Tesla co-founder and CTO JB Straubel stepping down(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Tesla co-founder and CTO JB Straubel stepping down
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/24/tesla-co-founder-and-cto-jb-straubel-stepping-down/
165 comments
> Why do some many people hate Tesla and want them to fail?
My feeling is that the overwhelming majority of Tesla critics do not hate Tesla, and do not want Tesla to fail. Rather, they see Tesla as a small, unimportant, poorly run company that gets far more press (positive and negative) than it deserves, and who respond by needling Tesla super-fans. The super fans, in turn, react by treating this as shocking, but it's not really. Tesla critics are treating Tesla like a normal company, and most companies are not particularly well-liked. Nobody cares if Amalgamated Widgets rises and falls except it's investors and competitors.
> Do they also want SpaceX to fail?
No. But also, Tesla critics, I believe, view SpaceX as a VERY different company. Tesla is just another car company making just another car. SpaceX is something else entirely.
If your mental model is "Tesla is like SpaceX", this probably feels weird to you, and the way Tesla gets covered in the press - as if it was merely a car company! - must be maddening. If your mental model is "Tesla is like Saab", this seems pretty obvious.
> Most tech giants of recent times have done things I would consider to have made the world a much worse place.
I would never dream of calling Tesla a "tech giant". It's a car company, it's not making very good cars, it's not making them very well, it's not making very many of them, and it's not making a lot of money off them. I am incredibly tired of hearing about Tesla. Even if it wins, the Tesla end-game is to be another big successful car company, and I don't care about big successful car companies.
My feeling is that the overwhelming majority of Tesla critics do not hate Tesla, and do not want Tesla to fail. Rather, they see Tesla as a small, unimportant, poorly run company that gets far more press (positive and negative) than it deserves, and who respond by needling Tesla super-fans. The super fans, in turn, react by treating this as shocking, but it's not really. Tesla critics are treating Tesla like a normal company, and most companies are not particularly well-liked. Nobody cares if Amalgamated Widgets rises and falls except it's investors and competitors.
> Do they also want SpaceX to fail?
No. But also, Tesla critics, I believe, view SpaceX as a VERY different company. Tesla is just another car company making just another car. SpaceX is something else entirely.
If your mental model is "Tesla is like SpaceX", this probably feels weird to you, and the way Tesla gets covered in the press - as if it was merely a car company! - must be maddening. If your mental model is "Tesla is like Saab", this seems pretty obvious.
> Most tech giants of recent times have done things I would consider to have made the world a much worse place.
I would never dream of calling Tesla a "tech giant". It's a car company, it's not making very good cars, it's not making them very well, it's not making very many of them, and it's not making a lot of money off them. I am incredibly tired of hearing about Tesla. Even if it wins, the Tesla end-game is to be another big successful car company, and I don't care about big successful car companies.
> Rather, they see Tesla as a small, unimportant, poorly run company (...)
> (...)
> Tesla is just another car company making just another car.
Definitely false. Q2 revenue was 25% of Nissan's (which crossed my radar recently due to layoffs). That may be small, for some definition of small, but it's definitely not "small, unimportant". I won't comment on poorly run -- a qualitative assessment that does not lead to a definitive conclusion. I'd challenge with a comparison to a well run startup in the automotive space, but there is none to compare it with.
As for another car company making just another car, I don't understand how can you even write those words together. A Tesla may be a good car, a poor car, depending on who you ask. What it is definitely not is your average Volkswagen.
> (...)
> Tesla is just another car company making just another car.
Definitely false. Q2 revenue was 25% of Nissan's (which crossed my radar recently due to layoffs). That may be small, for some definition of small, but it's definitely not "small, unimportant". I won't comment on poorly run -- a qualitative assessment that does not lead to a definitive conclusion. I'd challenge with a comparison to a well run startup in the automotive space, but there is none to compare it with.
As for another car company making just another car, I don't understand how can you even write those words together. A Tesla may be a good car, a poor car, depending on who you ask. What it is definitely not is your average Volkswagen.
What you're not following, I think, is how little I care about cars and car companies. :) I don't care about Nissan, and I certainly don't care about a company a quarter their size. I care a little about Toyota because they're huge, but yes, small companies in industries that don't directly impact me are unimportant to me.
If I worked for a car company, I'd probably care, but I work for a tech company, so I don't.
> A Tesla may be a good car, a poor car, depending on who you ask. What it is definitely not is your average Volkswagen.
Okay, sure, it's twice that car a Volkswagen is, I trust you. But it's still a car.
Again, I think there is a significant faction of Tesla fans that don't see Tesla as a car company, and instead see it more like SpaceX. I don't.
If I worked for a car company, I'd probably care, but I work for a tech company, so I don't.
> A Tesla may be a good car, a poor car, depending on who you ask. What it is definitely not is your average Volkswagen.
Okay, sure, it's twice that car a Volkswagen is, I trust you. But it's still a car.
Again, I think there is a significant faction of Tesla fans that don't see Tesla as a car company, and instead see it more like SpaceX. I don't.
> Again, I think there is a significant faction of Tesla fans that don't see Tesla as a car company, and instead see it more like SpaceX. I don't.
I do, and I'd like to explain why. This is not about cars. The single most important challenge our generation faces is dealing with climate change. We absolutely need to curb CO2 emissions. We don't need to limit CO2 emissions, we need to cut them significantly.
There are two avenues for this goal. Either we cut energy consumption, significantly, or we switch energy sources away from fossil fuels.
I believe cutting energy consumption is impossible. It goes against a five thousand year trend of per-capita energy consumption growth, amplified by population growth. If you step back from the ecologist message a bit and look at the overarching trend, the picture is clear: Cutting global energy consumption is a no-go.
The other path is switching energy sources. We're advancing on that front. However, for renewable sources to have the needed impact, they must be applicable to transportation. Here, in this specific point, Tesla was and is key. It has already succeeded. The BMW CEO was fired because of lack of focus on EVs. It's a stark change from pre-Tesla, and it is a market change created by Tesla. Every automaker will go the EV route, and I'm completely convinced that, absent Tesla, they would sit on their hands for at least another decade.
I do, and I'd like to explain why. This is not about cars. The single most important challenge our generation faces is dealing with climate change. We absolutely need to curb CO2 emissions. We don't need to limit CO2 emissions, we need to cut them significantly.
There are two avenues for this goal. Either we cut energy consumption, significantly, or we switch energy sources away from fossil fuels.
I believe cutting energy consumption is impossible. It goes against a five thousand year trend of per-capita energy consumption growth, amplified by population growth. If you step back from the ecologist message a bit and look at the overarching trend, the picture is clear: Cutting global energy consumption is a no-go.
The other path is switching energy sources. We're advancing on that front. However, for renewable sources to have the needed impact, they must be applicable to transportation. Here, in this specific point, Tesla was and is key. It has already succeeded. The BMW CEO was fired because of lack of focus on EVs. It's a stark change from pre-Tesla, and it is a market change created by Tesla. Every automaker will go the EV route, and I'm completely convinced that, absent Tesla, they would sit on their hands for at least another decade.
If the saving the world stuff was actually Tesla's mission they wouldn't have their CEO bounce back from LA to the Bay Area on a private jet every other day. Each time he flies he offsets the carbon savings of pretty much every Tesla driven in CA that day.
The switch to EVs has more to do with Obama than Tesla. He pushed through many of the incentives that made Tesla possible.
The switch to EVs has more to do with Obama than Tesla. He pushed through many of the incentives that made Tesla possible.
> If the saving the world stuff was actually Tesla's mission they wouldn't have their CEO bounce back from LA to the Bay Area on a private jet every other day. Each time he flies he offsets the carbon savings of pretty much every Tesla driven in CA that day.
I don't follow the logic. The impact of a jet flying back and forth pales in comparison to the impact of switching vehicles away from fossils. You're comparing the incomparable. Many orders of magnitude of difference separate the two.
I don't follow the logic. The impact of a jet flying back and forth pales in comparison to the impact of switching vehicles away from fossils. You're comparing the incomparable. Many orders of magnitude of difference separate the two.
I follow your argument and support what you say.
There are always going to be critics who parrot idiotic points which you're having to refute, even among the "tech literate".
Would the car industry be as far along as it is today in EVs without Tesla? hard to say, I would say probably not. Toyota has been actively shunning EVs (hybrids don't count) and now still insisting on most of its energy into hydrogen fuel cells and BMW just kicked out its CEO for, among other things, stalling on EV development for so long.
Do I prefer being in a world where we have a Tesla? hell yes.
There are always going to be critics who parrot idiotic points which you're having to refute, even among the "tech literate".
Would the car industry be as far along as it is today in EVs without Tesla? hard to say, I would say probably not. Toyota has been actively shunning EVs (hybrids don't count) and now still insisting on most of its energy into hydrogen fuel cells and BMW just kicked out its CEO for, among other things, stalling on EV development for so long.
Do I prefer being in a world where we have a Tesla? hell yes.
Ah, I see. So we should all be lauding Toyota for it's role in launching the Prius when there was literally no existing demand for green cars, leading to the US and EU governments creating incentives for additional green car manufacturing, and creating the market that Tesla is now trying to cater to with poorly-made luxury vehicles.
Fun fact: Planes are efficient for long trips. According to “sustainable energy without the hot air”, you need three people in a gas car to beat the efficiency of flying on a long trip. It seems like driving to LA with one or two people in the car is less carbon efficient than flying. With an EV you’re probably good though.
[deleted]
I think those numbers are for passenger flights carrying large amounts of people, not private jets carrying very few.
Good point, you're totally right! I don't think they covered that in the book. Here's the relevant chapter if calculations on flight: http://withouthotair.com/c5/page_35.shtml
So you fall into the "Tesla is saving the world" superfan category.
The problem is that they aren't, and as someone else said, the fans are just really annoying.
I know you don't mean to come off that way, but even your defense of Elon and such in this thread comes off as a combination of "ends justify the means" and sheer sycophantry.
Nobody likes that. It's not as bad as some, mind you. Reading Teslarati makes me feel like these people need a cult deprogrammer, stat.
I know you don't mean to come off that way, but even your defense of Elon and such in this thread comes off as a combination of "ends justify the means" and sheer sycophantry.
