matthewaustin

Imagine what will happen when we combine decentralized car use with autonomous driving. Uber is already cheaper than driving yourself around, but think how affordable it would be if no Uber driver was needed at all.

I disagree with your assessment that Tesla doesn't have any new technology that will improve their efficiency over Nissan.

Tesla builds their own powertrains and battery management systems, which are good enough that other automakers license or purchase these components from them.

I also believe that Tesla has efficiency advantages due to the high degree of automation they've built into their factories, as well as the lack of dealership markups. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is excellent compared to many other automakers, which leads me to believe that they will also be able to offer more for less with the Model 3.

The 25% number for Tesla is from the most recent quarter, where they received no revenue from selling emissions credits.

Their profitability has actually increased quarter to quarter even as their emission credit sales have dropped to zero.

Prominently showing Game of Thrones content in the images, even though the Fire doesn't support HBO Go? Way to be deceptive, Amazon.

This is an incredibly misleading title. Tesla owners will undergo no inconvenience, since the item being replaced is the wall adapter, not any parts on the car.

Apple's idea behind their App Store is that every app is reviewed to make sure it's up to their standards. They also provide a myriad of built-in UI elements and a Human Interface Guide that is supposed to direct developers in the design of their app interfaces.

One could postulate that Apple can fix third party apps by altering the available UI elements and interface guidelines. In fact, this type of alteration was done for iOS7 to guide developers into updating their app aesthetics to match iOS7.

But does it support do-while loops?

"Waiting for hours for it to charge" is not accurate.

Actual On-Demand Refilling Stats:

- One hour at supercharging station

- Two minutes at battery swapping station

Tesla's Falcon doors are not the same as Gull-wing doors. They have an additional joint which minimizes the horizontal space required, so you won't hit the car next to yours while getting in and out.

Would much prefer to be able to see the actual number of each thing, even if it's at the bottom.

I instead found myself trying to extrapolate the number by staring at the "since you loaded this page" number and observing the difference as it changed each second.

Energy is always lost as you move up the food chain, because no predator can capture 100% of the energy stored in their prey.

Consuming plants is not as efficient as photosynthesizing, and consuming animals is not as efficient as consuming plants.

In this case, the cows burn energy from the food they consume for as long as they're alive, meaning it's a physical impossibility for the meat produced from them to contain as much energy as the food they consumed.

Unless you're claiming that raising livestock violates the laws of physics, but that's an entirely different argument.

You could measure by calories, since there will not be a huge difference in the number of calories consumed by people with different diets.

Giving an incredibly quick example, wheat and ground beef have roughly the same caloric density

Wheat: http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/whole-grain...

Beef: http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/ground-beef...

But since it requires numerous pounds of wheat to create one pound of beef, you are losing overall caloric density.

It wouldn't matter how environmentally unfriendly it was to cultivate land as long as livestock are fed cultivated crops, since they require more than one pound of food to produce one pound of meat.

If x = environmental impact of cultivating crops

then R*x = environmental impact of raising livestock

where R = pounds of feed required to produce one pound of meat

Now if we raised our meat differently, such as only on grass-fed pastures, then things might look a lot different. But in the US at least, factory farming and animal feed is the norm.

I disagree with your claim that veganism and vegetarianism can't be backed by logical thinking. Producing meat requires significantly more natural resources (land area, water) and produces significantly more pollution (methane, ground contamination) than producing fruits and vegetables.

Here is an example comparing the amount of water needed to irrigate various crops compared to the amount needed to raise beef.

US Corn Production: 9 gallons water / lb corn

US Wheat Production: 14 gallons water / lb wheat

US Barley Production: 26 gallons water / lb barley

US Alfalfa Production: 31 gallons water / lb alfalfa

US Beef Production: 441 gallons water / lb beef

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/71/4/818.full....

Global Spinach Production: 2 gallons water / lb spinach

Global Potato Production: 4 gallons water / lb potatos

Global Banana Production: 13 gallons water / lb bananas

Global Apple Production: 18 gallons water / lb apples

Global Lentil Production: 64 gallons water / lb lentils

Global Cashew Production: 121 gallons water / lb cashews

Global Almond Production: 252 gallons water / lb almonds

http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011...

I could look for more examples, but this took me about half an hour already, and I think it pains a rather compelling picture by itself. The difference would be less extreme when looking at pork and poultry, but there is still a stark contrast.

Tesla is hard at work taking the knowledge they've gained developing the Model S and applying it to create a ~$30k car, which will be meant for the every man.

Until then, though, I think they deserve some recognition for beating out every car Consumer Reports has tested in their very first attempt at a sedan.

Ah, well if you get to make up your own definitions of profitable, then I suppose they weren't.

But if you use the actual definition of profitable, meaning they had more revenue than expenses in this quarter, then they were profitable.

Congratulations - you are the 1% who this model fails for. The rest of us will be just fine, since 99% of us don't travel more than 250 miles a day.

And for the couple times a year we need to take road trips, we can rent a luxury sedan with the money we've saved on fuel costs.