134 karma · joined June 18, 2018
you can contact me at ["won't", but without the not, which also happens to be the abbreviation of a common english male name] at thorbjorn444.com
In my experience, everyone who is informed acknowledges that ML is very powerful, but the algorithms are widely accessible.
Instead, it seems that investors are looking for a company that protects itself with a proprietary source of data that allows for results that are unobtainable by competitors. Also, to a lesser extent, domain expertise that allows them to tailor existing ML architectures specifically for the problem at hand.
I'm being pedantic by posting this though, because their approach involved learning the synthetic data generator simultaneously with the classifier/whatever that you're training. That is not relevant for a static synthetic data source.
The issue is that they manually labeled the test data, and then pretended they didn't.
The competition objective is to provide an ML solution that produces labels for the test data, showing your work with code (to prove you didn't just hand label the data.)
Instead, they did manually label the data, and hid their manual labels in the id column of that external data source.
Most new pipelines are inspected currently with "drones", called smart pipeline inspection gauges, or smart PIGs, that use ultrasonic or magnetic flux to measure the wall thickness over the entire length of the pipe [1]. The PIGs are propelled through the pipe via the working fluid in the pipeline.
I think creating a similar device to travel in the annulus of cased pipe would be much more difficult. The centralizers used to keep the inner pipe centered in the outer pipe would pose a pretty big obstacle. Plus, there would be nothing propelling it forward, and communicating with the device through a steel pipe would be very difficult.
[1] https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/FSSmartPig.htm?... [2] https://kwikzip.com/ (example)
[1] https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mastering-real-time-stra...
Producing 55k Model 3's per quarter [1] will definitely help with the cash flow situation. I think the biggest questions that determine if they can be self-sustaining are:
- Can they ramp up Model 3 production quickly enough to meet the debt obligations they have accumulated to date?
- What will the average Model 3 margin be, given the price distribution from 60k to 35k?
The bull case [2] aligns with your basic assumptions that the 3 will add significant cash flow that allows them to get over the "debt maturity hump". Note that their analysis does include other sources of cash flow (energy credits, remaining line of credit).
The bear case, basically, disagrees. They suppose that there will not be sufficient demand for the higher end Model 3, given increased competition from vehicles like 2019 Jaguar I-Pace (69.5k, 240mi); Chevy Bolt (37.5k, 235mi); and maybe Hyundai Kona EV (? $, 250 mi). This could then put Tesla into a negative spiral, where shrinking orders cause their accounts payable to not keep up with their lagged accounts receivable.
Also it's worth noting that they are probably on track to spend 2.5B in capital on PP&E this year based on 1.25B in first six months [3], and spent 3.6B, 1.3B, and 1.6B in the previous three years[4]. Adding in another 0.75 - 1.0 in selling/general/admin and R&D costs per quarter, on top of the cost of producing their cars and servicing their debt, makes even the 3B/yr in Model 3 gross profit case less of a slam dunk for Tesla success.
I think it really could go either way at this point, and the next six months will be telling. Elon does has a tendency to just make things work, but I am taking a risk here and siding more with the negative case.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/09/tesla-on-path-to-profitabili...
Honestly, on paper there isn't any reason why Tesla can't just sell additional shares to the market in general, not necessarily just to Elon, in order to get enough money to cover their upcoming debt payments. Elon has publicly said he won't sell shares because Tesla won't need the money because it will be profitable[1], but some people are skeptical [2]. Maybe he just doesn't want to walk back his statement?
Also as previously mentioned, he can't sell all of his Tesla stock without paying back some of his personal loans.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/musk-says-tesla-wont-be-sell...
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/teslas-upcoming-debt-payment...
Also, much of his liquid pocket money has come from loans backed by his Tesla Stock. This could be a problem if Tesla stock price drops too much, as the stock he has pledge is required to be no less than a multiple of the money he has borrowed. [3]
Disclosure: I am short Tesla.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/equidate-spacex-27-billion-v... [2] https://money.usnews.com/investing/stock-market-news/article... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcollins/2018/05/18/musk-has-...
The Berkshire-Hathaway shareholder letters are very entertaining and informative, and reading Warren is probably the best way to deeply understand the last ~40 years of US business climate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...