Nobody likes that. It's not as bad as some, mind you. Reading Teslarati makes me feel like these people need a cult deprogrammer, stat.
In no way I believe the ends justify the means. I also did not defend Elon in this thread. You are reading your own bias into my comments.
Criticize Tesla for worker security conditions and hiring practices all you want. It is deserved and should be corrected. The jump from criticism to rooting for failure is the step I don't understand (1). I also do not understand the annoyance caused by praising the fact that Tesla did push the automotive market towards EVs.
(1) I have an explanation, but it's almost insulting to critics: Any kind of venture, more so any kind of _risky_ venture, will attract doomsayers. Once held, personal beliefs are hard to change, so people root for validation of their first evaluation. I'd love to see Tesla criticism justified differently, but that's how I read most hard line critics.
Criticize Tesla for worker security conditions and hiring practices all you want. It is deserved and should be corrected. The jump from criticism to rooting for failure is the step I don't understand (1). I also do not understand the annoyance caused by praising the fact that Tesla did push the automotive market towards EVs.
(1) I have an explanation, but it's almost insulting to critics: Any kind of venture, more so any kind of _risky_ venture, will attract doomsayers. Once held, personal beliefs are hard to change, so people root for validation of their first evaluation. I'd love to see Tesla criticism justified differently, but that's how I read most hard line critics.
"In no way I believe the ends justify the means. I also did not defend Elon in this thread. You are reading your own bias into my comments.
"
If you really really believe this, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and your comments again.
You literally defended him, for example:
"Every CEO is a salesman. Anyone who believes every word of a salesman is a fool. I'd not paint it as Trump-style, bona fide lying. It's just inflating promises, or being overly optimistic. Par for the course."
As for the rest:
Numerous people have tried to help you understand in this thread, and your response has not really been to try to understand their perspective, but instead tell them why they are wrong, and how it must be everyone else.
If you really want to understand, people have tried to help as best they can.
Maybe, rather than immediately react, take a while and process it?
If you really really believe this, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and your comments again.
You literally defended him, for example:
"Every CEO is a salesman. Anyone who believes every word of a salesman is a fool. I'd not paint it as Trump-style, bona fide lying. It's just inflating promises, or being overly optimistic. Par for the course."
As for the rest:
Numerous people have tried to help you understand in this thread, and your response has not really been to try to understand their perspective, but instead tell them why they are wrong, and how it must be everyone else.
If you really want to understand, people have tried to help as best they can.
Maybe, rather than immediately react, take a while and process it?
[deleted]
I have a feeling that most critics used to be fans. Five years ago Elon was my favorite entrepreneur.
Today I think the limp wristed response to the $420 fraud is a black stain on the justice system.
I'd still prefer Tesla succeed of course, and there's an undeniable impact it's had. But any warm and fuzzy feeling I once had is very much over.
Today I think the limp wristed response to the $420 fraud is a black stain on the justice system.
I'd still prefer Tesla succeed of course, and there's an undeniable impact it's had. But any warm and fuzzy feeling I once had is very much over.
Climate change climate change climate change.
Such a religion now.
Such a religion now.
> [Tesla] Q2 revenue was 25% of Nissan's
And a bit less than 10% of Volkswagen or Toyota's.
With about 25% of their individual market caps.
And a bit less than 10% of Volkswagen or Toyota's.
With about 25% of their individual market caps.
I don't get the message you are trying to convey. It's natural that Tesla is smaller than the largest automakers. It's smaller than medium automakers. That much is expectable.
If you are referring to the disconnect between revenue and market cap, it may point to a valuation error by the market. Or not. The market is clearly incorporating expected growth into the current value. Is the valuation correct? I have no idea. I'd not infer too much from this fact alone, though.
If you are referring to the disconnect between revenue and market cap, it may point to a valuation error by the market. Or not. The market is clearly incorporating expected growth into the current value. Is the valuation correct? I have no idea. I'd not infer too much from this fact alone, though.
> I'd challenge with a comparison to a well run startup in the automotive space, but there is none to compare it with.
Here are some car startups. Rivian has received the most investment of the three from companies like Amazon and Ford.
Rivian: https://products.rivian.com/
Sono Motors: https://sonomotors.com/
Lightyear: https://lightyear.one/
Here are some car startups. Rivian has received the most investment of the three from companies like Amazon and Ford.
Rivian: https://products.rivian.com/
Sono Motors: https://sonomotors.com/
Lightyear: https://lightyear.one/
Tesla has advanced the advent of BEV by something like 10y. There are multiple statements by old car CEOs who admit that Tesla forced their hand to finally take electric cars seriously.
So no, Tesla is not unimportant. At all.
Dieselgate did more in forcing companies to take electric cars than Tesl ever did.
It's obviously hard to debate counterfactuals but I disagree. I think having a publicly successful alternative available made the impact of deiselgate much worse (for EV alternatives/better for the planet).
Just like Nuclear can get away with being "better than coal" but in the face of plummeting wind, solar and storage costs its drawbacks get looked at with new eyes.
Or in some parallel dimension where deiselgate led to trillions being wasted on hydrogen fuel celled vehicles which never replaced ICE.
Just like Nuclear can get away with being "better than coal" but in the face of plummeting wind, solar and storage costs its drawbacks get looked at with new eyes.
Or in some parallel dimension where deiselgate led to trillions being wasted on hydrogen fuel celled vehicles which never replaced ICE.
What would these companies invest into if Tesla hadn’t proven long range BEVs to be viable? What could the public and policy makers point to when the old car companies keep stating that there are no current alternatives, that we have to wait another decade or two for their R&D projects to pan out?
Besides, I was replying to a post that said Tesla was unimportant. Well, I personally doubt it, but yeah maybe what VW did -braking the law and harming the health of millions- was even more important.
Besides, I was replying to a post that said Tesla was unimportant. Well, I personally doubt it, but yeah maybe what VW did -braking the law and harming the health of millions- was even more important.
I think Tesla 'proved' the viability of long range BEVs the same way Newton proved calculus to Liebniz (and I'm only being slightly hyperbolic). Some ideas/discoveries/technologies are more or less inevitable as the newly-existing but disparate building-blocks are there, waiting for a receptive mind to piece everything together and usually with a surprising level or synchrony.
Tesla didn't have any ground-breaking research on battery chemistry, or motor efficiency; they are among the first to packaged everything together after the underlying technology became mature enough, and managed to suck the air away from the other early competitors. If Tesla never existed, the car companies would still invest in electric vehicles.
Edit: I've just discovered that the founding of Tesla itself was inspired by the General Motors EV1 which was in production from 1996[1] and recalled in 2003.
1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/873116351316938753
Tesla didn't have any ground-breaking research on battery chemistry, or motor efficiency; they are among the first to packaged everything together after the underlying technology became mature enough, and managed to suck the air away from the other early competitors. If Tesla never existed, the car companies would still invest in electric vehicles.
Edit: I've just discovered that the founding of Tesla itself was inspired by the General Motors EV1 which was in production from 1996[1] and recalled in 2003.
1. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/873116351316938753
> I think Tesla 'proved' the viability of long range BEVs the same way Newton proved calculus to Liebniz (and I'm only being slightly hyperbolic). Some ideas/discoveries/technologies are more or less inevitable as the newly-existing but disparate building-blocks are there, waiting for a receptive mind to piece everything together and usually with a surprising level or synchrony.
This effect can be observed often in the case of low investment advances like mathematical breakthroughs, inventions that are limited to a bunch of papers, gadgets or Uber for X type, X as a service startups etc. But, it is evidently not true for hard problems, advances that require huge investments, bear enormous risks and uncertain payoff.
The people who go for the relatively low hanging fruits know this very well, evident in their rush to the market, patent or to publish in academic journals.
In contrast, the hard problems, like landing a man on the moon, measuring the higgs boson, retro propulsive landing of orbital rockets or, case in point, the development of long range BEVs would not have happened if someone would have had the ability and courage to go all in at enormous cost and risk. Progress is not automatic! It may appear though but in reality people are sometimes willing to pay enormous prices for lofty goals. Or they don't and progress simply does not happen.
In fact, these tasks are so hard, that none of the achievements mentioned above have been repeated so far, despite arguably ample time for copy cats. No one but NASA went to the moon, no second LHC was built, only SpaceX has landed orbital boosters and the 2012 Model S still has more range than any non Tesla BEV. Another evidence is that there are problems that we know are arguably solvable and desirable, yet we still haven't solved them, e.g. putting a man or women on Mars, switching to 100% renewable energies, fusion, making certain diseases extinct etc.
This effect can be observed often in the case of low investment advances like mathematical breakthroughs, inventions that are limited to a bunch of papers, gadgets or Uber for X type, X as a service startups etc. But, it is evidently not true for hard problems, advances that require huge investments, bear enormous risks and uncertain payoff.
The people who go for the relatively low hanging fruits know this very well, evident in their rush to the market, patent or to publish in academic journals.
In contrast, the hard problems, like landing a man on the moon, measuring the higgs boson, retro propulsive landing of orbital rockets or, case in point, the development of long range BEVs would not have happened if someone would have had the ability and courage to go all in at enormous cost and risk. Progress is not automatic! It may appear though but in reality people are sometimes willing to pay enormous prices for lofty goals. Or they don't and progress simply does not happen.
In fact, these tasks are so hard, that none of the achievements mentioned above have been repeated so far, despite arguably ample time for copy cats. No one but NASA went to the moon, no second LHC was built, only SpaceX has landed orbital boosters and the 2012 Model S still has more range than any non Tesla BEV. Another evidence is that there are problems that we know are arguably solvable and desirable, yet we still haven't solved them, e.g. putting a man or women on Mars, switching to 100% renewable energies, fusion, making certain diseases extinct etc.
I agree. BEVs are, I think, inevitable, and one person or company can only do very little to shift the timeline one way or another.
Which impact Tesla has had, if any, is impossible to measure. It's not even entirely clear that the impact was positive.
(Imagine that a large car company or well funded startup was contemplating a massive investment in BEVs to try and get a first mover advantage, but Tesla got there first, so they decided to invest in hybrids or a new range of SUVs instead. In this word, "but for" Tesla, BEVs might be even more widely adopted. Of course, we have no reason to think that's true, but then, we have no reason to think that, "but for" Tesla, nobody would have done anything with EVs for another 10 years either, and that doesn't stop people from wildly speculating...)
