It exists for the sole purpose of benefiting its investors and whoever may be behind any investment fronts used to push that currency. I wonder who they might be?
178 karma · joined January 28, 2012
Tesla deserves plenty of accolades just for getting to the point where they are producing multiple models of vehicle that conform to or exceed modern standards of quality .
However, Tthey have only managed to build "a" luxury sedan, "a" crossover SUV, and will soon be building "a" budget-luxury sedan. The real challenge is in attaining and sustaining the pace of development maintained by the rest of the industry. The automotive industry at large keeps a rolling cycle of refreshes and replacements on a roughly 3/6 year timetable (refreshed after 3 years, replaced after 6). Some niche models (Jeep Wrangler, Mazda Miata) stay in production far longer than that average but a 3/6 cycle is also a bit too long in ultra-competitive categories such as the compact crossover segment.
This is where I see Tesla beginning to struggle as their entirely bootstrapped operation has struggled to meet deadlines. That is cause for concern as it places their current lineup at a competitive disadvantage as their competition has gone through at least 1 refresh, if not a full replacement, since the design of their most recent model (Model X) was set in stone.
The Model S design was largely set in stone by 2009, 2010 at the latest and the Model X design was mostly locked in by 2012, 2013 at the latest. It took 3 years for both of those designs to actually reach showroom floors (2012 and 2016 respectively) so while the clock hasn't run out in terms of production life, the designs themselves are beginning to become dates. I don't just mean "design" as in styling, I mean it as the all-encompassing architecture of the vehicles.
While Tesla's offerings have several unique attributes which cannot be found in any of their closest competitors, one can only push an old design for so long before it becomes completely unappealing to consumers, even when sold at break even prices. I dare say that such a scenario may be playing out with the Model S as its sales had slumped leading up to the 2016 refresh that boosted sales, yet the bump still fell short of that model's best sales quarter which occurred back in 2015. The fact is that the Model S was designed to achieve the minimum level of refinement expected of a 2010-era, $65,000 luxury sedan with the silent, powerful electric powertrain being the plan to make up for its shortcomings in the areas of ride quality and interior fit and finish. Now that ~7 years have passed, the high end, mid-size sedan offerings from mass market brands have caught up to the Model S in many areas.
The Model S may smoke a Nissan Maxima in straight line and the Maxima can't hold a candle to the silence of the Tesla's powertrain but it also costs ~$35,000. In my opinion, it also has a better finished interior and more up-to-date styling than the Model S. We can argue all day over these points but you have to admit that manufacturers like Nissan are at least getting within striking distance in certain areas with cars costing half the price. Tesla needs to seriously step up their development game lest they be left behind with woefully dates products that simply cannot be discounted enough to remain appealing.
The largest solar farm in the US, the Topaz Solar Farm in California, covers 25sq/km has a peak generation capacity of 550MW. The source uses the median of the 59 nuclear plants in the US to arrive at its 3.36sq/km (1.3sq/mile) per 1,000MW figure but the largest nuclear plant ever built, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan, produces ~8MW on just 4.2sq/km of land which makes it twice as efficient in terms of land use as the median US plant.
That places solar at 13.75 sq/km per 1,000MW compared to nuclear's 0.525sq/km using the best case scenario for the density of existing sources. That doesn't even account for the variable output of the solar plant versus the consistency of nuclear generation. Solar is ultimately far too land hungry to ever serve as the world's primary source of electrity.
Source: http://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Pap...
That sentiment may seem strange to most people but I think it's more than just a logical conclusion, it's an emotional one as well.
We recently lost one of our family's matriarch's (grandmother-in-law) after her long battle with a failing cardiovascular system. After one particularly difficult evening, she realized her time was about to come and asked her husband to stay by her side while she passed in their home. Unfortunately, her end did not come easily and a relative convinced my grandfather-in-law to call an ambulance when she went into respiratory arrest as it was shockingly painful to watch. She was taken to the hospital and placed in the ICU where she was stabilized but only at the footstep of death's door. The miracles of modern medicine managed to keep her borderline comatose body alive for almost a month in the ICU before the family could come to agreement on sending her to hospice.
That month in the ICU cost almost everything they had worked their entire lives for and was intended to be passed down to their children and grandchildren. Two lifetime's worth of hard work and thoughtful planning went to cover the cost of just one last month of "life".
My point in sharing that story is that the true cost of that month isn't measured in dollars and cents, it's measured in the loss of the legacy they had worked so hard to build. Neither of them viewed their estate as something as simple as "money". Instead they saw it as things like "college tuition for the grandchildren", "a wedding gift to help the grandkids start their married life", "land my ancestors have lived on for generations", and "one last vacation for the whole family". That's what I mean when I saw they lost their legacy and why it's as much or more of an emotional decision than a cold calculation of financial realities.
