mcot2

Because its not true at all. Most major Tesla incidents of any kind make headlines from fires to accidents on AP. You should do some basic research on the topic.

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/10/21/22738834/te...

The FUD is _insane_ with Tesla.

Edited to remove snarky reply of:

“No, you should do some basic research first.”

The FSD beta is no additional cost over the (currently) $10,000 package that adds additional AP capabilities and hardware upgrades. My computer was already upgraded for example.

There is. Tapping the brake pedal.

As someone who is actively participating in the beta you couldn’t be more off base in your assertions. It sucks to see progress stifled by people that have no idea what they are talking about. With the thousands of people actively using the FSD Beta safely, show me significant evidence of an increased level of accidents that have occured. You can’t because the evidence does not exist.

Correct, was just going to post this. This is why sous vide is so fantastic.

I think we look at this all wrong. Cybersecurity is not only a technology problem but a human problem. We need to spend a lot more resources tracking down the sources of these attacks from a human perspective and treating it like a military/diplomatic issue if stonewalled by foreign governments.

Domestically we need to really increase the punishments for these and other computer crimes and step up enforcement significantly.

Bad anology because the system is broken all the way down. If what you are saying is true a bridge engineer wouldn’t even be able to build a bridge because their are no materials in the world to build a safe bridge out of.

This is just terrible and has nothing to do with being a feature of a browser. How sad. Glad I don’t use Microsoft products that much.

What does everyone think of prototext format.

Tesla just replaces whole packs now. They might have a tool to diagnose a bad battery but they don’t replace modules, they only replace entire packs.

As such their next gen pack is a single structural member of the car and likely will not be replaceable at all.

It has zero affect. They will sell every single vehicle they can make for a decade. If by then, people think the design is weird they will build a traditional truck.

The hard part is scaling battery cell production. The shell of the vehicle is easy to change out if people are not buying it.

Both the delivery van and truck/suv will be production constrained by battery supply for many years to come. Honestly they should just build whatever has a better margin with the battery supply they have until they are not cell constrained anymore.

This comment is not supported by the facts. Tesla has more orders for Cybertruck than Rivian has for their truck or Ford has for their truck. Regardless, none of these companies will be able to build enough for several years to come, maybe even a decade. Each year there are millions of trucks sold just in the United States. Initial volumes for these EV trucks are only projected to be ~50,000/yr.

So your comment is actually moot since all EV truck companies will sell as many as they can produce, the styling does not matter at all.

Yes, very good point. Renewable enegry generation really isn’t the struggle these days, it is transmission from areas with high solar and wind potential to areas with less viable solar and wind production.

It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world. This did have some good data for back when it was written of course.

* An efficient EV will do less than 12kWh/100km these days.

* Utility scale solar pv cost declines have been dramatic. It is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy.

* Developments in deep water off-shore wind have led to much larger turbines which are capturing more wind energy for longer periods of time.

* Large scale batteries are now viable as a storage mechanism for renewables and are going to rapidly replace things like peaker plants.

* Lots of new research is happening with Nuclear like thorium/molten-salt reactors which will still be important for baseload generation.

Thus far there isn’t really a no-nonsense EV with limited tech and phsyical buttons for everything. Once you go the big center screen route you are kind of locking yourself into an infotainment computer that will be obsolete long before the cars powertrain is and an interface that will change over time like a modern smartphone.

Once you know those truths, Tesla isn’t a bad choice as their computers are at least partially upgradeable and the interface changes have been decent from my perspective (although this is hugely subjective).

I have no idea what the point is but the answer is 42.

I’ve always wondered about this after seeing him recite his story a couple of times. A talk for Google is on youtube.

The section about Apple is quite wrong. Their products were held back by semiconductor technology as far back as I can remember. Some examples were never getting a laptop running with a G5 and for sure with the early phone and tablet prototypes they wanted to focus on effciency in a small package. Buying PA-Semi was integral to their product roadmap.

The stuff about twitter I am not sure. You certainly do not need kernel expertise or to use the JVM at all to build a similar product these days. It seems they could be just held back by legacy technology choices that don’t really benefit the product and which competitors probably won’t need the cost of supporting.

Companies should always be evaluating how critical their in house technology is to thier business and/or future product roadmap.

Solar + Battery + EV - No need for a pump, just sayin…

IMO I think your hiring is broken. You should look for things like willingness to learn and ask about previous jobs to see if the candidate experience stagnation. Is your company really getting a decent ROI after only 2-3 years of an employee in a specific role??

Have you not noticed corporations and the very weathy fund almost all candidates? What you are saying only happens when we get money out of politics.

I think its more sinister then that unfortunatly. The GM deal was concocted to give almost zero risk to GM but crucially it was intended to give new investors confidence that a major player looked at NKLA and did due diligence.

Because it would be illegal for Girsky to use his influence to have GM say they did due dilligence thus attracting other investors to the slaughterhouse.

This person is a troll. The Tesla semi is not “barely functional”. They have been spotted driving all over the place and doing real world testing on actual highways and in cold weather. Production was already to be started except for a shortage of battery cells (due to the extreme popularity of their existing cars and powerwalls/megapacks) which they are working to remedy.

Whatever you think of them, the Tesla fanboys have been proven more right then wrong and the likes of Matt Levine (and Bloomberg) are just bitter at this point.

A lot of EV startups like NKLA are going to come and go but very few if any will be able to replicate Teslas success in the long term. Retail investors are not always stupid, many of the same Tesla investors have been shorting NKLA since it came on via a spac offering.

Personally I don’t always love everything Elon does but I view him in many ways as a modern day Edison. It’s always funny to me to go back and read stuff said about Edison while he was alive. I very much color my view of Musk by historical perspective and try not to get lost in present day minutia.

One of the NKLA board members Steve Girsky was previously a Vice Chairmen at GM and likely facilitated this deal. I think it needs to be investigated further and Mary Barra should be forced to provide the evidence of due dilligence that GM collected during the closing of the deal.

Tesla invented the AC motor which was used in the first roadster so thats why they named it that. Very logical…

And Utah wants to build a pipeline to divert even more water.

Good luck: https://youtu.be/rWpui1P9cAY