Which impact Tesla has had, if any, is impossible to measure. It's not even entirely clear that the impact was positive.
(Imagine that a large car company or well funded startup was contemplating a massive investment in BEVs to try and get a first mover advantage, but Tesla got there first, so they decided to invest in hybrids or a new range of SUVs instead. In this word, "but for" Tesla, BEVs might be even more widely adopted. Of course, we have no reason to think that's true, but then, we have no reason to think that, "but for" Tesla, nobody would have done anything with EVs for another 10 years either, and that doesn't stop people from wildly speculating...)
>Why do some many people hate Tesla and want them to fail? Do they also want SpaceX to fail?
For me personally the treatment of their workers, their anti-unionisation efforts, and their misleading advertisement of the autopilot, together with Musks extremely off-putting public behaviour. And no I don't want spaceX to fail.
>Why not save your hate for companies damaging democracy or workers rights, which seem like more serious charges?
I think many people, including myself at this point have similar opinions about Facebook et al. There are relatively few large tech companies left that I look at optimistically.
For me personally the treatment of their workers, their anti-unionisation efforts, and their misleading advertisement of the autopilot, together with Musks extremely off-putting public behaviour. And no I don't want spaceX to fail.
>Why not save your hate for companies damaging democracy or workers rights, which seem like more serious charges?
I think many people, including myself at this point have similar opinions about Facebook et al. There are relatively few large tech companies left that I look at optimistically.
> and their misleading advertisement of the autopilot
This 100%. People have already died as a result of the marketing and more people are going to die going forward because they insisted calling a pretty good lane assist feature "autopilot".
This 100%. People have already died as a result of the marketing and more people are going to die going forward because they insisted calling a pretty good lane assist feature "autopilot".
Like the saying goes: 'when someone shows you who they really are, believe them'.
The whole Thai cave rescue really showed who Elon Musk is: an incorrigible sociopath who's shortcomings make it difficult to celebrate any success he has.
The whole Thai cave rescue really showed who Elon Musk is: an incorrigible sociopath who's shortcomings make it difficult to celebrate any success he has.
We need to stop this culture of taking single sentences and vilifying people over them. People get tired, they get mad, temporarily confused, and can be good people 95% of the time, and a bit of a jerk other times. But the internet never forgets, so we as a people need to learn to forgive a bit more.
It wasn't a single sentence on a single occasion, he doubled down on the accusations repeatedly. He went as far as saying something along the lines "why do you think he hasn't sued me?" He got his lawsuit.
95% of people aren't billionaires whose social media presence is followed globally and whose every public comment is repeated by the media, and 95% of people don't accuse someone else of being a pedophile because they're tired or mad or "momentarily confused."
Like it or not, we live in a society in which words have social and occasionally legal ramifications. Elon Musk trying to ruin someone's life for bruising his ego isn't something society should shrug off and forgive simply because "people aren't perfect."
Like it or not, we live in a society in which words have social and occasionally legal ramifications. Elon Musk trying to ruin someone's life for bruising his ego isn't something society should shrug off and forgive simply because "people aren't perfect."
>...isn't something society should shrug off and forgive simply because "people aren't perfect."
...but isn't the recourse that society has agreed-upon the very same lawsuit that is going on? Is this not adequate? Wouldn't it be more "woke" to fix the aforementioned avenue of recourse, if not?
...but isn't the recourse that society has agreed-upon the very same lawsuit that is going on? Is this not adequate? Wouldn't it be more "woke" to fix the aforementioned avenue of recourse, if not?
>..but isn't the recourse that society has agreed-upon the very same lawsuit that is going on?
>Is this not adequate?
Humans are emotional and social beings, and we do not (nor should we want to) live in a society in which the proceedings of law, when found to be appropriate to remedy some social offense, become the only permitted form of public expression relative to it.
It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere, regardless of the legality of his actions. Those are two different axes, and human beings don't live on only one.
>Wouldn't it be more "woke" to fix the aforementioned avenue of recourse, if not?
I don't know what "woke," is supposed to imply. I'm assuming (from the typical context of such things) that it's supposed to be a glib disparagement of something related to identity politics, which seems odd and inappropriate.
Humans are emotional and social beings, and we do not (nor should we want to) live in a society in which the proceedings of law, when found to be appropriate to remedy some social offense, become the only permitted form of public expression relative to it.
It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere, regardless of the legality of his actions. Those are two different axes, and human beings don't live on only one.
>Wouldn't it be more "woke" to fix the aforementioned avenue of recourse, if not?
I don't know what "woke," is supposed to imply. I'm assuming (from the typical context of such things) that it's supposed to be a glib disparagement of something related to identity politics, which seems odd and inappropriate.
>Humans are emotional and social beings, and we do not (nor should we want to) live in a society in which the proceedings of law, when found to be appropriate to remedy some social offense, become the only permitted form of public expression relative to it.
What does the form of public expression hope to achieve if the recourse is adequate? Emotional release? Were it that it was you that was directly wronged, I could understand your subjectivity on the matter; however, being a third-party to whom there is no direct or indirect impact, it makes no sense.
In other words, using your statement, there is some assumed emotional or social end-goal of the behaviour is there not? Isn't that n+1 from the recourse already defined from society? The behaviour is designed to illicit something, is it not? Otherwise, why would you do it at all?
>It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere, regardless of the legality of his actions.
The OC wasn't about whether it was unreasonable to find him objectionable but whether it was unreasonable to continue the "hate campaign" (apologies for a lack of better turn-of-phrase at the moment).
>I don't know what "woke," is supposed to imply. I'm assuming (from the typical context of such things) that it's supposed to be a glib disparagement of something related to identity politics, which seems odd and inappropriate.
Woke seems to be common parlance for people who have "woken-up" to some perceived injustice and are fighting the good fight, as it were.
An example of how it is apt and applicable is when Beto O'Rourke was continually forced to apologise[0]. In this case, we can draw the parallels by your statement:
>It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere...
At what point would he no longer be objectionable and/or for the behaviour to stop? His death? That doesn't seem to matter in the case of lot of people previously hated throughout history, correct? So what overall, overaching purpose does it hope to achieve? When in the history of history has it achieved any appreciably good and desired outcomes?
Even if he profusely apologised, prostrated with guilt and remose today, wouldn't the behaviour still continue?
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Y-wbhiOGI&t=190
What does the form of public expression hope to achieve if the recourse is adequate? Emotional release? Were it that it was you that was directly wronged, I could understand your subjectivity on the matter; however, being a third-party to whom there is no direct or indirect impact, it makes no sense.
In other words, using your statement, there is some assumed emotional or social end-goal of the behaviour is there not? Isn't that n+1 from the recourse already defined from society? The behaviour is designed to illicit something, is it not? Otherwise, why would you do it at all?
>It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere, regardless of the legality of his actions.
The OC wasn't about whether it was unreasonable to find him objectionable but whether it was unreasonable to continue the "hate campaign" (apologies for a lack of better turn-of-phrase at the moment).
>I don't know what "woke," is supposed to imply. I'm assuming (from the typical context of such things) that it's supposed to be a glib disparagement of something related to identity politics, which seems odd and inappropriate.
Woke seems to be common parlance for people who have "woken-up" to some perceived injustice and are fighting the good fight, as it were.
An example of how it is apt and applicable is when Beto O'Rourke was continually forced to apologise[0]. In this case, we can draw the parallels by your statement:
>It's perfectly reasonable to find Elon Musk to be an objectionable person in the public sphere...
At what point would he no longer be objectionable and/or for the behaviour to stop? His death? That doesn't seem to matter in the case of lot of people previously hated throughout history, correct? So what overall, overaching purpose does it hope to achieve? When in the history of history has it achieved any appreciably good and desired outcomes?
Even if he profusely apologised, prostrated with guilt and remose today, wouldn't the behaviour still continue?
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Y-wbhiOGI&t=190
>In other words, using your statement, there is some assumed emotional or social end-goal of the behaviour is there not? Isn't that n+1 from the recourse already defined from society?
Society is not an algorithm whose purpose is to derive formal logical proofs of type "recourse" for any particular set of inputs. There is no n+1, nor is there necessarily an emotional or social end-goal.
>The behaviour is designed to illicit something, is it not? Otherwise, why would you do it at all?
Most people don't orchestrate their emotions in order to elicit a specific response. People find Elon Musk to be an asshole because he acts like an asshole, they find his behavior objectionable because they object to his behavior. There need be no more complexity to the matter than that.
>At what point would he no longer be objectionable and/or for the behaviour to stop? His death?
And now the slippery slope argument... I don't see anyone calling for Elon's death, do you?
>Even if he profusely apologised, prostrated with guilt and remose today, wouldn't the behaviour still continue?
Maybe. But then again, he could also eat an infant on live television and people would still defend him, so in the end it all seems to even out.
Society is not an algorithm whose purpose is to derive formal logical proofs of type "recourse" for any particular set of inputs. There is no n+1, nor is there necessarily an emotional or social end-goal.
>The behaviour is designed to illicit something, is it not? Otherwise, why would you do it at all?
Most people don't orchestrate their emotions in order to elicit a specific response. People find Elon Musk to be an asshole because he acts like an asshole, they find his behavior objectionable because they object to his behavior. There need be no more complexity to the matter than that.
>At what point would he no longer be objectionable and/or for the behaviour to stop? His death?
And now the slippery slope argument... I don't see anyone calling for Elon's death, do you?
>Even if he profusely apologised, prostrated with guilt and remose today, wouldn't the behaviour still continue?
Maybe. But then again, he could also eat an infant on live television and people would still defend him, so in the end it all seems to even out.
I agree with you very, very strongly. However...
...I don't think that applies to Musk. This isn't the case of someone making an ill-considered tweet and getting eviscerated; this is about dozens and dozens of tweets, lawsuits, and interviews. Even so, if Musk took responsibility and said he was going to change, I'd certainly say we should give him every opportunity to do so. But to state the obvious, that hasn't happened.
