ceterum_censeo

Your solution doesn't provide for the workers. I'm sure you're sincere, but a handout from the government is not perceived as a substitute for challenging, meaningful, and respectable work. Basic income proposals don't generally seem to consider pride, other than what I see as nebulous handwaving about how one would be free to pursue their dreams. What dreams are there in coal country when there is no coal? I don't see BI alone as helping to sustain or resurrect a community and associated way of life whose primary industry is one you've eliminated.

e: the salary info wasn't in the comment when I replied.

The i3 is efficient not because it is tiny, but because it is light weight. Weight reduction is hard and it is a lesson Tesla has yet to learn.

> The simple fact is that the Germans know if they put out an EV sedan or SUV, they will cannibalize their own market share and their investments in combustion engine manufacturing, which are massive, will be lost.

They haven't put out an EV sedan or SUV yet because the market isn't profitable yet. The trend for engines has long been towards becoming a commodity sourced from elsewhere and tuned in-house or a scalable design, i.e., except for models where the engine is a selling point you're not investing your money in engines. As to cannibalizing their own sales, I don't understand your point.

The greatest challenge they faced is one they still face: the Japanese auto manufacturers. Toyota remains unbeatable on quality; the pursuit of Toyota is claimed as an element of VW's recent fall from grace. At this point Tesla is barely a blip on the radar in comparison considering volume (current and planned) or quality.

> I believe one of VW, Mercedes Benz and BMW will bankrupt in 5-10 years. None of them have taken EV serious yet and I fear it's soon too late.

Daimler took it seriously enough to invest in Tesla, and to use Tesla as a supplier in their own B-class EV sold in the US. The BMW i series feature some pretty innovative thinking with respect to construction, materials, and design. The payoff is that the BMW i3 is the most efficient EPA-certified vehicle, more efficient than any of Tesla's models: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/extremeMPG.jsp (e: and the i series are likely produced under a more efficient and sustainable production process, but it's hard to find a single link in support of this claim)

> Both are still concept cars but they represent what they expect their EVs should look like.

They are concepts, and so are explorations of design elements, features, etc. DFM changes the design significantly, even if one tries to keep to the concept.

> How are the Germans going to catch up?

They already have, they are just much more conservative in releasing their products because of earned experience. e: When the demand is present, the Germans and other incumbent manufacturers will be ready. This article reflects Tesla playing catchup with respect to automation, something the incumbents have already figured out.

I originally wrote "kill" to mirror your original comment, but I changed it because it (as I perceive the word) presumes a level of intent that I don't think NHTSA operates with: I don't think that NHTSA has any intent to destroy this company. In fact, if comma.ai reached out to NHTSA, I would expect NHTSA to assist (within reason) in answering the letter.

I do think that these are straightforward questions for a group that has its act together. Part of having one's act together in a regulated environment is maintaining open lines of communication with regulators, so that questions would be asked should come as no surprise. Keeping up to date with the regulatory environment would also be expected, and given the recent autonomous driving publication the content and scope of these questions should come as no surprise.

If these questions kill the company, I don't see that as being the fault of NHTSA, I see that as being the fault of whoever is in charge of regulatory affairs at comma.ai.

This letter is designed to give pause to (e: previously I wrote "kill") a company operating with complete disregard for proper operations in a regulated industry.

GAAP strikes me as a set of things that, alone, are good intentions but combined are more confusing than they need to be.

Any idea why they have to list automotive leasing as a separate line item on their report? If they are selling it to a bank who is then responsible for the lease, why list it separately?

is a better link, since it has the actual table referenced by the article.

Directly comparing the advertised price between the US market and the formulary price for the UK isn't informative. It would be more informative to compare the ASP in the US to the UK price, but part of the problem with costs in the US is that those prices are not transparent.

That the compound is off patent doesn't affect the price if it is single source for this market. It takes something like 4 generic manufacturers to see fairer pricing emerge.

That's hardly my intention here, and frankly, I find the accusation both insulting and offensive.

As with many (most?) pharmaceuticals, the cost of the active ingredient doesn't play a large role in the ultimate price. This is a prescription injectable with a volume of 200–300 units per year. It will need to be produced under GMP, and since the volume is minuscule, it's going to be produced using an expensive batch process. Setup/teardown, time, testing, packaging and logistics are going to dominate the per unit cost. It's really, really difficult to predict what the cost would be without more research, but somewhere between the original $950 and the current $27k wouldn't surprise me less than either extreme. (Keep in mind these aren't the ASP)

Portraying the entire pharmaceutical industry as one of comfortable monopolies based on the actions of some unlikeable bad actors isn't fair: the majority of the industry defines "cut throat".

The cost of a pharmaceutical is not the raw material cost for the API, which is frequently a small fraction of the total cost. The majority of the cost is in meeting regulatory requirements (e.g. GMP production, traceable testing). In the case of this product, a volume of 200–300 units per year is so tiny I would expect the setup/teardown costs for batch manufacture to also play a role.

$27k sounds outrageously high, but the original $950 sounds equally outrageously low in light of the volume.

(statement by Valeant)

A pharmaceutical that is being produced in such low volumes, irrespective of how mundane and cheap the raw chemical may be, cannot be produced cheaply.