rickdeckard

True (the autocorrect stole my 's' of 'decades'...)

Not to disagree that this Tesla event took place, but there was also a "Nikola World" event in 2019 where Nikola presented its product to an audience of 1000+ people.

It's surely not AI, but so far it is little more than all these Jetpack demonstrations of the past decade...

That's true.

But prior to any of that, I'm fascinated by how irrational it is to think that this jumping car is even remotely feasible to participate in any kind of traffic.

That's why I assume that the general public expects that Tesla has already solved all these problems, as they otherwise wouldn't announce such a product.

In reality, we apparently have entered times where they could present a teleporting machine and start a 200k USD pre-order with little to no public scrutiny.

That's also true, but I meant to say something different. I am referring to this sheer blindness to the rationality of what's being presented.

This event was like Disney presenting a mass-production rollercoaster you can pre-order for your home, but the general public seems to glance over how utterly irrational this is.

So far companies did alot of fundamental due diligence before making such an announcement (and the prior R&D investment!), because the consequences could be fatal.

The average consumer apparently still assumes that this due diligence phase was passed, thinking it's impossible that a known company presents something that big it cannot deliver on...

There is also a much closer defined "completion" state in hardware, with responsibility also more distributed across suppliers.

You have a committed spec of one component, connected to the committed spec of another component, with committed maximum deviations.

All that is fixed, so you engineer for possible permutations and mass-production. (it's still a massive feat, I'm not downplaying it. But it has a defined completed controlled state)

In software this is much more fluent. You may have a spec of a library and the APIs you use, and your app might otherwise be static.

But you're handing alot of what you do to an OS, which juggles everything and continues to change over time. That API you're calling may not even have full control over the modules its interacting with.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The gap between what's presented as ready-to-order and the actual practical feasibility of the product is so big, it wows people because they are still accustomed to presentations of actually consumable products.

And also your point: It is a company presenting a jet-pack to actually sell a premium back-pack under the same name.

They invested in the engineering of 1-10 jet-packs, to sell 200-2000 backpacks...

On takeoff you can stabilize against opposing forces, so especially without the weight or inertia of a driver it is quite straight (rockets also don't need to stabilize on take-off).

But once that phase is overcome, how stable is the car actually mid-air?

It looks to me that they added the barrel-roll because everything else would have looked worse...

the jump over the cars I saw also had a barrel-roll as soon as the thrust of lifting off was over.

Was there a second jump without a roll?

It's apparently not fuel but pressurized air being refueled by the car itself.

> "Will it even be maintainable?"

Probably doesn't matter. I don't think it will be permitted on public roads anyway.

The presented variant is invite-only, so I guess it will be made to put in the garage of some (Saudi) investor who commits a billion dollar investment...

Just curious: Was there a demo of a stable straight jump as well, or always barrel-rolls?

It must be incredibly difficult to keep the car stable while mid-air at low speeds, I suspect it wouldn't look that "elegant"...

What's so disruptive on these kind of events is, that companies always used to do development for PR-stunts, or to show off their capabilities and vision for the future, but never at this scale of pure engineering investment.

Drawing a parallel, manufacturers presented rollable mobile devices already a decade ago, modular devices with replaceable components, etc. The archives of Nokia and Ericsson (and others) are full with these kinds of products. Car manufacturers did the same. They presented a vision, not a commitment to a product because there is much more to this than just "being able" to build it.

But it was never economically feasible or sensible to do this at SUCH a scale of engineering cost, and presented with the unrelenting confidence of "this will be yours in two years", despite all the fundamental roadblocks still to overcome.

It appears that this is the most disrupting aspect of their presentations: People are not used to being presented a "vision" of such a scale with so little regards for practical execution.

They like the journey they are taken on, and willingly fill all gaps and doubts with "they wouldn't present this if they didn't think of everything already"

I wouldn't be surprised if the presented "invite-only" variant will mostly be aimed at Saudi investors, and they will get an invite if they invest a billion into the company.

This would even be a sensible choice for Tesla, because it will put that car in a garage far away from public scrutiny...

(thinking just about all the debris damage-potential of those thrusters here, not even any potential quality issues)

Was there any demo showing the car stabilized mid-air?

It appears like they always did a barrel-roll because the car is simply not stable after take-off...

Old World: "The owner was very cruel, so at one point the citizens rioted and brutally murdered him"

The USA: "See, there once was this weird Janitor..."

Although to be fair, "it was built on an indian graveyard" was a gift that kept on giving alot ;)

In other cases, yes. Not here.

Sharing information:

In Europe, the airspace above a property is not owned by the company owning the land.