...I don't think that applies to Musk. This isn't the case of someone making an ill-considered tweet and getting eviscerated; this is about dozens and dozens of tweets, lawsuits, and interviews. Even so, if Musk took responsibility and said he was going to change, I'd certainly say we should give him every opportunity to do so. But to state the obvious, that hasn't happened.
As much as he's an amazing engineer, it's demonstrably obvious by this point that Musk has severe social issues.
But then, so do a lot of us. We just aren't in the media spotlight.
On the flip side, it's indicative that the company Musk is more closely running is experiencing high turnover at senior levels. While the one he's not as involved with isn't.
But then, so do a lot of us. We just aren't in the media spotlight.
On the flip side, it's indicative that the company Musk is more closely running is experiencing high turnover at senior levels. While the one he's not as involved with isn't.
accusing specific individuals of sexually abusing children isn't some mild misstep, it can ruin the lives of people and in a fair world their would be significant legal repercussions for billionaires who think they can drag someone through the mud on twitter, where Musk has millions of rabid followers. The idea that Musk is the victim in this reminds me of that "affluenza" case with the drunk rich kid years ago.
There are a lot of high profile CEOs and executives who have very stressful jobs, Musk isn't alone in this. The overwhelming majority of them manage to behave in completely sane, professional manner.
I assume Nadella and Pichai and Bezos all have a lot of work on their calendar, curiously enough they don't go on rants on twitter.
There are a lot of high profile CEOs and executives who have very stressful jobs, Musk isn't alone in this. The overwhelming majority of them manage to behave in completely sane, professional manner.
I assume Nadella and Pichai and Bezos all have a lot of work on their calendar, curiously enough they don't go on rants on twitter.
The pedo thing wasn't a single sentence. It was something Elon doubled down on. And repeated. Many times. He deserves to be vilified for trying to abuse his wealth to destroy a critic who was correct about his grandstanding during a crisis where people's lives were at stake.
It's a pattern with Elon. He found out Twitter critic's identity and called up their boss to try to get the guy fired. There's pretty credible allegations that he retaliates against whistleblowers as well.
Elon Musk is not a nice guy that has temporary blowups. He's vindictive.
Elon Musk is not a nice guy that has temporary blowups. He's vindictive.
Wait... I mean... he was kind of a jerk calling that guy a pedofile or whatever but, it was in the context of trying to save children wasn't it?
Saving children is not normal sociopath territory?
Saving children is not normal sociopath territory?
It is when you push your own self serving bullshit solution on people who know better just so you can play the hero. Classic, even.
Well, yeah. Except it was the guy who got called a pedophile for his trouble who was rescuing children, while Musk prancing around like an incompetent buffoon.
This. Tesla's carts do not work for me from practicality POV, but even if they released the most bestest car in the world, I will never, ever give Elon a red cent.
For me it's because they do damage their workers' rights and their fans are so insufferable: The denial that they have quality issues, the repeated lies ("we are going to build a factory in weeks", while everyone knows that it will take years), the massive overvaluation. It's either you are on team Tesla and celebrating every of Elon's brainfarts or you are "big oil" that is trying to destroy them: Just look what happens when countries try to introduce standardised charing cables.
I just wish they would be frank about what they can and cannot do.
EDIT: And by the way about that pathetic "climate change" argument. Right, they are now selling Fiat their CO2 certificates thus enabling them to do wonderful green washing.
I just wish they would be frank about what they can and cannot do.
EDIT: And by the way about that pathetic "climate change" argument. Right, they are now selling Fiat their CO2 certificates thus enabling them to do wonderful green washing.
The rest of your arguments are valid, but the CO2 credit system is working as intended there. That's why it's called a credit. That's a lot of money that gets to be directly invested into getting electric cars in the hands of more people, which is what will actually reduce emissions in the long run.
Fiat's emissions already happened; they can't turn back time. Selling the credits to them will result in a net decrease in emissions (assuming they don't spend all the money on flamethrowers or something). If they didn't sell the credits, Fiat still put out exactly the same amount of emissions, and would be likely to do so in the future even with the fines.
If you've helped accelerate climate change, you're supposed to buy credits to offset the damage you've caused. If you've helped mitigate climate change, you're supposed to sell the credits, because the credits are there in the first place to incentivize mitigating climate change. This system obviously isn't sufficient to halt climate change all by itself, and maybe there are some other reasons it's a bad system, but it seems like the credit system is working exactly as it was supposed to. At the very least, I don't see what Tesla's doing wrong when it comes to that particular area.
Fiat's emissions already happened; they can't turn back time. Selling the credits to them will result in a net decrease in emissions (assuming they don't spend all the money on flamethrowers or something). If they didn't sell the credits, Fiat still put out exactly the same amount of emissions, and would be likely to do so in the future even with the fines.
If you've helped accelerate climate change, you're supposed to buy credits to offset the damage you've caused. If you've helped mitigate climate change, you're supposed to sell the credits, because the credits are there in the first place to incentivize mitigating climate change. This system obviously isn't sufficient to halt climate change all by itself, and maybe there are some other reasons it's a bad system, but it seems like the credit system is working exactly as it was supposed to. At the very least, I don't see what Tesla's doing wrong when it comes to that particular area.
To be honest it really disturbs why people hate Tesla so much. Citing your reason for them being over-optimistic or over-promising, how else do people change the world? I don't mean this message as an attack but something to think about. These guys are working on something No one has EVER done in the history of mankind and we require them to stick to timetables and if they don't the punishment is we wish them failure and celebrate it? If Tesla is to succeed all our lives will be better for it, why are their mistakes and obstacles celebrated? Why do we care if the company is overvalued? This is the same sentiment towards Apple when the iPhone first came out till it no longer could be ignored. Tesla is far from a perfect company, but their mission is true and the real question we should be asking ourselves rather than if we like Elon, or if the company is overvalued or if they over promise and under deliver. the real question is, Is this company really trying to fulfill its mission statement, If yes, would we want such a mission to succeed?
All that is great. I just wish they could do it without lying through their teeth. Elon is still claiming with a straight face that fully autonomous, L5 Teslas are coming next year. This is a lie. Everyone knows it is a lie. Why is this necessary? Couldn't he change the world without engaging in that sort of behavior?
Elon blatantly lies through his teeth on many occasions.
Somewhere around 2013, he claimed Tesla would launch a "fully autonomous, L5" in 2 years, but it would take another 3 years of regulatory approval. Clearly a gross misrepresentation of facts.
Somewhere around 2013, he claimed Tesla would launch a "fully autonomous, L5" in 2 years, but it would take another 3 years of regulatory approval. Clearly a gross misrepresentation of facts.
Lying is perhaps the wrong word here. Sharing self-delusion is probably a more accurate way of describing it. He genuinely believes many of his own exaggerations. But to be fair without a big dose of self delusion no one would be crazy enough to try these things in the first place.
I take his claims with a massive pinch of salt, while also appreciating that trait is somewhat necessary to solve the problems he's trying to solve.
I take his claims with a massive pinch of salt, while also appreciating that trait is somewhat necessary to solve the problems he's trying to solve.
> He genuinely believes many of his own exaggerations.
Either a) he is lying, or b) the CEO of multiple companies worth a combined ~$100b is delusional to the point of being unable to recognize basic facts. Pick your poison.
Either a) he is lying, or b) the CEO of multiple companies worth a combined ~$100b is delusional to the point of being unable to recognize basic facts. Pick your poison.
He is CEO of those companies exactly because of his above average ability to make those delusions reality, no matter how impossible people considered e.g. landing rocket stages. I'd prefer him to project more of a visionary image with less harmful/psychotic aspects, but you can only get humans as a complete package and I'd have a hard time coming up with people to replace him.
Facebook’s active user growth is also a stark and plain lie; if Tesla succeeds, the world will improve. If Facebook succeeds, the world gets a lot worse.
It’s misplaced ire.
It’s misplaced ire.
> if Tesla succeeds, the world will improve
It doesn't matter if Tesla succeeds or fails. All car companies now have to meet fleet emissions targets and the way they're going to do it is by building electric cars, either battery electric or fuel cell or both.
It doesn't matter if Tesla succeeds or fails. All car companies now have to meet fleet emissions targets and the way they're going to do it is by building electric cars, either battery electric or fuel cell or both.
"These guys are working on something No one has EVER done in the history of mankind" - erm people were making electric cars before ICE ones!
So, you made me realise I'd been ambiguous here, sorry.
I'll have to name companies to explain: Uber have undermined workers' rights in a systematic way, through the development of their concept of contract employees and the gig economy.
I have heard plenty of stories about SpaceX (not Tesla, but I'll assume similar stories exist) not treating their employees well. So yes, they've hurt workers rights too, so I accept your point. It's different kind of issue though, because it's particular to one company and not systemic, which is what I originally meant to say.
Disagree strongly about the climate change/greenwashing argument. I believe Tesla is a net positive in tackling climate change, which is what matters.
I'll have to name companies to explain: Uber have undermined workers' rights in a systematic way, through the development of their concept of contract employees and the gig economy.
I have heard plenty of stories about SpaceX (not Tesla, but I'll assume similar stories exist) not treating their employees well. So yes, they've hurt workers rights too, so I accept your point. It's different kind of issue though, because it's particular to one company and not systemic, which is what I originally meant to say.
Disagree strongly about the climate change/greenwashing argument. I believe Tesla is a net positive in tackling climate change, which is what matters.
>they are now selling Fiat their CO2 certificates thus enabling them to do wonderful green washing.
SO they should not use the cash that the government made accessible to them (because Fiat refuse to manufacture electric vehicles) and thus, not increase their EV production capacity?
This makes no sense. That's up to regulators to prevent Fiat from selling polluting cars, not to Tesla to refuse financial help that allow them to accelerate their growth.
SO they should not use the cash that the government made accessible to them (because Fiat refuse to manufacture electric vehicles) and thus, not increase their EV production capacity?
This makes no sense. That's up to regulators to prevent Fiat from selling polluting cars, not to Tesla to refuse financial help that allow them to accelerate their growth.
>"we are going to build a factory in weeks"
Where did you read that? What is your source?
Where did you read that? What is your source?
Tesla is singularly responsible for the destruction of workers rights? OK. If you want real worker rights bugbears, look at Uber and Lyft.
