Getting Back to Work
tesla.com
tesla.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23126517
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23127552
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23129216
Not sure this one is going any better. Celebrity frenzy multiplied by pandemic rage is producing as wild a burn as we've seen on HN.
If you're about to comment here, could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html first and make sure what you're about to do is in keeping with the intended spirit of this place? Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/business/coronavirus-elon...
As opposed to linking to single sided tweets and blog posts from Tesla and Musk.
I don't think that means what you think:
>a person who is generally of good character but lacks manners, education, or style.
Over the years I have asked many other people about this phrase when it came up in conversation. Most of my acquaintances only knew of the "needle in a haystack" meaning. These people went to Berkeley, Stanford, etc. and worked at FAANG or are doctors/lawyers.
I have wondered if it's a geographic thing — most of these people have spent most of their lives in California. Perhaps the east coast is different?
...which inevitably results in a drop in quality and substance and a rise in partisanship.
HackerNews thrived for a long time by keeping under the radar, but what we really need now is a new mechanic that rewards dispationate analytic content and substance over partisanship meetoo content.
Behavioral guidelines and moderation don't work long term and don't scale.
"A safe haven for free thinkers and polite politic" is very much in the eye of the beholder, methinks.
That's not to say there isn't a decline, just that it's hard to discuss objectively. The dominant factor in such perceptions is randomness; more precisely, the streaks that occur in randomness that feel like they can't possibly be random. That explains why people have been saying the same things in identical language for so long. You could even make one of those guessing-game sites out of such comments. For example: 2010 or 2020?
The community is full of ideologues to the point where the comments are most often just predictable talking points being regurgitated ad nauseum. Everyone talks about the intelligent conversation, and it does happen, but far more times it’s just the same clichés repeated over and over.
(2010, of course, or the question wouldn't have made sense, but you see the point.) A decade is a lifetime in internet dog years, so HN already has survived these concerns long-term. If there is a downward trend, it's a slow one. Some of the things we've done to stave it off (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...) must have done something.
Other old threads:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144390
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926604
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1550898
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1934367
If I list all the 1990 articles warning about Global Warming, does that somehow mean it's not a real and serious problem?
If people keep seeing signs of apocalypse for 30 years, they always say the same things, the apocalypse never comes, and there's a simple alternative explanation, that weakens the case for apocalypse, no? At a minimum the burden is on 2020 to show how the same perception now is more objective than it was in 2010, or 2008 for that matter, when people were also saying this. The simple explanation is that internet users always perceive things this way.
I strongly (if sometimes hypocritically?) agree. A critical mass of people who acted to preserve that culture was helpful in the past.
What can be done going forward? Do you have any ideas for how to create this mechanic?
I think the problem is the audience that's been cultivated on here. Not the topics.
You have a topic that's has real world effects. Reality demands us to act contrary to a particular narrative, and this forum can't handle it.
Apathetic, intellectual sophistry only works when you don't have any actual problems to worry about. The celebrity and this forum have the same personality. And people don't want to admit they're wrong.
If all you have to say about what you're saying is that the government can't arrest you for it, maybe you should rethink what you're saying.
This is one of those cases where it's super helpful to have one thing you're optimizing for, i.e. to know what kind of site this is and what it is not. In HN's case that's clear: we're trying to optimize for intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It's not the only kind of website, nor the best kind, certainly not the most important kind, maybe not even a good kind—that depends on what you like. But it's this kind. You can call it "apathetic sophistry" if you want, but that just means you don't like it. No problem—there are other places to like.
Since HN is a specific kind of website and that's what the community comes here for, we need to preserve it for its focus. There are always strong winds and flames blowing about, and it takes work and care to withstand those and keep this place itself. What good would it do to let it burn?
p.s. Would you please stop making accounts with trollish usernames? We ban those, because such accounts end up trolling every thread that they post to (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...). Doubly so when there's a prior history of abusing the site and getting banned here.
That's not what's happening on this particular topic. Submissions of higher quality articles which present both sides of the issue are getting marked as duplicates of low quality, one sided tweets from Musk.
Can you please define for us intellectual curiosity so that we can recognize it and its distinction from apathetic sophistry? Note that the oft-quoted rules aren't descriptive but prescriptive/normative.
Also telling people that disagree with the ethos of the website to go away isn't very productive don't you think? For better or worse we dissenters are part of the tech community and we're entitled to advocate for what we feel a commons like hn should be like.
In that limited sense, telling people to leave who unproductively disagree with their position is quite productive.
I take issue with this line. That is your opinion and you're injecting a negative motive into this thread. Your warning would have the same effect with this removed.
In a sane world, we'd let workers choose between going to work and staying home without undue penalties either way, but that's not going to happen in 'Murica.
Additionally, social distancing doesn’t work [2] and is a suggestion being made by non medical professionals to non medical students.
[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-s...
[2] https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200414/cdc-covid-19-can-sp...
A lot of this can be attributed to the history of the 20th century and the different effects of communism in these respective countries. This may even be reflected in the differing attitudes towards tertiary education and vocational school.
It’s a very complicated issue with a lot of history.
If you want to put high tariffs on imports in the IS, then the IS industry would re-emerge also - though the price of cars would double.
others [1] would argue that it was american auto manufacturers' anti-union zealotry (and the decisions they made in the production process to combat the unions) that lead them to shoot themselves in their own foot.
[1] Schwartz, Michael, and Joshua Murray. Wrecked: How the American Automobile Industry Destroyed Its Capacity to Compete. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.
Nevermind the numerous serology studies from multiple different countries which show exposure to the virus is highly prevalent with most individuals being asymptomatic. Nevermind the multiple recent studies in the U.S. which show the same. Nevermind the numerous prison facilities, ships or other confined areas which show it being highly contagious yet most asymptomatic. Nevermind studies that show Unless you have multiple co morbidities, if you're under 60 you probably at a greater risk of heart disease than the covid. Nevermind that numerous studies site that transmission from children to adults is low and risk to kids themselves has been pretty low.