It's owned, monitored and guarded by the local government. Missiles aiming at a data center would first penetrate the national airspace of the country, as well as unlicensed drones do. This is a violation of national airspace and a crime against the country.

Drones are still a weak spot of national security though, as we keep seeing all around the world. But governments in Europe have no doubt that it is their responsibility to secure their airspace, and there are EU-wide activities to fix that.

> "Basic physical security is already way above basic at ordinary datacenters in seemingly safe locations."

From all that is known, this incident is about vetted access control and having a sufficient secure perimeter around your facilities.

In both US and Europe, a data center is considered a critical infrastructure and needs to adhere to the maximum physical and digital security requirements, which is much more substantial than this.

In this case, again, two people apparently penetrated security and put equipment on fire.

This might as well be the warehouse of a supermarket. It's a gap in their security that this happened, not a lapse of the government.

> "If this was true, this PE strategy would eventually stop working as business buyers realize PE businesses aren't good to buy, so the PE firm can't sell them, and it becomes unprofitable to run the whole playbook."

Not necessarily. Following Clayton Christensen's theory, a business would acquire another company either for its Resources, its Processes or its Business Model.

In that theory, a business (which also has all these elements) cannot aim to acquire all three elements from outside and fold them into their own company (because it would lead to TWO companies, not ONE), they need to focus on one, maximum two of those aspects.

If a business buys a company from a PE before or close to their stated revenue/profit-goal, it's a company currently delivering on those metrics.

None of this however states that all three elements are in a condition for the company to continue to compete on its own. But: Some elements can create additional value if they complement the business of another company (which is in most cases the goal of a buyer)

Toys-R-Us is a telling story. The PE acquired the company for >1bn USD and then put 5bn of debt onto their balance sheet.

So the company had to pay interest and PE management fees until it finally collapsed.

I'm certain there will be investigations from the government, not only due to the suspicion of a foreign state attack but also on the grounds of Starlink not sufficiently securing their premises.

It's not the responsibility of security agencies to prevent two guys from entering the premises of a critical infrastructure provider with gasoline.

They may have prior intelligence to act on this, but it is the operator of that facility who has the responsibility to ensure a certain level of security and resilience of his own premises, and this is strictly defined.

-

> "Are Oil tankers and Cargo ships supposed to have air defense?"

No, this would turn a civilian into a combatant ship, causing it to lose the civilian protections of the UN (The Ocean is governed by conventions of the United Nations, it's a different jurisdiction)

And still, oil tankers and cargo ships have requirements to secure themselves against piracy, terrorism and even warfare, mandated by the international maritime organization.

Let's not exaggerate. Two persons apparently entered Starlink's premises and put their equipment on fire.

It doesn't take a gatling gun to prevent that, basic physical security and stronger incident-handling will suffice.

> "There's so few industries that get touched by PE and come out better for it."

Yeah, I've been observing that a few times already as well.

A bit off-topic, but:

I believe that's because there is a conflict of perspective between a company's and a PE's goal.

Both parties agree i.e. on a certain profit as the joint goal.

It's like both journeys are straight lines which cross at some point (profit!) but diverge again afterwards.

So while:

1. the company focuses on its line of becoming a successful and profitable entity, and healthy for the travel beyond that crossing,

2. the PE is on a different trajectory, focused on pulling in that crossing as fast as possible, with little care what happens beyond that point of intersection.

In my observation this can work, but only if the relationship is dissolved in-time and the company can continue its journey.

But in itself the whole concept generally gravitates toward the PE's trajectory, which leads to the company being consumed until the crossing, and ripped into pieces after it.

> "And the government has a responsibility to prevent attacks by foreign actors on critical infrastructure."

I replied explicitly to "crime", not "foreign actors", let's not conflate those just for a straw-man argument.

Preventing attacks by foreign actors is part of National intelligence and military, this is an entirely different matter. Both are entities facing outwards of a country, not inwards.

But more importantly, their job is not to fulfill the required security duties of a critical infrastructure company to prevent physical/digital attacks against the operation and resilience of its infrastructure.

And even IF they protect such a company in case of an imminent external threat, this is not a replacement for the legally required security compliance.

The critical infrastructure act (US) and directive (EU) mandate strategic measures to take explicitly against terrorist attacks, even natural disasters.

The government won't come to your company and do this job FOR you, they will lock you up and, in the EU, charge you up to xx% of your global annual revenue if they find out you're not doing it.

Worth to note here that in the US, the rapid rise of private-equity-owned Dental Support Organizations (DSOs) has institutionalized strict daily production targets for employed dentists.