Their quality issues may exist, but they aren't that bad. They're not. Every person you talk to has lemon stories about every car in existence.
Tesla does not have a monopoly on irrational exuberance in what a company will accomplish. You are commenting on ground zero of internet startups. Tesla actually built cars.
CO2 credit sales are part of a market that actually forces companies to pay for CO2. There is nothing bad about that.
Massive overvaluation: Again, you are commenting on ground zero of wannabe unicorn internet startups. Uber's app can be replicated by a team of 10 in a month. Tesla has a competitive advantage in battery tech, vertical integration, and design, and could displace Toyota in a couple decades.
Fans are insufferable: ok, true.
Their quality issues may exist, but they aren't that bad. They're not. Every person you talk to has lemon stories about every car in existence.
Tesla does not have a monopoly on irrational exuberance in what a company will accomplish. You are commenting on ground zero of internet startups. Tesla actually built cars.
CO2 credit sales are part of a market that actually forces companies to pay for CO2. There is nothing bad about that.
Massive overvaluation: Again, you are commenting on ground zero of wannabe unicorn internet startups. Uber's app can be replicated by a team of 10 in a month. Tesla has a competitive advantage in battery tech, vertical integration, and design, and could displace Toyota in a couple decades.
Fans are insufferable: ok, true.
For me it's mostly that I don't like overly-promotional liars. And the "saving the world" schtick wears thin. Hate would be a strong word though.
Every CEO is a salesman. Anyone who believes every word of a salesman is a fool. I'd not paint it as Trump-style, bona fide lying. It's just inflating promises, or being overly optimistic. Par for the course.
SpaceX isn't a big name in consumer tech the same way Tesla or those tech giants you're thinking of are. It's less known and even less within the public conscious. Less seen so less talked about.
People on a deep subconscious level understand that they're not in an environment where they belong. They've been robbed of their humanity and turned in to half cog half husk of a person. They've don't and can't live an authentic life but rather a simulation. They're a shark in a tank. They understand that the scientist, the academic, and above all the technologist is responsible for this.
Large well known technology companies are therefore a good outlet of this disapproval. They're viewed as the enemy and the missteps they make that we consciously understand as negatives are amplified by our subconscious understanding that they're existentially damaging to us at their very core. People do hate the tech giants. Tesla though is largely unique in that it doesn't sell to the masses, at least not yet, so criticism aimed at it feels less hypocritical than that of a company whose products and services we use.
That's why SpaceX doesn't get criticised pretty much at all, normal tech giants get criticised a bit, and Tesla gets dogpiled.
People on a deep subconscious level understand that they're not in an environment where they belong. They've been robbed of their humanity and turned in to half cog half husk of a person. They've don't and can't live an authentic life but rather a simulation. They're a shark in a tank. They understand that the scientist, the academic, and above all the technologist is responsible for this.
Large well known technology companies are therefore a good outlet of this disapproval. They're viewed as the enemy and the missteps they make that we consciously understand as negatives are amplified by our subconscious understanding that they're existentially damaging to us at their very core. People do hate the tech giants. Tesla though is largely unique in that it doesn't sell to the masses, at least not yet, so criticism aimed at it feels less hypocritical than that of a company whose products and services we use.
That's why SpaceX doesn't get criticised pretty much at all, normal tech giants get criticised a bit, and Tesla gets dogpiled.
Personally I dislike Tesla because I think Autopilot causes preventable deaths.
I don’t understand the downvotes. This was actually the same reason for me that changed my perception of the company and of musk, from something fantastic to something dangerous.
When they went from saying « we’re aiming at self driving car in the future » to « our car are able to do it right now », leaving all kinds of ambiguity just for the sake of hyping the brand, they crossed the red line.
When they went from saying « we’re aiming at self driving car in the future » to « our car are able to do it right now », leaving all kinds of ambiguity just for the sake of hyping the brand, they crossed the red line.
Humans driving cars cause preventable deaths.
I think it's like saying "I don't like surgery, because mistakes during surgeries cause preventable deaths"
It’s not a monetised feature, though.
Driving a car is indeed a monetized feature of cars.
He's saying even if a self driving car is more dangerous than a human, a human driven car is still dangerous and we all accept that. So its not about whether the deaths were preventable. We accept human driven cars therefore we accept preventable death.
We're now forced to consider the fact that this is an argument about the fuzzy math of risk vs reward as we have crossed the threshold of preventable deaths long ago.
He's saying even if a self driving car is more dangerous than a human, a human driven car is still dangerous and we all accept that. So its not about whether the deaths were preventable. We accept human driven cars therefore we accept preventable death.
We're now forced to consider the fact that this is an argument about the fuzzy math of risk vs reward as we have crossed the threshold of preventable deaths long ago.
What is the point of this comment ? Humans doing anything cause preventable deaths.
That has nothing to do with whether or not a new, potentially life threatening technology should be on the market.
That has nothing to do with whether or not a new, potentially life threatening technology should be on the market.
I guess OP means preventable by others who are knowledgeable of the preventability?
If we arrive at a working solution faster (i.e. something that prevents more deaths than it causes), it makes sense to speed up its development to get to that state faster.
The question remains if we accept a death by software bug (i.e. human software developer error) in the same way we accept a death by human driving error.
The question remains if we accept a death by software bug (i.e. human software developer error) in the same way we accept a death by human driving error.
> The question remains if we accept a death by software bug (i.e. human software developer error) in the same way we accept a death by human driving error.
The closest thing Hacker News has to consensus is "certainly not if it's Boeing, probably not if it's Uber but definitely if it's Tesla..."
The closest thing Hacker News has to consensus is "certainly not if it's Boeing, probably not if it's Uber but definitely if it's Tesla..."
Musk’s hubris is annoying, but how many lives did he save by not waiting until the autopilot was “ready”? It is probably in the dozens at this point.
I'm not sure why you think that. While this is a very dense document, it details a lot about the fatality statistics around Teslas and Autopilot. The short version is that Teslas are actually not very safe cars (relatively speaking), and Autopilot is probably much more dangerous than manual driving (although Tesla won't release the data, so we don't know for sure).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ESnyJ4b7m96OCjs3GSQ6...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ESnyJ4b7m96OCjs3GSQ6...
That's a list of all fatalities involving Teslas reported in the media, including ones caused by human Tesla drivers or the drivers of other vehicles involved in the collision, and speculation trying to associate that with a number of miles driven.
Then they have "miles per death" numbers in the 150M-240M range, but the US average is less than 100M per death (typically stated as the inverse, deaths per 100M miles[1]), so according to your data they're apparently better than average, though collecting it through media reports this way is questionable anyway.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
I see a column for deaths attributed to autopilot, but it sums to 4 in the US, which is too small to be a good statistical sample even if we knew how many miles per death that was, but I don't see any data for miles driven on autopilot regardless.
Then they have "miles per death" numbers in the 150M-240M range, but the US average is less than 100M per death (typically stated as the inverse, deaths per 100M miles[1]), so according to your data they're apparently better than average, though collecting it through media reports this way is questionable anyway.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
I see a column for deaths attributed to autopilot, but it sums to 4 in the US, which is too small to be a good statistical sample even if we knew how many miles per death that was, but I don't see any data for miles driven on autopilot regardless.
The thing about comparisons is you need to compare like to like as much as possible. Demographics are an essential part of actuarial statistics. I think the best comparison is between Tesla and luxury vehicles, and here is an article showing Teslas are much more dangerous:
https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
I'm not sure if you noticed (I didn't the first time I saw that document), but there are multiple tabs and that's under the 'Resources' section.
That said, the data is obviously incomplete. Only Tesla really knows. While it's obviously a guess, I think the most damning evidence is that Tesla isn't releasing their own data to the contrary, because I think Elon Musk of all people would be ecstatic to shutup the haters such as myself.
https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...
I'm not sure if you noticed (I didn't the first time I saw that document), but there are multiple tabs and that's under the 'Resources' section.
That said, the data is obviously incomplete. Only Tesla really knows. While it's obviously a guess, I think the most damning evidence is that Tesla isn't releasing their own data to the contrary, because I think Elon Musk of all people would be ecstatic to shutup the haters such as myself.
The demographic point is true, but it really invalidates the whole thing, because you have to be assuming that the same people who buy a Tesla would have otherwise bought a Mercedes S class and not e.g. a Corvette or Porsche. If the Telsa owners skew younger or have other demographic differences from ordinary luxury car purchasers then the comparison is meaningless without factoring that in because you're measuring the driver behavior as much as the cars. (And choosing "luxury cars" rather than "sports cars" or just "cars" as the comparison is maximally unfavorable, since luxury vehicles are generally the safest available regardless of driver.)
The comparison between Tesla and other luxury cars isn't that far of. It is even the one Tesla is using, or was using, to show success compared to high priced Mercedes, Audi, Porsche and BMW models.
One thing I find annoying is that Tesla and Musk seem to always move the goal post to point where it suits them best. For me stuff like self-driving taxis and sattelite internet are prime examples. It looks, at least to me, like running away from rwality faster than it can catch up.
One last point regarding luxury cars and safety. Tesla is proud of being the top performer at the NCAP crash test. And all of a sudden that comparison is unfair just because the numbers aren't positive for Tesla?
One thing I find annoying is that Tesla and Musk seem to always move the goal post to point where it suits them best. For me stuff like self-driving taxis and sattelite internet are prime examples. It looks, at least to me, like running away from rwality faster than it can catch up.
One last point regarding luxury cars and safety. Tesla is proud of being the top performer at the NCAP crash test. And all of a sudden that comparison is unfair just because the numbers aren't positive for Tesla?
That's a valid criticism, but I still think it's the best analysis with the available data.
FWIW, and this is completely anecdotal, I find Tesla drivers to be the most obnoxious on the road - which would lend credence to your argument that it attracts a certain kind of person and is not the car itself. That's ignoring the entire Autopilot X factor though, which is a whole separate conversation with even more missing data.
‾\_(ツ)_/‾
FWIW, and this is completely anecdotal, I find Tesla drivers to be the most obnoxious on the road - which would lend credence to your argument that it attracts a certain kind of person and is not the car itself. That's ignoring the entire Autopilot X factor though, which is a whole separate conversation with even more missing data.