No no.. Let's close the schools to keep the children safe. Let's close houses of worship and other sociologically important places. Let's close small businesses but let's keep big businesses open. Let's allow the ppl to continue to take public transportation to their big box store as well. Let's indiscriminately quarantine everyone, we most certainly can't have them going to the beach or other outside areas where it's well known UV-C kills the virus and transmission risk outdoors is tiny. Let's jail salon owners operating at home and surfers in the ocean but let's release criminals for politically relevant taking points. Let's make sure we don't quarantine or even test anyone in nursing homes even though they are begging the NY governor to allow it (gotta get to 100k somehow).
Yeh no. Every time i see someone outside exercising in mask and gloves i know exactly how and why we get a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package that gives 86k to politicians per month for childcare during this crisis. They're essentially the droid army from clone wars series, just wearing masks.
I get why the govt is doing it. It's about power and control. I can say that i never thought scientism would get such a hold on the people though. If i were musk i would've already been gone from California. And if i were the governors in Texas I'd perma-ban any emigrants from NY or CA.
But putting that aside, it sounds like you think that politicians are making this seem way worse than it is, in order to exercise more power and control over people’s lives. OK, not the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard, even if there are some huge glaring holes in the logic there.
What about the scientific and medical community? Are they in on this too? Because I certainly haven’t heard an outcry from epidemiologists and virologists and physicians that we’re grossly overreacting and that the virus isn’t that big of a deal. Why not?
It’s ironic, because to my mind, your first paragraph perfectly captures my impression of your position: misinformed but fervently clinging to a religious position that doesn’t seem to match the view of the actual experts.
Go strawman, go! California and NY both have plans for slowly reopening in the comings weeks or months with various metrics guiding the timelines.
There is a statewide timeline and counties can open slower/faster. There's a list of criteria for counties to consider. This is a slide deck summarizing things at a state level, it notes a variety of metrics that are being looked at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Update-on-...
It even has a checklist with the targets that must be met before a county can lift quarantine.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Here-s-a-checkl...
[2] https://apnews.com/2c69fe294f73a1120c2dad4a738966e3
[3] https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.4-Report...
- 1.5 tests per 1000 people per day - No deaths in the past 14 days - Some max number of cases per day that's really low - Stockpile of PPE (I forget the exact numbers) - A minimum number of contact tracers (I think also 1.5 per 1000 people, although it may be an order of magnitude lower)
The bay area has a more stringent set of guidelines (minus the number of deaths that another person linked to).
If one of my 75 year old parents (whom I love dearly) dies from COVID-19, that is less of a tragedy than if a random teenager in my city does. My parent would have lost fewer years or “years of quality life” than the teen.
For the same reason, IMO, if there was only 1 kidney available, an 18 year old should get it before a 50 year old who should get it before an 82 year old, if all else is equal.
In that limited way, I do think the lives of the young have more value than those of middle age or the elderly.
There's just no way we can assume that age is the great qualifier.
The problem is: 1. The virus causes permanent damage in people. Even if they live and survive they’ll be dealing with the damage for a long period of time. Some lung damage can take months to heal. 2. The virus immunity exists in the short term immunity of the body. Which means depending on the person in 6 months to a year - Surprise theyre reinfected. We haven’t seen reinfections yet, but we have proven immunity is short term and not life long. 3. This effectively means the risk of this virus becoming a yearly thing is exceptionally high. Not to mention herd immunity isn’t as useful. Due to the fact we’ll always have people losing immunity and becoming sick.
What this essentially means is that 0.5% number (which I think is wrong, but I digress) is a yearly number and will compound over time.
And yes - After a few cycles the percentage (should) drop due to our older folks dying off. However, we’re also going to see people with organ damage 6 months on being reinfected which could result in a higher mortality in itself.
For now, we want to drastically change the outcomes; for example, a month ago, you would have been given chloroquine, which doesn’t help but has side effects; maybe in a month we would know about therapies that reduce mortality and long term effects by a significant percent (or maybe not :)
Tons of testing and contact tracing would probably let the US end up with fewer people infected.
I agree we want to change outcomes, and flattening the curve is part of that. Delaying infections until better treatments is part of that. But we can't commit to waiting for a vaccine, and we can't commit to waiting for a good treatment. We may never get either.
What I think is that we sorta can and sorta should; we need to figure out the trade-offs, as best as we can, and decide what measures we want to keep for another year (will vary by country/state/city).
If you estimate that the lockdown takes 50% of life enjoyment away and each of us gets 50 healthy years of self-directed adult life, a year of lockdown is equivalent to sapping 1% of total life enjoyment. That’s not exactly the same as 1% increase in population deaths in a year, but it’s comparable IMO.
Well, I'm glad we can agree on something.
The factory worker opinion is largely irrelevant, in this context.
What Elon is pushing for seems...no different than what Germany has been doing for at least two weeks? If I’m to understand, people are saying they’re gonna cancel their orders because the company is arguing for a response that is in line with a country (even praised by the American media[0]) that has done a decent job with its pandemic response? This doesn’t seem to be the hill to die on just yet.
Reminds me—not being from there—I’m always amazed how warm southern California is in the winter compared to say, many parts of the mediterranean. I mean Los Angeles in January is warmer than Tehran. Too bad the factory isn’t down there.
The play should be to avoid a shutdown when the second wave hits, no? You look at the warm far eastern asian countries: Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia. They have a combined population of 580 million with less than 2000 combined deaths. 7 times the population of Germany with a fourth of the deaths of Germany. If they had four times the deaths it would still be impressive, considering they’re mostly dealing with it with less healthcare infrastructure.
I do think warmer places would fair better when the second wave hits in the fall. Southern California would be better for a factory. But Texas in that regard would work as well.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/an...
The positive is that Washington state acted early and the Bay Area followed quickly which resulted in lower hospitalization and deaths. Tech’s quick move to WFH probably helped slow the spread. This was driven by the Washington state health officials who worked with Microsoft. Bay Area tech companies quickly copied WFH.