This corporate structure leads to "overdiagnosis" and vastly more complex procedures than necessary

Related investigations:

[0] https://www.oralhealthgroup.com/oral-health/u-s-investigatio...

[1] https://www.ovid.com/journals/jaim/abstract/10.1001/jamainte...

[2] https://youtu.be/IEMQIldQKak

In this case they even might come in and check if you didn't take sufficient actions to prevent this bad event.

An individual will be informed how not having a lock on the door was a failure in individual responsibility to prevent harm against yourself/others.

But an operator of digital infrastructure might get audited for compliance of the critical infrastructure directive/act. In the EU fines for such violations can be as high as €10 million or 2% of global turnover.

Even more in this case: The business Starlink is operating is classified as critical infrastructure (in both EU and US)

As providers in the business of critical infrastructure they need to comply to the HIGHEST physical and digital security requirements, which includes taking preventive measures against acts of terrorism.

Not much is known about this case yet though, it's possible that their preventive procedures failed but their resilience procedures worked (was Starlink down?), and they reported the incident in compliance to EU CER and NIS2.

Either way, I'm sure they'll get an audit for EU CER compliance now, which will create a list of mandated immediate actions...

> "It's even the government's job to protect against crime"

It's the government's job to protect against crime, but the duty of an individual to take proactive measures against becoming a victim of crime ("Individual Responsibility").

--> They won't put a policeman in front of my house just because I decided to not have a door on my house.

-

Equally, (and MUCH more explicitly), it's the legal duty of corporations to protect themsselves against crime, especially if they provide critical infrastructure.

--> They won't put police all over my facilities just because I didn't invest in access-control.

--> In this case, I am not in compliance with the law and considered to invite(!) crime

The EU already classifies digital services like those provided by Starlink as "critical infrastructure".

Operators of such services have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes. This is the duty of every player in this business.

The government has a job to stand up against a potential adversary of the country (be it other countries or local terrorists), and in case of an attack on critical infrastructure the government will also step in to protect it, I agree on that.

But it doesn't have the job to take over Starlink's (or whoever's) business operations and make it secure. That is the job of the company, long before it even appears on any map of a potential adversary...

> "Because internet is a major resource for the population. Its like water or electricity."

Yep, the EU classifies this as "critical infrastructure". Operators of such services (including water, electricity and digital infrastructure) have to comply to the highest level of the EU CER-directive for Physical and Cyber Security. This includes physical shielding, strict access controls and resilience against physical sabotage/terrorism as well as natural disasters or severe climate changes

I agree that the government should step up on against the military adversary on a country/regional level, but even then it is not their job to step in and do the job of Starlink as a provider of critical digital infrastructure.

A player in these markets has an obligation to secure his own facilities, otherwise every new market-entrant can undercut all competitors by not investing in security at all, until it's big enough to become a national risk and the government steps in to secure its business.

> "because this isn't 'vandalism', this is an act of war by a foreign adversary that is now happening on European and NATO soil on a daily basis"

Agree, the government should step in and (finally!!) take actions against those foreign adversaries.

But this doesn't change the fact that it is not the governments role to protect the facilities of a infrastructure provider against sabotage (or even acts of terror), a company providing such services in the EU has to comply to the CER directive and secure its operations.

There is a very basic reason for that: I could undercut every provider on the market by not investing in security and resilience. while everything works well I will beat all my established competitors and gain a significant share of the market.

This creates a risk of critical infrastructure stability for the citizens of that country. So if inevitable issues in resilience arise.....I demand the government to step in and take over my operations...?

Both need to act in compliance with local laws and mandates, it's not the job of the government to fill the gaps.

Corporations have more duties of different scale than individuals.

Starlink is a provider of Digital Infrastructure, and is already classified as "Essential Entity" under the EU CER-directive.

As such, it needs to comply with so-called "Physical-Cyber Convergence Requirements", which entails

1. Perimeter and Access Defense

2. All-Hazards Mitigation: Designing infrastructure to resist natural disasters, severe climate changes, or physical sabotage/terrorism.

3. Vetted Personnel: Utilizing mandatory background checks and security clearances for operators working in sensitive zones

Not much is known about this incident at this stage, and I'm sure the government will conduct own investigations. But regardless of the outcome, it will be the duty of Starlink to secure its facilities.

This is not how this works, corporations are not people.

As a provider for digital infrastructure, Starlink is required to comply with the EU Critical Entities Resilience (CER) Directive, which mandates strict physical and digital security as well as business continuity in case of crisis.

The nature of this incident indicates a security issue on the site of Starlink, which is their duty, not the governments.

They may have not been in compliance with this directive, which puts local infrastructure and citizens and risk.