‾\_(ツ)_/‾
the author is a tesla short and proud of it . Now the matter of data he sites its his blog which has no published paper or peer review. He quotes IIHS stats but says that they dont have enough data on Tesla ?? and he extrapolates tesla accident rates with correlation with news articles ?? and claims all death rates are not reported cause there may be data entry issues not realizing that it goes both ways?? . Being Short on tesla is different than being short on reality , the apples to apples comparison should be made with driver assist features . If its a matter of structural safety i believe that there should be no doubt that tesla make the safest cars by any standard euro NCAP / us NTHS .
Valid criticism of the source. And exactly the reason why I personally find Tesla, and SpaceX, so annoying. You just can't seem to get reliable unbiased data beyond Tesla's SEC fillings. It is either pro-Musk or anti-Musk to a degree where all neutral analysis are just drowned out. And that sucks, especially since Musk and Tesla ans SpaceX are intentionally fueling that cycle. Which in itself is somewhat worrying.
Do you dislike drunk-drivers and phone-drivers with the same passion and focus? Do you expect them to gradually become better and better at driving through natural evolution?
No car company implies that drunk driver would be safer than myself behind the wheel, and I should let her drive instead.
I hate drunk drivers way more than I hate Tesla. That stuff never shows up on HN though, whereas Tesla is on the front page all the time.
Autopilot (and by extension Tesla) is also a lot more controversial than drunk driving, and by extension more interesting to discuss.
Autopilot (and by extension Tesla) is also a lot more controversial than drunk driving, and by extension more interesting to discuss.
Tesla - Ok cars but build quality is meh.
SpaceX - Love what they're doing.
Online fans of the two - insufferable cultists.
SpaceX - Love what they're doing.
Online fans of the two - insufferable cultists.
That question became much bigger than expected. It was an honest question from a point of ignorance, so maybe that’s why.
I got some interesting insight. One trend I noticed in the replies is that answers are tending away from the goal of car driving being part of daily life and trying to make that electric. Those who did touch on this, were of the opinion that Tesla was not doing anything new or essential in that area.
Instead, most criticism was targeted towards the negatives of Tesla without regards to the positive. Tesla driving the advent of electric-powered personal transportation was barely touched upon.
Overall, I’m of the opinion that the technical advances Tesla has made, the influence on the market and public thinking, outweighs the negatives.
One explanation I came up with myself for the hatred is the overriding positive optimism of Musk. I do think that his marketing is partially bluster and partially the way he sees the world. The latter perhaps is what people hate. And nerds are somehow predisposed, understandably, to be sceptical. There’s a direct conflict there.
If you’ve spent years working for Facebook or others, then it would be hard to accept that a much better way of spending your time is possible. Easier to think all tech companies are bad, than the idea that you’ve made the wrong choice. Especially when earning well.
I have no axe to grind for Musk. He’s said enough things to lose my respect. I think being on Twitter is unhealthy for him and he’s crossed many lines. I also think Tesla is net positive, and I still think the hatred of this community is irrational. I think everyone feeling that way about Tesla should take time out and imagine trying to explain how a world without Tesla would have been better.
I got some interesting insight. One trend I noticed in the replies is that answers are tending away from the goal of car driving being part of daily life and trying to make that electric. Those who did touch on this, were of the opinion that Tesla was not doing anything new or essential in that area.
Instead, most criticism was targeted towards the negatives of Tesla without regards to the positive. Tesla driving the advent of electric-powered personal transportation was barely touched upon.
Overall, I’m of the opinion that the technical advances Tesla has made, the influence on the market and public thinking, outweighs the negatives.
One explanation I came up with myself for the hatred is the overriding positive optimism of Musk. I do think that his marketing is partially bluster and partially the way he sees the world. The latter perhaps is what people hate. And nerds are somehow predisposed, understandably, to be sceptical. There’s a direct conflict there.
If you’ve spent years working for Facebook or others, then it would be hard to accept that a much better way of spending your time is possible. Easier to think all tech companies are bad, than the idea that you’ve made the wrong choice. Especially when earning well.
I have no axe to grind for Musk. He’s said enough things to lose my respect. I think being on Twitter is unhealthy for him and he’s crossed many lines. I also think Tesla is net positive, and I still think the hatred of this community is irrational. I think everyone feeling that way about Tesla should take time out and imagine trying to explain how a world without Tesla would have been better.
One factor I think is "the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" which means if you point out that there are people starving on the planet, and you don't immediately give up your entire wealth to do something about it then you are judged as worse than people doing their best to not focus on bad stuff outside of their immediate vision.
https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
Tesla/Musk obviously fall into this trap with climate change.
Also the parallels in some attacks with what gets used for people like Al Gore makes me think that pointing out a problem that people have staked their political capital on being a hoax, provokes a certain reaction too.
https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
Tesla/Musk obviously fall into this trap with climate change.
Also the parallels in some attacks with what gets used for people like Al Gore makes me think that pointing out a problem that people have staked their political capital on being a hoax, provokes a certain reaction too.
1) Elon is a nerd. The media loves to do stories on darling nerds transforming the world and then tearing them down with classic American anti-intellectualism and clickbait links at every stage of the Hype Cycle.
2) Oil and big auto hate them. A small company made the technological offerings of car companies and are threatening oil to become obsolete? And the car companies have been whining about CAFE and the inability to make EVs for three decades now.
3) Stock speculators and shorters producing volatility and doing bets.
4) Americans are attached to cars, so all the "car guys" hate Teslas. ESPECIALLY since they smoke ICEs off the line. Go read jalopnik, Tesla is pursuing their two precious bastions of masculinity: the roar of an engine, and whether or not you actually drive a car yourself
2) Oil and big auto hate them. A small company made the technological offerings of car companies and are threatening oil to become obsolete? And the car companies have been whining about CAFE and the inability to make EVs for three decades now.
3) Stock speculators and shorters producing volatility and doing bets.
4) Americans are attached to cars, so all the "car guys" hate Teslas. ESPECIALLY since they smoke ICEs off the line. Go read jalopnik, Tesla is pursuing their two precious bastions of masculinity: the roar of an engine, and whether or not you actually drive a car yourself
> Why do some many people hate Tesla and want them to fail? Do they also want SpaceX to fail?
Aside from the obvious fanboy vs anti-fanboy thing, all of the other players in these spheres tend to be huge companies and government contractors, who can afford large and aggressive marketing budgets. This will almost certainly include some sort of online forum monitoring and consensus building.
Aside from the obvious fanboy vs anti-fanboy thing, all of the other players in these spheres tend to be huge companies and government contractors, who can afford large and aggressive marketing budgets. This will almost certainly include some sort of online forum monitoring and consensus building.
Of the top of my head, these are a few things that if Tesla can get away with while having a huge fanbase and no repercussions, every future startup is going to try:
1) Tesla Had 3 Times as Many OSHA Violations as the 10 Largest US Plants Combined[1]
2) Elon Musk personally doxxing a market analyst who provided in-depth analysis of Tesla financials, by calling his boss and threatening to sue if he continued his side project of covering Tesla [2]
3) Committing blatant securities fraud by claiming he would sell Tesla to Saudi Arabian investors for $420 a share, and promising 'the short burn of the century' a few weeks before doing so.
4) Bailing out a failing Solar City run by Musk's family(cousins) with Tesla shareholder money on the promise of a product that turned out to be vaporware. [3] After the merger solar city sales are now approaching zero and it's becoming increasingly clear it was a bailout [4]. Multiple lawsuits are ongoing.
5) Claiming that Tesla cars bought today will appreciate in value to over $250,000, so it's actually an investment not a purchase.[5]. Generally making crazy statements about imminent "million robotaxis" while still not having a 'Summon' featured promised in a few weeks months ago because "parking lots are very hard"(recent tweet)
For me at least, the transition was a slow one - from "What they're doing is hard, but I hope they succeed" to "They're probably going to fail, but at least they have good intentions" to "If they don't fail, the precedent set is staggering to what you can get away with".
There's the famous James Comey saying of 'The Chickenshit Club' - prosecutors unwilling to take on corporations for fear that a loss or long case would damage their win ratio, leading to entities with a large legal team getting away with anything they want. Fundamentally the problem is consistently making statement that they know to be untrue under the guise of this being targets to be met. A generous person would of course call them "ambitious goal". But someone who has studied them closely would know it's an attempt to pump stock that has historically worked, but has recently started failing.
When blatant market manipulations, hazardous working conditions, highly questionable accounting practices, false marketing claims, doxxing critics and lies are allowed to succeed, laws don't really exist and companies operate within their bounds only because they don't want to take the 0.1% risk that they'll actually be punished in a way that threatens their continued operations.
If you believe in capitalism and regulated efficient markets, you will hope that a company that breaks the rules as often as Tesla doesn't go unpunished. But the SEC will never bring down a company who's stock is still high, as their primary goal is to protect shareholder value. To fully uncover the extent of their damage, they will have to fail first.
[1] - https://www.thedrive.com/news/26727/tesla-had-3-times-as-man...
[2] - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-allegedly-silenc...
[3] - https://mansionengineer.com/2018/08/10/elon-musk-tesla-and-t...
[4] - https://i.imgur.com/iQUJkbE.jpg
[5] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/musk-stan...
1) Tesla Had 3 Times as Many OSHA Violations as the 10 Largest US Plants Combined[1]
2) Elon Musk personally doxxing a market analyst who provided in-depth analysis of Tesla financials, by calling his boss and threatening to sue if he continued his side project of covering Tesla [2]
3) Committing blatant securities fraud by claiming he would sell Tesla to Saudi Arabian investors for $420 a share, and promising 'the short burn of the century' a few weeks before doing so.
4) Bailing out a failing Solar City run by Musk's family(cousins) with Tesla shareholder money on the promise of a product that turned out to be vaporware. [3] After the merger solar city sales are now approaching zero and it's becoming increasingly clear it was a bailout [4]. Multiple lawsuits are ongoing.
5) Claiming that Tesla cars bought today will appreciate in value to over $250,000, so it's actually an investment not a purchase.[5]. Generally making crazy statements about imminent "million robotaxis" while still not having a 'Summon' featured promised in a few weeks months ago because "parking lots are very hard"(recent tweet)
For me at least, the transition was a slow one - from "What they're doing is hard, but I hope they succeed" to "They're probably going to fail, but at least they have good intentions" to "If they don't fail, the precedent set is staggering to what you can get away with".