The negative is that health officials manipulated the public like they were children: “ Constantine told me, “Jeff recognized what he was asking for was impractical. He said if we advised social distancing right away there would be zero acceptance. And so the question was: What can we say today so that people will be ready to hear what we need to say tomorrow?” In e-mails and phone calls, the men began playing a game: What was the most extreme advice they could give that people wouldn’t scoff at? Considering what would likely be happening four days from then, what would they regret not having said?”
Since the initial lockdown, it’s been more of the same. Slogans have changed: flatten the curve turns into prevent the health care system from being overrun which turns into driven by data. Lockdowns get extended: May 4 turns into June 1st and maybe beyond.
Takeaways: 1. Health care officials were right to initially lock down. 2. Health care officials and government don’t respect the public. 3. This dynamic is coming home to roost. 4. Health care officials think this is going to last a long time.
The US is large, but mostly insulated, so this was feasible. But it would have required EVERYONE wearing masks, and no delays in locking things down (one day of delay in an exponential situation is like 4 more days of lockdown at the other end)
Saying something direct often will change the outcome and have the opposite of the wanted response. For example:
Two men both buy flowers for women they like. The first man tells her the truth, "I bought them hoping it would increase my chance for sex". The other says, "I thought you might like these", while actually thinking I want to have sex. Which person was better at marketing themselves and have a higher probability of a better outcome?
This is actually from "Alchemy: The Surprising Power of Ideas That Don't Make Sense", https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26210508-alchemy.
Manipulation has no concept of bad or good but is required in our society to help prevent people from throwing away good ideas.
Spreading misinformation in the name of good.
The most clearcut evidence of this was a world renouned epidiamologist admitting exactly this on the podcast This Week In Virology a few weeks ago. I will add the source (also in my comment history) when I get home.
Announcing a short lockdown then extending it (when it was clear from the beginning) is more problematic - basically, giving people false hope because they know that telling people to lock down for 3+ months would lead to a large number of people either rioting or ignoring the rules. Conversely, I suspect that some of the reductions in lockdown strictness are there to reduce the risk of dissatisfaction/loss of compliance, not based on what is safe.
The biggest problem are the outright lies (e.g. about masks not helping). This may have helped alleviate the shortage, but at what cost? The next time authorities say "you don't need X", people will remember and depending on other evidence, fewer or more will take it as "I definitely need X".
As a specific example, schools in Switzerland will reopen tomorrow, with the government claiming that this is safe because children don't spread it much. This may or may not be based on science (there are contradicting studies supporting either side), but because I know that I cannot trust the official statements, I am assuming that the motivation is letting more people get back to work, and expect a spike in cases. Thus, I'm restricting myself less now than I would be willing to if I could reasonably expect the situation in three weeks to be better, not worse, than the situation now, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
The issue of masks is/was more complicated than just an intentional lie.
Medicine has a rather well-known history of really bad ideas that, at their time, were perfectly reasonable ideas within the knowledge and commonly accepted paradigms of their time. Bloodletting, arsenic, later high-dose Vitamin C (and after that, D), Resveratrol etc.
It took until the middle of the 20th century for randomised trials to become the gold standard of medicine. And even today, "evidence-based medicine" is still distinct enough from just "medicine" to require that term.
If you're not in medicine/biology you probably consider some logically sound idea based on your understanding of a system a useful tool (i. e. "people are interested in dogs, so I'll start a podcast on dogs and people will listen"). In medicine, this is crazy-talk! Unless you have meaningful statistical data, you do nothing except try to somehow get data!
This instinct can, very rarely, go overboard. And that's possibly part of the answer here: there really wasn't any meaningful data on mask use for this sort of purpose. Therefore, the standard instinct kicked in, just as it would have for suggestions to eat lots of Garlic. Or, you know, Hydroxychloroquine.
The second issue is that for N95 masks, it is actually true that laypeople are extremely unlikely to get them to fit correctly to be useful. In a healthcare setting, this involves a mandatory training/fitting that includes a special chamber with high concentrations of some odourant or fog to find leaks.
Then, I'm not 100% sure if this idea of a lie intended to preserve masks for healthcare workers originated with the medical establishment, with politics, the media, or the public. But I'm almost certain that this narrative ("they are saying masks don't work to protect supplies...") was "out there" at the time. Even if somebody was trying to manipulate the public in such a way, somebody else along the route seems to have exposed this strategy at the same time. I wouldn't even be surprised if it turns out the same person/group was the source of both, basically telling us "masks don't work very well, one might even say not at all (wink wink), please let them go to those that can make the best use of them".
Masks really don't help protect you as an individual. There isn't a lot of data available, but it has been studied (Ars has a good overview here [0]). The main take home message from most of the studies was that infection rates were largely unchanged or worse when people wore masks -- one theory being that there was a false sense of security. Contaminated air will simply get past any non-medical grade N95 mask (and N95 masks that aren't properly fit won't protect from viruses). So telling people that masks didn't help was completely accurate.
But, when you have asymptomatic carriers, the masks help protect other people from you. They do this by limiting the distance contaminated air travels from your mouth/nose. So, masks are only effective when they are used by everyone -- and in the context of asymptomatic carriers. Also when people are able to be distant from each other, masks really don't help much more. It's when people can't be distant that they help -- but again, they aren't meant to protect the wearer.
The health authorities (and the media) in my Midwestern city have been very clear about the motivations for masks. Unfortunately, communicating this reasoning has not been as effective. People tend to be more concerned about protecting themselves than the others. (Which is understandable)
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/should-you-wear-a-fa...
Also my understanding is that even cloth masks somewhat protect against droplets.
From the Ars Technica article above (which I believe is citing this paper: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf)
> Wearing cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection, the authors found. They also noted that in their test, the cloth masks were only 3 percent effective at blocking particles.
Ask yourself this question -- why do surgeons wear masks when operating on patients? It isn't to protect themselves from the patient... it's to protect that patient from the surgeon. If the patient is infectious, then a surgeon wears a completely different set of protective gear to protect themselves.