1. "Driver-less cars have vastly shorter stopping distances at all speeds"
I can understand your expectation of reduced stopping distances due to the near-0 reaction time made possible by sufficient computing power. However, I wouldn't describe the computer's advantage as anything close to a "vast" one. There is no mechanical advantage to braking that is inherent for a driverless car and the difference in stopping distance due to reaction time is less than 1 car length (~10ft) at 30mph assuming the human driver has an average reaction times (0.25s). The advantage is still limited to roughly ~25ft at 60mph. That advantage is simultaneously significant and insignificant in that incredibly common outside factors will more than account for that disparity if not controlled for in the AI's programming. Tire pressure, tread depth, brake pad thickness, rotor wear, alignment, etc are all capable of individually accounting for a ~25ft reduction in stopping distance which leads me to my second point.
2. "Driver-less cars should never drive at a speed where they can't stop in time."
Real world driving conditions present so many uncontrolled variables that a speed considered "safe" by that logic will be pathetically slow. The current state of the art in driverless cars is Google's purely autonomous design which is limited to the pace of a golf cart (25mph). The number of variables introduced by vehicle condition and maintenance alone are so great that any vehicle capable of accurately accounting for each one would be impossibly expensive to buy and crushingly expensive to maintain. While all of our cars are capable of measuring speed (the legal maximum is +/- 5mph @ 50mph in the US, but +/-1-2% is most common) and most cars can measure tire pressure (+/-15% for the most common systems which measure indirectly with the ABS sensor), they don't measure either of those things accurately according to manufacturer specs and things only get worse over time. Personally, I can't see driverless cars ever growing past that hurdle, winding up limited to inner-city commuting/taxi duty.
3. "Same is true of balls and other small fast moving objects, they are not going to ping as kids."
This is actually one of the best examples of why speeds will have to remain slow enough to guarantee a negligible stopping distance.
If a human sees a ball roll into the street from behind an obstruction, they will reasonably deduce that there is a likelihood that a kid is chasing after it and slow down before the danger presents itself. An AI will see the balloon or ball and it will have to treat it as either a complete non-issue or as a mortal danger. If it treats it as a non-issue, it will have to be in a constant state of readiness to stop in the smallest reasonable distance, that means limiting speeds to a relatively glacial pace. If it treats it as a mortal danger, it will constantly produce false positives which leads to frustrated passengers when it brakes hard for every trashbag that blows across a 70mph highway.
That's one of my main criticisms of driverless cars in their current state. They are measurably superior in the areas in which human drivers are most flawed, yet their logic leads them to make decisions that no human would ever consider as logical. Even the most state of the art AI isn't even close to being able to account for the nearly infinite number of exceptions that stem from the chaos of the real world and which require an action contradictory to a principle of placing safety first. Just look at the first "unforced error" reported by the Google program where the AI's logic misjudged the actions of a bus due to logic which defined exceptions around the distance needed to merge on to a road. It just went for the merge, turning straight into the side (pretty much in the middle) of a bus moving at 15mph. No human would have made that decision.
You're right in that people care about quality, it's just that quality products don't have to cost as much as you think they do.
The genius in AmazonBasic concept was in realizing that building the better mousetrap doesn't always mean building the best mousetrap, it means building the best mousetrap for the price. There are so many goods with a market that falls into just two categories, ones that work and ones that don't. Whichever brand is able to gain consumers trust in knowing their offering will work will quickly rise to dominate such a market.
For example, Brazil's incredibly protective trade policies requires electronics to be made locally if they are to be sold at an affordable price point. The 360 only went on sale there in 2011 when MS opened up a local manufacturing facility and it was the last refuge of the PS2 which only went on sale when local production began in 2009. The Brazilian market isn't large enough for MS to justify duplicate tooling and other custom production equipment needed to produce a local version of the Xbox One. However, the decline in demand for the 360 would have led to excess production capacity, allowing MS to set up a local plant with the excess equipment from underulitized original production lines.
Also, the 360-specific tooling and production equipment has long since been paid off which greatly reduces the cost per unit. The 360 provides MS with a budget offering capable of accessing developing markets which can't support the $300 pricepoint of a current gen console.
I have a little more faith in there being something of substance behind their technology now that I know they have working prototypes. I'd only seen a mountain of hype and investment money chasing what seemed to be nothing but a concept and set of patents prior to this.
That market didn't last very long as hardware costs dropped so quickly that full size, full power laptops suddenly cost the same with the only trade off being battery life.
Those are the dams that pose the greatest threat. You can't plan for something you don't know about and the threat posed by such an extensive system of "invisible" dams is immense. A small earthen dam on a farm may not pose much of a threat by itself but its failure can cause a cascade of failures further downstream if it breaks when those dams are already at their limit.
Everyone saw the pictures of Columbia, SC but that flooding was mostly due to "normal" causes. The city's drainage system was overwhelmed by rainfall that exceeded historic levels by several orders of magnitude (higher than even a 1,000 year storm) and the Broad river consequently overflowing its banks. However, that wasn't the only place impacted by the storm. South Carolina has an enormous number of small earthen dams, built on private land with the land owner responsible for maintenance.
Obviously, these dams were not built to handle such a storm but even if they were, the lack of oversight led to a lack of maintenance, worsening their chances of surviving the initial floods. As upstream dams broke, downstream dams were subjected to massive surges, causing a cascading series of failures, greatly increasing the amount of damage caused by the storm.