There's the famous James Comey saying of 'The Chickenshit Club' - prosecutors unwilling to take on corporations for fear that a loss or long case would damage their win ratio, leading to entities with a large legal team getting away with anything they want. Fundamentally the problem is consistently making statement that they know to be untrue under the guise of this being targets to be met. A generous person would of course call them "ambitious goal". But someone who has studied them closely would know it's an attempt to pump stock that has historically worked, but has recently started failing.
When blatant market manipulations, hazardous working conditions, highly questionable accounting practices, false marketing claims, doxxing critics and lies are allowed to succeed, laws don't really exist and companies operate within their bounds only because they don't want to take the 0.1% risk that they'll actually be punished in a way that threatens their continued operations.
If you believe in capitalism and regulated efficient markets, you will hope that a company that breaks the rules as often as Tesla doesn't go unpunished. But the SEC will never bring down a company who's stock is still high, as their primary goal is to protect shareholder value. To fully uncover the extent of their damage, they will have to fail first.
[1] - https://www.thedrive.com/news/26727/tesla-had-3-times-as-man...
[2] - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-allegedly-silenc...
[3] - https://mansionengineer.com/2018/08/10/elon-musk-tesla-and-t...
[4] - https://i.imgur.com/iQUJkbE.jpg
[5] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/musk-stan...
This is a great post summarizing why I could care less if Tesla folds. And when some of this stuff is settled,there are going to be many in the tech influencer world with egg on their faces.
Building a handful of electric cars while milking investors is not doing a lot for humanity.
hevi_jos(2)
For my part, it's just that Elon is the paramount example of what happens when the ROI plummets, and there's an amazing amount of investor cash floating around.
You see it in history: the victorians built a ridiculously over-engineered, insanely extensive rail network. It didn't make any money, but at the time, there wasn't really anything else to invest in with a reasonable return rate. So everybody went in on the one thing that had the possibility of a massive pay-off. Recognize the unicorn-logic here?
Tesla kind of takes all the decades of Toyota kicking ass, and gets the lesson completely wrong - the 'machine that builds the machine' is exactly what GM was doing. Toyota was good at building cars because they were far less automated than their american competitors.
Then it works because electric cars are a great idea, batteries are massively subsidized by the phone industry, and incumbent car makers don't really have relevant expertise (since they're really good at building internal combustion engines, and a lot of the other stuff is a secondary concern). Also, because Tesla has an enormous amount of investor cash.
So why does all this bother me? It's because of where the cash comes from. Tech companies don't really pay taxes, and they don't have (relative to revenue) employees. If you imagine how many jobs Microsoft Office has replaced, you get the picture. All this is fine in itself (minus the tax thing), but when the money just gets poured into these obvious money spouts, into a company that's pretty obviously only workable because it sits at the bottom of one of those money spouts, lead by a guy who's clearly not as smart as he thinks he is - well, it feels a bit like a great example of the waste and unfairness of the system itself.
You see it in history: the victorians built a ridiculously over-engineered, insanely extensive rail network. It didn't make any money, but at the time, there wasn't really anything else to invest in with a reasonable return rate. So everybody went in on the one thing that had the possibility of a massive pay-off. Recognize the unicorn-logic here?
Tesla kind of takes all the decades of Toyota kicking ass, and gets the lesson completely wrong - the 'machine that builds the machine' is exactly what GM was doing. Toyota was good at building cars because they were far less automated than their american competitors.
Then it works because electric cars are a great idea, batteries are massively subsidized by the phone industry, and incumbent car makers don't really have relevant expertise (since they're really good at building internal combustion engines, and a lot of the other stuff is a secondary concern). Also, because Tesla has an enormous amount of investor cash.
So why does all this bother me? It's because of where the cash comes from. Tech companies don't really pay taxes, and they don't have (relative to revenue) employees. If you imagine how many jobs Microsoft Office has replaced, you get the picture. All this is fine in itself (minus the tax thing), but when the money just gets poured into these obvious money spouts, into a company that's pretty obviously only workable because it sits at the bottom of one of those money spouts, lead by a guy who's clearly not as smart as he thinks he is - well, it feels a bit like a great example of the waste and unfairness of the system itself.
Would just like to point out that in the UK we're still massively benefitting from the Victorian's far-sighted investments. They made stuff to last 100s of years. Bridges, railways, sewers, the house I'm living in. Thanks Victorians.
Would you have sources about Toyota factories being less automated than their US competitors?
I've been told in the past that the key factor in Toyota success is their relationship with their suppliers. A top notch supply chain with just in time processes bundled with reasonable proxy stocks?
Would love to read about their automation level compared to US or EU companies
I've been told in the past that the key factor in Toyota success is their relationship with their suppliers. A top notch supply chain with just in time processes bundled with reasonable proxy stocks?
Would love to read about their automation level compared to US or EU companies
> Would you have sources about Toyota factories being less automated than their US competitors?
It's kind of a cliche at this point - but a good start is 'The Toyota Way', which talks about developing people. I'd also be interested if you can find an authoritative source. I just have a lot of news articles - a good overview is this one in industryweek (https://www.industryweek.com/operations/tesla-vs-tps-seeking...).
The basic principle is somewhat obvious - automation is efficient, but inflexible. That often leads to machines sitting idle, or the overproduction of unsaleable stock. So it's a kind of poison chalice - it looks like you'll reap huge profits, but if your car doesn't sell well, you're screwed. If you invest in people instead, you can react to changing economic conditions.
It's kind of a cliche at this point - but a good start is 'The Toyota Way', which talks about developing people. I'd also be interested if you can find an authoritative source. I just have a lot of news articles - a good overview is this one in industryweek (https://www.industryweek.com/operations/tesla-vs-tps-seeking...).
The basic principle is somewhat obvious - automation is efficient, but inflexible. That often leads to machines sitting idle, or the overproduction of unsaleable stock. So it's a kind of poison chalice - it looks like you'll reap huge profits, but if your car doesn't sell well, you're screwed. If you invest in people instead, you can react to changing economic conditions.
Here's an article on Toyota's production lines:
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26955/inside-toyotas-takaoka-2...
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26955/inside-toyotas-takaoka-2...
Because they are involved in other car companies and they would lose something if Tesla beats the car companies they are involved with. For instance if you are a supplier and have super good relationships with Ford then you don't want Tesla to beat Ford. Who knows if you can have a similarly profitable and trustable relationship at Tesla.
I agree it seems likely that other car companies are against Tesla.
But why are geeks against Tesla? Why is there so much hate for them on Hacker News on Twitter, from tech people working for big tech companies? That's my question.
But why are geeks against Tesla? Why is there so much hate for them on Hacker News on Twitter, from tech people working for big tech companies? That's my question.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Eberhard and Tarpenning were the original founders and incorporated Tesla, while Musk, Straubel and Wright joined in a Series A round later on. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five to call themselves founders.]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#cite_note-founders...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#cite_note-founders...
And the 2009 news article properly referenced by that wikipedia article:
https://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-ar...
https://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-ar...
Just to add that Musk was not a Paypal founder either. In fact they absorbed his company and promptly fired him for making stupid decisions.
I'm going to miss his detailed, technical answers to questions during Q&As. He's been with Tesla since the beginning, for 15 years, and seems to be departing on good terms though.
> His departure is the latest in a long string of high-profile executives to leave Tesla in the past year, most recently Steve McManus, a vice president in charge of engineering for car interiors and exteriors at Tesla, who joined Apple. Two other former Tesla executives, Michael Schwekutsch, and chief engineer Doug Field, have also left to join Apple.
Not to understate the significance of Tesla losing Straubel, but TechCrunch's claim that Tesla is losing lots of "high-profile executives" seems like a little bit of a stretch. Steve McManus was a vice president in charge of "car interiors." It seems strange to place him on the same level of significance of their CTO.
Not to understate the significance of Tesla losing Straubel, but TechCrunch's claim that Tesla is losing lots of "high-profile executives" seems like a little bit of a stretch. Steve McManus was a vice president in charge of "car interiors." It seems strange to place him on the same level of significance of their CTO.
Since January 2018:
Jason Mendez, director of manufacturing engineering
Will McColl, manager of equipment engineering
Jon McNeill, president of global sales and services
Eric Branderiz, chief accounting officer
Susan Repo, corporate treasurer and vice president of finance
Jim Keller, head of Autopilot hardware engineering
Georg Ell, director of Western Europe operations
Matthew Schwall, director of field performance engineering
Ganesh Srivats, vice president overseeing retail, delivery
Sarah O'Brien, vice president of communications
Gabrielle Toledano, chief people officer
Dave Morton, chief accounting officer
Liam O'Connor, vice president of global supply management
Antoin Abou-Haydar, senior director of production and quality
Justin McAnear, vice president of worldwide finance and operations
Phil Rothenberg, vice president in the legal department
Jeff Jones, head of global security
Dan Kim, senior director of global sales
Aaron Chew, director of investor relations
Todd Maron, general counsel
Charles Mwangi, senior director of engineering
Cindy Nicola, vice president of global recruiting
Dane Butswinkas, general counsel
Deepak Ahuja, CFO
Praveen Arichandran, director of growth
Karl Wagner, senior director of global security
Dave Arnold, senior director of global communications
Felicia Mayo, vice president of human resources and head of diversity
Peter Hochholdinger, vice president of production
Steve MacManus, vice president of interior & exterior engineering
Jason Mendez, director of manufacturing engineering
Will McColl, manager of equipment engineering
Jon McNeill, president of global sales and services
Eric Branderiz, chief accounting officer
Susan Repo, corporate treasurer and vice president of finance
Jim Keller, head of Autopilot hardware engineering
Georg Ell, director of Western Europe operations
Matthew Schwall, director of field performance engineering
Ganesh Srivats, vice president overseeing retail, delivery
Sarah O'Brien, vice president of communications
Gabrielle Toledano, chief people officer
Dave Morton, chief accounting officer
Liam O'Connor, vice president of global supply management
Antoin Abou-Haydar, senior director of production and quality
Justin McAnear, vice president of worldwide finance and operations
Phil Rothenberg, vice president in the legal department
Jeff Jones, head of global security
Dan Kim, senior director of global sales
Aaron Chew, director of investor relations
Todd Maron, general counsel
Charles Mwangi, senior director of engineering
Cindy Nicola, vice president of global recruiting
Dane Butswinkas, general counsel
Deepak Ahuja, CFO
Praveen Arichandran, director of growth
Karl Wagner, senior director of global security
Dave Arnold, senior director of global communications
Felicia Mayo, vice president of human resources and head of diversity
Peter Hochholdinger, vice president of production
Steve MacManus, vice president of interior & exterior engineering
Statistics would be more valuable than a list of titles. How many people have titles such as “president” or “Vice President”? How does this compare to churn at other companies, statistically?