And N95 masks only work when properly fit. I haven't been fit for an N95 mask, so I don't know what size would be right for me. If you don't have the right size/type of mask, it can be more dangerous for you than if you didn't have a mask. Why? Because when you have a mask, people can feel completely protected and stop taking other precautions. If you are keeping isolated from others, there is no need for a mask.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Cordova-N95-Approved-Valved-Part...
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Milwaukee-N95-Professional-Multi...
The two stories below are in opposition to the hypothesis that n95 protects others rather than the wearer. Also this: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3074351/coro...
And
Surgical masks
Also called a medical mask, a surgical mask is a loose-fitting disposable mask that protects the wearer's nose and mouth from contact with droplets, splashes and sprays that may contain germs. A surgical mask also filters out large particles in the air. Surgical masks may protect others by reducing exposure to the saliva and respiratory secretions of the mask wearer.
At this time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved any type of surgical mask specifically for protection against the COVID-19 virus, but these masks may provide some protection when N95 masks are not available.
N95 masks
Actually a type of respirator, an N95 mask offers more protection than a surgical mask does because it can filter out both large and small particles. The name indicates that the mask is designed to block 95% of very small particles. Like surgical masks, N95 masks are intended to be disposable. However, researchers are testing ways to disinfect N95 masks so they can be reused.
Cloth masks
While surgical and N95 masks are in short supply, cloth masks are more accessible and reusable. Although cloth masks and N95 masks have different purposes, both are intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. A cloth mask is worn to help protect others in case the wearer has the virus. An N95 mask helps protect the wearer from getting the virus from others.
from the referenced study. The study doesn't say that cloth masks do nothing, they just say medical masks work better, they don't compare them to N95 masks either. There's other variables not controlled, the specific kind of virus etc.
As a thought exercise, I'd like to put myself in the shoes of that public health official and see what my responsibilities are. I'd know for a fact that, without extreme measures, there will be a huge death toll. And I'd have working experience to know for a fact that, if I come right out and advocate directly for those extreme measures, the public will revolt against them.
So here's the question to answer under this thought exercise: how do I respect the public? It is my role to mitigate this public health disaster. How do I do it?
There's a libertarian or anarchistic streak in US society that views anyone exercising the kinds of roles considered in that thought exercise as an illegitimate use of power over the individual. I have a hard time with that, because it seems to me like it precludes all the tools we use to answer crises like COVID, all of which require people to play those kinds of roles.
Some people do seem to feel like accepting social authority of any kind is too parental, whether it's expertise or civil order. That may be more behaving like children than being treated like them, though.
Every major news outlet has become blatently partisan in recent years (many long before). NYT eliminated their ombudsman years ago (3 years ago I think), and television media has always been even worse. Is it really that surprising when people don't trust what they hear and gravitate towards conspiracies and bullshit?
The public has become hyper allergic to expertise. The repurcussions of this is pretty scary.
That's by design. There's no winning play for the line worker, because providing one reduces the returns for the investors. If it wasn't already obvious before this, the corona response by the US has thrown into sharp relief how stacked the deck is - from top to bottom - against the common worker.
Compare to the system in my native Belgium:
- a month of 100% paid sick leave, paid by the employer
- followed by five months 60% of wage in sick leave, paid by social security
- protected from redundancy within this 6 month period
- if made redundant afterwards while still ill after 6 months, obligation for the employer to pay (significant) damages
- 60% of last wage sick pay afterwards, capped to a generous maximum, unlimited in time as long as the illness lasts, paid by social security
- high quality healthcare regardless of employment status
- jobless benefits when healthy without a job, unlimited in time, recently made somewhat degressive
This makes for less of a power imbalance between employers and employees. Huge short and medium term social stabiliser. Certainly not without its flaws, but great to have in place during these times of severe economic crisis.
It is true that there are systematic exceptions - especially people born rich.
Unemployment just tells you people have a job, and nothing about how much that job is contributing to the collective resources.
P.S. The link you gave 404's here.
*Note that firing an employee for not performing is quite difficult and the tax bracket at the top is outrageously high.
The employer can fight the filing, but in the situation of COVID-19, it's reasonably easy to prove it was a workplace based infection (multiple people will get sick).
Side note, when you get payments from the local health benefits service, there's a %90 chance it's being paid by the employer to the health benefits service, which then transfers it to the employee
Specifically, near the end
> Meaning, setting up a picture — it’s called anti-politics — the picture — but a very specific kind of anti-politics — you have to establish the image, you know, get into people’s heads, that the Government is the enemy- the Federal Government. State Governments are okay, because they can be sort of controlled by business anyway, so it doesn’t matter. But the Federal Government is sometimes a little too big to be pushed around, so it’s the enemy. And it cannot be, nobody can dream of the possibility, that the Government is of, by, and for the people. That’s impossible. It’s an enemy to be hated and feared.
While I don't necessarily disagree with it being the state's role to decide when and how to open back up, it does have its drawbacks. Companies can and (if Tesla is any indication) will use their influence with these states to open back up. The only thing left giving them pause is public opinion.
Sure people buy the car because it has cool gimmick features and is electric, but when you buy a car for $30k+ there's a reason you spent that kind of money: the car is a form of self expression (whether one would like to admit it or not.) When one buys a Tesla, it indicates that they are with the times, both technologically and socially.
I think the sort of individual that buys an expensive vehicle to, at least in part, broadcast that they are an environmentally-conscious person would be turned off by a company strong-arming a county into relaxing regulations, especially when such deregulation is perceived to put that company's workers at risk.
While the facts of what public policy is best can be debated, it seems inevitable that Tesla's brand will suffer from this.
This is the most obvious thing he can do and he can't even meet that promise.
For the majority of people who can't afford a $30k Tesla, they will simply buy what they can afford and what will meet their needs.
Put another way, if it was real extortion, other states would certainly not be welcoming the company to come hither.
If that plant has a record, it is one ignoring safety.
> A review by Forbes found 24 investigations by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors from 2014 to 2018, resulting in fines for 54 violations. These include new penalties that haven't yet hit the national online OSHA database, and they nearly double Tesla's fines over the last five years, to $236,730.
