or R&D (since it is a separate li…

I'm combating the "aggressive expansion" meme that people don't understand. Tesla could stop ALL R&D they're doing and they will still be an unprofitable company.

You specifically referenced a line from the post you are replying to as such:

> > They make a net profit on their cars, but they are currently investing it all into aggressive expansion

> Citation needed.

The citation is right in the statement. They make a gross profit, which means they make a profit on their cars. The in turn spend more on activities that do not involve getting cars to customers. The activities that cause the company to have a net loss are not "cost of revenue" activities. Presumably the majority of that non-revenue expense involves expansion of the company.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#684

Post by lkbm »

paul_milovanov wrote: post #646
Hermel wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk founded Tesla with a vision to make the world more sustainable, and not with the vision to become obscenely rich. Being profitable is a means to an end for him, and not the other way around. And that's fine. The founders of a company are free to specify its purpose in the company's articles. There is no legal requirement that says corporations must seek profits.

Are you kidding me? Fiduciary duty ring any bells?

I'm a fiduciary serving on a board of directors, so yes, it rings a bell. We talk about our duty of care, our duty of loyalty, our duty of good faith.

Now, I'm on the board of a non-profit, but I can tell you that even for for-profit corporations, fiduciary duties consists of those three duties. There is no duty of maximizing profits. There's not even a duty of maximizing share prices, which is probably what you're thinking about.

To quote the US Supreme Court: "While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind."[1]

Tesla needs to state their goal as "make the world more sustainable" so people becoming owners can do so with understanding of that goal. Shareholders need to back this goal. But fiduciary duty means they have to serve the interests of their principals, not that those interests are profit over all else.

Let's not play this game of "there is only one legitimate goal for a corporation". That's not true, de facto or de jure.

[1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/13-354.html

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#685

Post by xchaotic »

dragontamer wrote: post #644
vonmoltke wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement you linked clearly shows a gross profit and net loss. "Selling, general and administrative" is not a cost of revenue, hence why it does not count against the gross profit. These are fixed costs not tied to the sales volume that covers the basic operation of the company, advertising, executive compensation, and other overhead costs not directly tied to generating revenue or R&D (since it is a separate li…

I'm combating the "aggressive expansion" meme that people don't understand. Tesla could stop ALL R&D they're doing and they will still be an unprofitable company.

I agree with, basically Musk is hoping that investors won't lose confidence in the company for several more years. However, this model has so far proven worked with Amazon and a few others and I think there is enough shareholders willing to keep the stock that long.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#686

Post by delazeur »

chc wrote: post #355
rjdagost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you will about their "antiquated" business practices, but Ford consistently does one thing that Tesla never does: it turns a profit

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?

Tesla strikes me as too much of a cult of personality, at least from an investor's perspective. Amazon is another business that reinvests all its profits and then some, but Bezos could walk away without destroying the investment brand. I don't think that's true of Musk and Tesla.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#687

Post by kevinnk »

MicroBerto wrote: post #533
akira2501 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're an American, you're twice as likely to die with a steering wheel in your hands as you are to die at the hands of a murderer. Human-driven vehicle deaths cause grave second-order suffering for families and friends - and hurt the economy. If you're an American you're more likely to die from suicide than you are from motor vehicle related injuries. You're more likely to be poisoned than to die in a motor veh…

> Compared to 1950, motor vehicle death rates have more than halved. This is due to safer cars, no doubt. I'd love to see some stats between 2008 and 2015, which I believe would show the abundant increase in distracted drivers thanks to smart phones.

That's easily Googlable. No such increase exists.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/USA_annu...

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#688

Post by MortenK »

dragontamer wrote: post #644
vonmoltke wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement you linked clearly shows a gross profit and net loss. "Selling, general and administrative" is not a cost of revenue, hence why it does not count against the gross profit. These are fixed costs not tied to the sales volume that covers the basic operation of the company, advertising, executive compensation, and other overhead costs not directly tied to generating revenue or R&D (since it is a separate li…

I'm combating the "aggressive expansion" meme that people don't understand. Tesla could stop ALL R&D they're doing and they will still be an unprofitable company.

Why would you consider R&D to be the only expansion expense?

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#689

Post by barumrho »

ams6110 wrote: post #101

My points of skepticism: 1. Semis . A typical long haul semi gets well under 10MPG. In some cases not much more than half that. They are heavy and need a lot of energy to move. A Tesla Model S weighs 4650 lbs and has a range of a couple of hundred miles. A semi truck can weigh up to 80,000 lbs. That is a lot of weight to get rolling and a lot to pull up a grade. Semis spend a large part of their time driving at highw…

If you assume that trucks can be fully autonomous, then cost efficiency may be achieved by more trucks carrying less weight since driver wage is no longer a part of the equation.

Re: Master Plan, Part Deux

#690

Post by jacalata »

int_19h wrote: post #647
jacalata wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not the implication. The implication is that each person wants space around their house, but would ideally be close to all the amenities they visit (like restaurants, doctors, groceries) in order to avoid wasteful transport - think a manor house with a village around it. But instead everybody builds space around their house and now they all live a long way away from everything they need to get to.

Right. So people are willing to live further away from amenities for the sake of having more space. Seems like the desire for more room is pretty strong. Why, then, is dense urban living preferable? Why shouldn't we be trying to start with the premise that less dense is better, and design from there?

Because travel is polluting for a start. When we get cold fusion teleportation with no environmental externalities then everyone can live 100 miles from work if they want. When we don't have to carpet the world in roads and internet cables and have people drive past their house to deliver mail every day they can live as far away as they want. When they aren't burning fossil fuels to heat 40000 square feet of living room then they can live in the biggest house they can build and I won't care. Until all those things are true, I'm going to argue that dense urban living is better and we should be encouraging it or at the very least zoning for it and allowing it.
Post reply on HN