Also statistical comparisons on open positions for these absent positions. Have there been management consolidation? What impact has there been to the functioning of the company?
yeah if you look at banking, people with titles like Vice president or Director leave all the time in relatively large numbers and it means nothing. C-suite is another story.
Tesla isn't a bank though. People have those titles in Finance because they have ownership over a particular product division, of which there are many. Consumer loans, corporate paper, fixed income, export-import financing, commodities trading, etc.
30 people leaving Tesla with job titles as low as "manager" over the course of a year and a half is almost meaningless without seeing how this stacks up against other tech companies of a similar size.
There's a potential fallicy here. Tesla should be compared to other car companies and not software companies. Because Tesla is building cars.
really though how many car companies have OTA updates
They all will. Volkswagen is doing it for its electric cars. But that level of connectivity is not necessarily a good thing:
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29120/top-ota-expert-shows-how...
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29120/top-ota-expert-shows-how...
i wouldnt count on it bosh has a choke hold on any innovation in the auto software space , at this point its no secret that auto software is in the state it is because of bosch choke hold on the whole market .
Volkswagen must have missed that particular memo:
https://www.automotivelinux.org/announcements/2019/04/08/vol...
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vw-exec-kick-starts-b...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/2020-volkswagen-id-3-elec...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8cHHNPRg-c
https://www.automotivelinux.org/announcements/2019/04/08/vol...
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vw-exec-kick-starts-b...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/2020-volkswagen-id-3-elec...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8cHHNPRg-c
i think we might both be right tesla is a software company and others are catching up to the reality of cyber security in a connected world. they are adopting FOSS to their clossed source systems which isnt the same as building a stack around FOSS from the ground up which is a very software company thing to do.
> i think we might both be right
No, you claimed other car companies won't have over-the-air software updates which is false. You claimed Bosch controls automative software which is also false. Bosch also makes use of a lot of open source software:
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/
No, you claimed other car companies won't have over-the-air software updates which is false. You claimed Bosch controls automative software which is also false. Bosch also makes use of a lot of open source software:
https://oss.bosch-cm.com/
yes i amended my claim after reading the article about auto-Linux(i didn't know about it thanks by the way), but i checked out the Bosch oss and its not what i would call useful maybe i need to look into it a bit more, From what i have seen so far the license disclosure is out of date for few vendors ie, not yet updated since jan'18 , package disclosure show there may be some vulnerable outdated packages on the platform today, its almost like a attack vector brochure. So there may still be cars out there which have these software platforms and they wouldnt be able to update them unless bosch updates it and you patch it through copyrighted update tool which bosch owns , in a service center licensed by Bosch, and your telling me bosch doesnt have a strangle hold of the auto software market, if anything this oss disclosure reaffirms it .the fact that some manager thought this oss discloure sure seems like a good idea is exactly the kinda thing a non tech manager guy would do in a car company.
Here are examples of the software for some upcoming cars. Prove that Bosch "controls" the software for these cars:
- Mercedes EQC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JTew1D5Tk8
- Audi e-tron GT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvNw15W_EK8
- Honda e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEKq8jmckz0
- Volkswagen ID.3: https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/14/vw-id-3-interior-reveale...
If you can't prove it then simply admit you don't know what you're talking about.
- Mercedes EQC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JTew1D5Tk8
- Audi e-tron GT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvNw15W_EK8
- Honda e: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEKq8jmckz0
- Volkswagen ID.3: https://www.engadget.com/2019/07/14/vw-id-3-interior-reveale...
If you can't prove it then simply admit you don't know what you're talking about.
This is no normal company though right? They are going to have a million robotaxis on the road in a year,Solar tiles,semis, news models,FSD and the stock is going to the moon.
Yet everyone is leaving?
Yet everyone is leaving?
Mostly managerial positions. Meh.
still they made thier deliveries on time , so how important were they really ??
BMW's CEO stepped down 2 weeks ago. Ford has had 4 CEOs in the last four years... not a sound from the media.
The janitor at Tesla quits and its a top story about a company in turmoil.
The janitor at Tesla quits and its a top story about a company in turmoil.
Even more: the BMW CEO quit basically for being completely unable to deliver on the EV roadmap and squandering the huge advantage BMW had in the field.
I don't think BMW ever had any kind of advantage in this field, never mind huge.
The i3 was reasonably good for its time, then they disbanded the team and lost their way
The i3 is a car designed to be a pure electric car (not counting the optional range extender, which did cost precious space). It came to market in 2013. So BMW clearly was only second to Tesla in bringing a pure electric car to the market. The i3 did a few doubious trade-offs but overall is a nice electric car.
In that sense, BMW was way ahead of most other car companies. If they had continued to bring out other models based on their tech, they would have a sizable offering of electric cars. But unfortunately, they mostly stopped development and had the i3 dev team leaving.
In that sense, BMW was way ahead of most other car companies. If they had continued to bring out other models based on their tech, they would have a sizable offering of electric cars. But unfortunately, they mostly stopped development and had the i3 dev team leaving.
Actually BMW's CEO stepping down was very widely reported. The reason it's not news in the same way as the Tesla news is because it was very public and obvious why he was stepping down - he had basically failed. The reason Tesla's news is more interesting, is because its unexplained. Which means its probably a leading indicator of some news to come. Either dozens of Tesla execs have all suddenly had their own 'A christmas carole' moment and decided to spend more time with their families, or there's something more at play.
BMW does not lose half a billion in a quarter and sells it as a huge success.
> Ford has had 4 CEOs in the last four years...
I count two.
Jim Hackett: May 22, 2017 to present (CEO) Mark Fields: July 1, 2014 to May 22, 2017 (CEO)
I count two.
Jim Hackett: May 22, 2017 to present (CEO) Mark Fields: July 1, 2014 to May 22, 2017 (CEO)
> Ford has had 4 CEOs in the last four years... not a sound from the media.
You must not read a lot of news
You must not read a lot of news
I'd say a big draw of Tesla is their well executed styling, both inside and out. I'm not sure if his purview was design, QC, supply chain, or all of the above for interiors, but thats akin to say, the VP in charge of displays leaving apple. Big portion of the product.
But I'm not in the hardware biz so /shrug
But I'm not in the hardware biz so /shrug
There is only one executive left from their proxy filing one year ago: Elon Musk.
To me the question is whether 1) the people who are leaving are the best in their field 2) they are the best for Tesla's long term plan and 3) whether this is normal / not normal for a high profile company or a disruptive tech company in 2019.
[deleted]
"His role cannot be understated"
Is this a typo or another think you crazy Americans do backwards, like "I can hardly wait"
Is this a typo or another think you crazy Americans do backwards, like "I can hardly wait"
If his role is important, this should read, "his role cannot be overstated."
Just like people they don't care at all should be saying "I couldn't care less."
It annoys me, too!
Just like people they don't care at all should be saying "I couldn't care less."
It annoys me, too!
I would argue that overstated would be wrong because you could surely overstate his role. "He was the only reason Tesla existed, would be overstating his role.
I think "his role shouldn't be understated" would be the correct phrase given the context.
I think "his role shouldn't be understated" would be the correct phrase given the context.
I agree with you. Can I blame "first thing in the morning" posting on my error? Either way, I was incorrect and you have corrected me.
It seems to mean that any statement that is relatively correct will have to detail the amazing performance of the person in question, exactly because it was so essential.
It was so good that no one can even try to badmouth it. (So it's a hyperbole of course.)
It was so good that no one can even try to badmouth it. (So it's a hyperbole of course.)
They did some terrible things to our language after appropriating it but i'll give this one a pass.
"Its impossible to understate the importance of his role"
"Its impossible to understate the importance of his role"
hodder(2)
I am wondering how much Andrej Karpathy changed; from a happy Stanford lecturer to somebody whose immature tech killed/maimed a few people already due to managerial pressure from Elon...
Personal attacks are not ok on HN, regardless of whom you're attacking. Please don't do this again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The fonts are so wacky on this webpage, that it looks like they copy/pasted from elsewhere
You can't really blame people for looking out for themselves in the short run, but still I think it's a little weak to leave one of the biggest tech endeavours to do something else. Honestly, if I would work in a key role in Tesla I would rather take a demotion to non-C-level before I accept to leave that company.
And if you don't think just short term, it's also the biggest financial opportunity, even if Tesla loses. All the knowledge, connections etc that you can build in that time will pay off in the end. There is not a single company in that size where losing for the company necessarily also means a loss for its ambitious talent.
Think about how America and the Arabs hired the biggest Nazi talent after second world war. Even losing and being clearly labelled as the devil is not enough to stop talent from being successful. Always keep fighting!
And if you don't think just short term, it's also the biggest financial opportunity, even if Tesla loses. All the knowledge, connections etc that you can build in that time will pay off in the end. There is not a single company in that size where losing for the company necessarily also means a loss for its ambitious talent.
Think about how America and the Arabs hired the biggest Nazi talent after second world war. Even losing and being clearly labelled as the devil is not enough to stop talent from being successful. Always keep fighting!
Elon can be an asshat sometimes, and he oversells and is over-optimistic. But even if the short sellers are right and Tesla will go bankrupt (which, btw, does not equal failure in many ways), why are so many people excited about that?
Most tech giants of recent times have done things I would consider to have made the world a much worse place. Why is Tesla, which has done a lot for humanity and is a key advancement in tackling climate change, hated so much? Why not save your hate for companies damaging democracy or workers rights, which seem like more serious charges?