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
A plant with the degree of _change_ that Tesla has on its product line would likely have a very very dynamic production floor - resulting in more violations.
It also seems that the OSHA rules were not designed for Tesla's unique processes, so many of those violations, if you actually read them, are not relevant to Tesla and have nothing to do with safety.
This problem will go away as their plant process matures and as they are given the opportunity to comment on the next revision of the OSHA automotive plant rules.
Also, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, so it's hard to argue that safety was actually compromised here.
Also, why should OSHA redesign it's rules to fit Tesla's "unique" processes?
And to your last point about injuries: 1. Why should a death or serious injury be the indicator? 2. You're wrong about serious injuries, as a cursory search would show:
https://www.revealnews.org/article/tesla-says-its-factory-is...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/12/tesla-gigafactory-safety-pro...
One way would be if increased production floor changes increased OSHA inspections. More inspections yields more discovered violations even for a constant background amount of actual violations.
Safety was compromised due to the Heinrich/Bird safety pyramid, or accident triangle:
> It shows a relationship between serious accidents, minor accidents and near misses and proposes that if the number of minor accidents is reduced then there will be a corresponding fall in the number of serious accidents. […]
> The theory was developed further by Frank E Bird in 1966 based on the analysis of 1.7 million accident reports from almost 300 companies. He produced an amended triangle that showed a relationship of one serious injury accident to 10 minor injury (first aid only) accidents, to 30 damage causing accidents, to 600 near misses.[3] […] The numbers used by Bird were confirmed by a 1974 study by A. D. Swain, entitled The Human Element in Systems Safety.[3] The theory was later expanded upon by Bird and Germain in 1985's Practical Loss Control Leadership.[1]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_triangle
The more minor things happening, the greater the probability of a major incident happening, leading to greater chances of a death down the road.
The whole point in going hard on the small things is to help reduces the odds of things escalating because it's easy to get sloppy in one's thinking over time, and you can get 'risk creep'.
* https://risk-engineering.org/concept/Heinrich-Bird-accident-...
I'm not familiar with Tesla assembly lines, but my understanding is that they are highly automated with complex robotics. This would be a typical example of a system where many safety risks are systemic and more strongly dependent on design errors than on worker safety behaviours, which is exactly the type of system in which the structuralist interpretation of the Heinrich-Bird pyramid ("reduce the small stuff at the base of the pyramid and the stuff up the top will drop down and disappear") is really inappropriate, as it can reduce attention paid to safety at a system design level.
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-t...
1) Elon Musk has made many comments downplaying COVID19, and
2) In photos (even in their Tesla Return-to-Work Playbook), the Leadership Team doesn't wear face masks (only the low-level workers do).
The second issue is big. (1) They're clearly taking risks themselves (no PPE would be okay for a selfie, but these are clearly professional photoshoots with an AV team). (2) If leadership doesn't role-model safe behavior, you can't expect everyone else to follow.
In abstract, I agree Tesla should be the poster child for safely re-opening. In practice, if Laurie Shelby, their VP for health and safety, can't be bothered to even wear a cloth face mask to a photoshoot on how to reopen safely (I can't make this stuff up), I have serious reservations about Tesla having the in-house expertise to run a COVID-safe shop.
There's also the possibility of blowback. If Tesla re-opens without proper precautions -- and there's every indication they'll do that -- and those improper precautions turn out to be insufficient, that will make it that much harder for everyone else to reopen.
90% of safety is in attitudes, in being careful, and in being detail-oriented. The exact same high-level precautions can be 100% safe if executed well, and 0% safe is executed for PR or CYA. It seems Tesla is doing the latter (which is ironic, given their attention to detail everywhere else).
2). Is there really a need to over-analyze a photo shoot like that? High ranking officials usually don't wear masks (See Trump or Trudeau when they are talking to the press).
If it's about total number of deaths - we know that know and even if the number is lower, it means the lockdown worked, no?
If it's, for example, new information becoming available about covid virality, that will be irrelevant, as people have to make decisions now with the information available now.
Re 2) it's expected and important for leadership to set the tone. Arguably what Trump and Trudeau are doing (if what you say is true) is wrong.
This is going to be entertaining.
On top of that, Elon Musk is trying hard to get his workers back to work. If it means moving to a new state where workers are actually allowed and afforded work, it would be a net gain for the workforce.
Does his motive necessarily matter? Or more specifically, is his motive reason enough to essentially spite him?
If Elon wanted to cure all disease in every single on of his workers (because that would mean they would never take sick days, and thus produce more) does that mean you would oppose the curing of disease in Elon's workers? After all, Elon's motivations are purely selfish in this case as well
Now maybe you want to argue that curing disease in workers and allowing them to work are two different things and don't match up at all. Are they though? Jobs ensure quality healthcare, pay for the roof over your head, the food on your table, the pain killers you take for your bad back, etc. A lot of being 'healthy' and having a job (in the US) are intimately related.
I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my example above that can be quibbled over; however, my question still stands: is someone's motivation reason enough to spite something that could be a net good? I do not think so.
You may wish to argue that "the workers don't want to go back to work, it's worse for them to do so": are you one of these workers; do you know what the consequences are of them not being able to work versus the consequences of going into work?
Someone's motivation is enough to lose respect for them, especially if it's under the guise of something else. It's conniving to deceive in order to get your way.
So lets say we consider the action a net good, we can totally support the action, recognize the bad sides, and still lose respect for the person for the way they have conducted themselves.
If I have made the argument that we must respect Elon (or someone who's motivations are selfish) that was not my intention and I will need to reflect on how I present my ideas in the future.
> So lets say we consider the action a net good, we can totally support the action, recognize the bad sides, and still lose respect for the person for the way they have conducted themselves.
It seems to me like we agree!
The way I see it is this:
Forming beliefs is not a morally neutral activity.
It's likely that for some definitions of "belief", Elon Musk does really "believe" that COVID-19 isn't that serious, that closing his factory wasn't and isn't necessary, that it will be a net benefit his workers and society to have the factory opened up.