There are 10,000 to 20,000 unregulated small dams in the state according to the state. They pose an enormous risk as the flooding clearly demonstrated but SC isn't alone in sharing this burden.
"(T)aste is more dependent on the variety of tomato than on the way it is grown."
The grocery store tomato is not the same varietal as the heirloom tomato grown in small scale gardens.
I'd understand it if most of the local businesses that forgo an online presence were all 1-4 person, family operations where they're all too old to have a "Google it first" mindset. However the majority of businesses that refuse to register themselves with Google have no excuse. I can search for the closest laundromat, tire shop, florist, etc directly by name and address and the only results will be those sites that scrape the secretary of state's corporate filings.
Google has made the process of creating an online presence the simplest, most painless process imaginable. Google's My Business service gets you on Maps with all the important info (location, hours, services, etc) for free, yet so few businesses take the importance of being a top, location based result. If a business doesn't come up in my location based search it's as good as if it never existed.
You just can't have high bandwidth, excellent protection from interference, and low energy usage all at once. The blcoks of spectrum that offer the best balance of those qualities are already booked up for things like OTA TV broadcasts and "high-cost and high-powered cellular" networks. The issues with mesh networking are also immediately apparent if some classes of device are to be kept on separate networks or have to forgo their role as a node due to the power requirements of a repeater.
A simple example for what airwaves would look like in the crowded "IoT' future is your average apartment complex and the 2.4ghz spectrum. 30+ routers competing for the same tiny space absolutely destroys the quality (latency, throughput, power draw from the devices radio) of the connection. The space is so crowded that you may only see 5-10 networks as the signal from a router 2 stories up is so dirty that you can't even receive the SSID but the interference is still there.
There is only so much spectrum available for use, even if it was all unrestricted. There won't be a mass adoption of networked "things" until someone is able to find a loophole in the laws of physics.
Exactly! I hate the ubiquity of automatic climate control systems these days. Everyone that has a car equipped with one just uses the "set point" knob like regular manual controls. It's full cold, full hot, or off with "in-between" settings managed via fan speed. They don't work for the reason you've stated even when used "properly".
I've also noticed that most systems refuse to switch off the A/C compressor unless you choose a set point several degrees above ambient. It's a waste of gas, especially when it's 68-70F with low humidity outside.
The US took their testing data and combined it with the fruits of Operation Paperclip's R&D to create the Redstone program. The Rocketdyne A7 engine was a direct successor of the A4 and was reliable enough to put the first US astronauts in orbit during the Mercury-Redstone program.
In short, an A4/V-2 would have been reliable enough to serve as the foundation of a British space program as long as it was built to spec without the material substitutions carried out due to wartime shortages.
We all know the Nazis had crazy ideas, we know that had overambitious ideas, this is one of those crazy AND overambitious ideas that kinda, sorta made sense. It was a delta winged, pyramid shaped, supersonic interceptor powered by a coal-fueled ramjet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a
It was basically an amalgamation of half-baked construction and propulsion ideas but the aerodynamic principles were fundamentally sound and incredibly advanced for their time. The aero research and data from this program was used with great effect by the US and USSR. It was basically the common ancestor from which all future delta-wing designs evolved.
Also, remember the +/-3% next time you're comparing a used cars. Worrying about 5-6,000 miles on a car with 100,000 is pointless since the odometer itself lies by up to 3,000 miles. Then you have further error introduced by new sets of tires which wear down 6-15mm depending on their tread depth and can vary several mm in diameter despite having the same nominal size as the OEM tires.
It makes for a good solution as a 2nd or 3rd level backup but you'd need some form of RAID to prevent users from experience a lengthy delay every single time a disk fails. That's a lot of money to invest in a novel solution that creates a lengthy interruption in service should it ever be needed. Maybe the power savings are worth it when weighed against the rarity of such use and expected level of revenue lost to user frustration but that's an equation made fragile by so many variables.
I could also see it used in conjunction with some amazing use-prediction algorithm to store data that will most likely never be requested. If Facebook truly keeps everything then they have millions of photos, videos, hidden posts, and other digital detritus tied up in dead, inactive, or orphaned repositories. I know half the groups I joined back in high school are now impossible to find but the data they contained is still important for the purpose of linking people and interests together. I also have several friends who have passed away, making their account a kind of digital mausoleum. Their private data will never be accessed again but it must remain in FB's datacenter until someone is given access to the account to delete it. The number of Facebook accounts tied to the deceased is only increasing so these racks of Blu Rays might be considered the first digital cemetery. I don't know how many resources are allocated to this kind of data but this is where cold storage makes the most sense.
Most MANPADS have warheads weighing less than 5kg, a few kg of HE is enough to cause significant damage but the A-10 was built to fly with half a wing, one engine, one rudder/elevator assembly, and a mountain of shrapnel stuck in the pilot's armored tub. MANPADS will get a mission kill on an A-10 but they aren't powerful enough to bring one down the majority of the time.
No maneuverability = no hit. Surface to air missiles are intended to target low, slow, or bulky targets and fighters are outside those categories.