The question is, when he was forming his beliefs, what was his goal? Was his primary motivation to find the truth? Was one of his primary motivations to safeguard the wellbeing of his employees?
Let us suppose hypothetical universe A, where Musk genuinely came to the question with a concern for his employees, fully intending to keep his factory closed if that's where the data pointed; and that in this universe, after looking extensively into the data and the arguments, he came to the conclusion that no, the experts are wrong: the virus was not actually dangerous, and/or that it would be safe to open his factory.
In such a universe, we can forgive him, even if he's wrong, because he came to his beliefs in a laudable manner.
EDIT: Furthermore, in this universe, if an intelligent person such as Musk has taken a genuine look at the data and concluded that opening is safe, then -- well, maybe we should consider the idea that it actually is safe.
Now let us suppose hypothetical universe B, where Musk is annoyed with the setback: First of all, it sets back his timeline for Tesla taking over the (automotive) world, advancing EV technology, and so on; second of all, it's far from clear that Tesla as a business is "out of the woods" in terms of sustainability. He wants to believe that opening the factory is safe, and he allows this desire to filter out any evidence that disagrees with this belief.
In such a universe, we can blame him, because the act of allowing your desires to twist your belief -- particularly when the lives of so many people are at stake -- is morally wrong.
Furthermore, in such a universe, Elon's actions are actually hypocritical: He claims to care about the welfare of workers, but in fact his actions have been controlled by a disregard for their health and safety.
EDIT: And along with the above edit -- if Musk's primary motivation was not finding the truth or protecting worker safety, but finding a justification for what he wants to believe, then we don't need to think as hard about his arguments.
Now the question is: Given what we know of Musks past actions, what he's said in the current debate, and what we know about the evidence available to him in general, which of those hypothetical universes is closest to the truth?
I don't know Musk personally, and haven't even followed him that closely as a celebrity; but from what I have seen, I tend to find universe B more plausible than universe A.
That whole business with calling the diver who saved a bunch of kids’ lives a paedophile was disgusting and it amazes me that anyone has any respect for Musk as a person anymore.
Not only that, but these types of "normal people vs the evil government" statements only add fuel to the trumpian narrative that corruption and misinformation are everywhere; and all of our institutions are worthless. This is such a consequential position to take and yet he seems to do it without even thinking about the repercussions of his words. Shame on him!
Of course, he's still a acting ignorant / stupid, but I'd guess that a certain lack of social skills - empathy in particular - is quite common among startup founders.
Just think about his public tweet ejaculations which frequently decimate his investor's 401k portfolios. Part of his appeal is how he's so forthcoming about his thoughts; but this is proving to be a double edged sword. As days continue to pass his words feel more and more like an instance of Hanlon's razor, he's not actually trying to project a world view that makes sense; it simply doesn't matter to him. And these externalities which are laying in his wake also don't matter. You will be hard pressed to find a billionaire that's that careless.
With Texas reopening the race is on to control the national narrative of COVID. If Texas successfully reopens without being forced to retreat later, it will only strengthen the WH narrative that much of the economic damage has been self-inflicted by blue states, and that further aid would be unfair to red states.
Sweden's has basically said the costs of shutting down until a vaccine is found (or until the numbers are low enough you can test-and-track and impose quaruntine or testing on all visitors to the country) are worse than just letting it run its course.
Bare in mind that all government decisions are heavily biased by the optics of that decision, as seen by the average voter when passed through a media filter. If it genuinely cost more QALYs to implement shutdown+exit strategy than just "attempt mitigation with focus on elderly and delay things until you've got enough equipment", it would still be very hard to argue that viewpoint in front of the media.
Arguing "The economy is more important than grandma!" is very difficult, requiring a dive into life expectancy, quality of life metrics, isolation side effects, economic depression side effects, QALYs and what exactly an "economy" even is (and, importantly, what it isn't, like all the non-captured-by-gdp utility gained by just hanging out with friends in the park). Can you imagine a politician trying to argue that grandma is a necessary sacrifice in front of the cameras?
Admittedly, making such an argument isn't impossible: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8281007/amp/Forme...
Stamping out COVID19 worldwide simply isn't practical, so isn't the omly option to just live with it? We manage to live with far worse things, like ageing.
And I believe that a vaccine can succeed where natural immunity doesn't. For example, there are viruses where you only gain partial immunity from contacting the disease, but can end up with a worse form of the disease if exposed again, like with chicken pox (varicella) leaving the door open to shingles (zoster).
As for corruption and misinformation being everywhere - the truth of that is evident. This doesn't make our institutions worthless, but it doesn't make skepticism prudent.
He's not very brilliant though. He may be good at his niche (although I'm not sure what that is judging by the quality of Tesla vehicles), but if you are a subject matter expert in a field that he pretends to know, it becomes very obvious that his knowledge is extremely surface-level and the equivalent of "I read Wikipedia on the plane".
Actually I think his brilliance is in convincing the eager Silicon Valley masses that he's brilliant and that they should invest in his companies - regardless of how poorly they continue to do.
Best build quality or after-sales service? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The quality of Tesla's cars are fine, much better than before. Unless what you are talking about is from 3-2 years ago? If so, you're out of date.
Actually I think his brilliance is in convincing the eager Silicon Valley masses that he's brilliant and that they should invest in his companies - regardless of how poorly they continue to do.
Poorly continue to do by what metric? As far as I know as an interested follower, Tesla and SpaceX are doing fine.
It beats doing nothing at all, and using some of the things you cite (oil, made in China) is close to impossible to avoid (for now at least), but that doesn’t preclude anyone from saying they disapprove of Tesla and won’t buy one of their car because of what they think of the ceo. Especially when the ceo is the brand.
Global warming is orders of magnitude more important than COVID19.
So me buying a non-Tesla electric car will have much the same effect as buying a Tesla with regard to the future of personal transportation? Regardless of how many cars the other manufacturer is currently producing?
I wonder what signal I’m sending by not owning a car…
I honestly don't know either way
Not so feasible in a car-centric country, but that's a other problem that needs to be solved.
Maybe Tesla is no worse or better than the other companies. That’s one issue for me, but there is another. He doesn’t appear to be in control of himself. It leaves me with very little confidence in a company that I would be spending ~70k on their product with the expectation of high quality, and good support for 5-10 years.
Then the media quietly drops it because people just don't care about workers or the pile of corpses under Elon's "I'm saving the planet and taking us to Mars" narrative. Elon unleashes his troll army and they hammer the journalist or anyone who is even mildly curious about the work conditions at Tesla.
Tesla cars are the blood diamonds of EVs.
---
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
I truly hate to say this, but it really smacks of a solipsistic kind of attitude: that Tesla's problems matter more than other companies', and that anything that gets in its way, whether pandemics, short-sellers or lawmakers, are just an irritant.
This, of course, is besides the highly contentious notion that anyone will "benefit" from a public health order being overturned.
In this case, they point to their experience dealing with exactly this process in Shanghai, and running the Gigafactory over there for 3 months successfully since reboot. That gave me pause - they've seen this and dealt with it firsthand already, which isn't something nearly anyone commenting on this can say. Maybe they're lying, but that feels like a pretty serious unearned accusation.
I think everyone agrees that we should restart businesses if it's reasonable to, but it doesn't seem like anyone is evaluating what "reasonable" means outside of "what the local government is saying". And then you have to wonder why we're suddenly assuming the state/city government is competent in this case.
I don't know where I stand, but I know that I'm not assuming Tesla is in the wrong here. I know far less than they do and it would take a miracle to convince me that the local government is properly thoroughly evaluating the situation and making nuanced, reasonable decisions (as opposed to simply reacting to the political environment). It's increasingly difficult to figure out how to proceed, but at some point we have to decide that we're able to open businesses back up (with safety measures that we decide are adequate). It's scary, but we can't just wait around for a vaccine forever - it could be years out.
It's just a fundamentally hard problem.
I'd like to add that in the Joe Rogan interview, Elon's main point is not "let's open Tesla factories, I don't care that many people will die" like some seem to imply here on Hacker News. His main point was that the data is we have on covid epidemiology doesn't say much and we "need to cleanup the data", which seams totally reasonable to me.
Decisions are being taken by government (through epidemiologists) with extremely poor data. The data simply does not hold the information needed to take a proper decisions about the lock down. And when it comes to pandemics & politics this lack of information means that the only option available is to go for overly cautious. Decisions about the economy that can (prematurely) make or break the economy permanently. As in: the end of the US/Western empire forever.
It's very easy for the media and people to jump onto the "omg, you only care about money" bandwagon whenever someone argues that maybe we should think this lockdown thru. It's also unoriginal, unsubstantiated and unproductive.
What we know is that certain outlets report that 281,147 deaths in the world were attributed in part due to symptoms potentially related to Covid19.
This is a sad terrible time, but the likelihood that those numbers mean what you think or say they mean is low in my opinion.
> There's hundreds of thousands, probably millions of businesses that have been shuttered by COVID-19, and yet, of course, who should it be but the constant media circus that is Tesla--whose hit is miniscule compared to the restaurants, hotels and other businesses that actually can't earn revenue--that decides to publicly take it to the courts.
is a fair complaint. It's clearly not. It's basically the Starving African Children argument. Throwing bad arguments around (even to support a good cause) is not conducive to quality discussion, and your criticism (via emphasizing how good the cause is, with an attack on Tesla thrown in, neither of which is pertinent) of someone pointing this out doesn't help.
I think it's important to argue precisely on Internet forums where our discussions don't directly translate into policy decisions and this is the hill I will die on.
As a swede said, not eliminating deaths just shifting them in time.
Yes, spreading the disease is a benefit to the population.
It's not at all clear that the lawsuit will fail.
A handful of officials made the decision. If they overstepped--and after 7+ weeks, restrictions need to be justified and non-arbitrary--the only remedy is through the courts. I'm not saying he's right or not, just that if the county were to have the lockdown unjustifiably long, the courts would be the ones to make that call.
I don't know if I'd personally use the word "abuse", but a post in another forum noted some OSHA statistics:
> In fact, data collected by Forbes shows that Tesla has accumulated more than three times the number of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations that its top 10 competitors amassed from 2014-2018.
* https://www.thedrive.com/news/26727/tesla-had-3-times-as-man...
> A review by Forbes found 24 investigations by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors from 2014 to 2018, resulting in fines for 54 violations. These include new penalties that haven't yet hit the national online OSHA database, and they nearly double Tesla's fines over the last five years, to $236,730.
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
Also, this comment is pure advocacy. We come here for analysis and depth.
Seems like you're just spamming without staying relevant to the topic here.
A lot of people in USA are living paycheck to paycheck, and it's reasonable to say blue collar workers are more likely to be in this category.
I would say that forcing people to stay home and not make money (and thus not being able to pay for rent and food) is an abuse of America's fundamental human rights.
But on a more serious note, it is great that we are seeing thought leaders counter-act the media propaganda frenzy regarding this situation. The "big evil businessman" know best that our economy is on shaky ground, and that continuing social distancing measures will immeasurably damage America's position as a global power (and thus its citizens security and freedom) more than a few tens of thousands of deaths will. I, for one, am proud to go back to work. Staying at home isolated is merely fomenting unnecessary chaos and social unrest.
In defense, Tesla did send an e-mail to the workers saying they could stay home if they are at risk, which is hats off to them. Is it legally defensible to use this if they get fired? I hope so.
Man, I really liked Elon, until he started downplaying and dismissing the risk of COVID. It just didn't come from solid scientific reasoning in my view. Taken out of context, this lawsuit would have had me in full support of Tesla. But I now really have to question his motives behind employing people at Tesla.
Then he went out and tweeted "tesla stock too high imo" and I was like yo. Paid more attention to him and began liking him more and more.
e.g. if you don’t like brand X Milk Chocolate and vow never to buy it, you’re not boycotting brand X but rather just exercising your right as a consumer.
“I don’t want my personal life to be [around] a bunch of guys who are living in a state of delusion, who happen occasionally to win big,” Munger told Daily Journal’s shareholders. “I want the prudent person.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/charlie-munger-ideal-hire-wo...
"is bold and brilliant, and he swings for the fences."
and ...
"People like that get some remarkable results,” Munger continued. “Sometimes they get some quick failures. I haven’t the faintest idea how Elon Musk will turn out, but he has a considerable chance of success and considerable chance of failure. He seems to like it that way."
Wait a second, by all measures this billionaire is _already_ successful, no? How could anyone claim the contrary?
Will he be reduced to a mad man shouting on twitter, with nothing left to his name but failed enterprises?
Or will he carve the moon in his image?
It’s more like being a medieval king: to the extent that you’re the shareholder, your wealth is the “nation’s” wealth; your guards are paid for out of your pocket; and you can be drawn into conflicts that lead to you losing everything.
It’s that latter part that I’d be worried about with Musk. He took a very big gamble with SpaceX, and if one more launch had failed in the early years, he would’ve become a mere footnote on someone else’s Wikipedia page. The concern is he might make similar gambles in future.
Of course it is understandable that Berkshire Hathaway wouldn’t hire anyone like Musk. They are as far from tech and VC as any investor could ever be. I admire Buffet and Munger, but the guys are 90 years old, I honestly couldn’t care less what they think about IT industry.
Well, then you need to tell me your age, to know whether I should care about what you have written above.
It’s terribly ironic that they think Musk is just lucky considering Munger and Buffett were able to invest during one of the most prosperous times in American history.
Admit you’re passed your prime and move on. Make way for innovators instead of valuing reading a 10-K and preferring conservative companies you believe are undervalued, or distressed companies you’re going to try to twist their arm into a deal (as Buffett did during the GFC with banks).
Elon doesn't just like to take risks, he would probably agree with being described as "risk obsessed". If your investment strategy is risk aversion and stability, you should avoid Elon. That isn't an outdated perspective, nor is it arrogant in any way - Elon would probably agree with it. The last sentence was an exaggeration of his bias when evaluating any operator to drive his point home clearly.
It's fairly difficult to imagine that Charlie Munger thinks Elon Musk has just gotten lucky for his entire career, and unsurprisingly he isn't saying that in this example. I'm all for fairly criticizing out-of-touch arrogance, but I can't see it being the case here.
Indeed, we'll see if Tesla survives, not only the coincidental depression, but also the multi-hundred-billion-dollar war chest being leveraged against them by the other car companies with a century more experience each, more connections, and broader reach.
It's a bit early to be calling the game is all.
Like reimplementing a distributed multithreaded C++ processing cluster in NodeJS to make the codebase more accessible.
Or like those fashionable people that try to replace a grep shell script with a multi-node ElasticSearch cluster in the cloud, at only 100x the operating costs.
The knowledge that novel does not equal unquestionably good ages extremely well. The "innovator" of today may well be a "debunked hype" by tomorrow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
(this page seems a little more biased than I remember in favor of a conservative viewpoint)
I wonder if in 6 months opening a business quickly will seem prescient, or will it have been a disaster?
What I actually think Musk should do is do what he's done well before, "science the shit out of it". Figure out how to move forward without killing someone (in a rocket accident or a covid accident)
Imagine thinking anyone knows what will happen in the future.
Do continue ignoring all the massive failures and continuous capital / opportunity these supposed kingmakers have.
With one exception that I know of, share prices are the average over all estimates of future earnings.
The exception is: When investors just follow the leader instead of producing their own price estimates, you get bubbles.
No, but it does mean they aren't any more skilled than anyone else on the same level. They surely cannot know what will happen next any better.
How's the Boring Company? Hyperloop? Funny thing is ~all of his companies involve heavy government subsidies.
Not surprisingly, he didn't. This quote is the end of a much more nuanced statement to conclude the point that he generally prefers to invest in operators who take less risk.
Regardless of your opinion on Elon, this sort of manipulation of reality damages the discourse. It's not helping anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Oi3esiry8&feature=youtu.be...
And to me, he is only attributing a quote to Elon, nothing else, but the audience takes it a different way. Regardless the quote above is not about Elon.
Sounds like the politicians and assorted apparatchiks who still think, or claim to think, that this virus is orders of magnitude worse than it actually is.
His opinion is absolutely valid, but it’s not like his track record is any more exceptional than Musk’s.
Everyone makes mistakes, but to conclude that Berkshire Hathaways' track record is "not ... more exceptional than Musk's" is beyond folly. Their success over decades is unparalleled.
Furthermore, Berkshire on principle plays the long game. They rarely act on short-term events.
Tesla was also badly affected by the Covid-19 measures. The Fremont plant is still closed. You would have expected Munger to dump airlines sooner; but would you also have expected Musk to dump his TSLA stock, too?
For some people, being an investor means looking at a time horizon of decades, not months.
They can also stay at home if they prefer, or seek other employment if they want to work but find Tesla's safety plan unconvincing.
For most this is "lose your housing/food" or "risk getting Covid"
In the recent Joe Rogan podcast Elon Musk was talking about the need for more accurate data. The scientific facts seem blurry at the moment.
Watching the dutch news, the next steps seem to be a number of restrictions on the movements which seem sensible. Doctors have to deal with even more virues and infections. What needs to happen is, how can people work efficiently with protective gear. There is simply no other way to work otherwise, assuming this is a serious infection.
The logical next steps would be to pass a law that forces each company to open work if they can give safety equipment to everyone and provides insurance / accurate assessments of the workers getting sick.
Cost cutting and avoiding liabilities is just pathetic at this point.
"There was Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk offering this tweet: "A little red wine, vintage record, some Ambien ... and magic!" Naturally, not everyone was moved positively by this apparent form of entertainment. Y Combinator President Sam Altman, for example, worried: 'Ambien tweeting is a dangerous game.'"
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musks-strange-strange-ambien-...