Slashdot Mirror
CNN Skeptical of Elon Musk's 'Big Promises' (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Tesla's electric semi-truck will be launched three weeks later than planned, CNN reports. It's been bumped to November 16th because Tesla says it's "diverting resources" to address problems with its Model 3 sedan production -- they've produced just 17.3% of the cars they'd planned -- and to make more batteries to send to areas hit by hurricanes. CNN notes Tesla's Model X "didn't start shipping until two years after it was supposed to roll out," and production of its Model S sedan "was also much slower than originally promised." Michelle Krebs, an analyst with Autotrader.com, complains Tesla "may well have far too much on its plate. It should focus and deliver on some key promises."
But Elon Musk "has a history of some pretty pie-in-the-sky promises," complained CNN business anchor Maggie Lake, citing Musk's claim that he had verbal approval for an underground hyperloop connecting New York City to Washington D.C. ("This is news to City Hall," said New York's press secretary at the time, and no actual approval has ever been produced.) Lake also noted Musk's promise to fix South Australia's blackout problems by building the world's largest lithium-ion battery within 100 days back in March. Last Friday Tesla signed a contract to begin the work, so the 100-day countdown has begun.
CNN's report ran under the headline "Elon Musk: Big Dreamer or Monorail Salesman?" -- referencing a satirical 1993 episode of The Simpson's. "Here's a spoiler alert," the segment concludes. "If you haven't seen that episode...the monorail plan doesn't work out too well. Let's put it that way."
But Elon Musk "has a history of some pretty pie-in-the-sky promises," complained CNN business anchor Maggie Lake, citing Musk's claim that he had verbal approval for an underground hyperloop connecting New York City to Washington D.C. ("This is news to City Hall," said New York's press secretary at the time, and no actual approval has ever been produced.) Lake also noted Musk's promise to fix South Australia's blackout problems by building the world's largest lithium-ion battery within 100 days back in March. Last Friday Tesla signed a contract to begin the work, so the 100-day countdown has begun.
CNN's report ran under the headline "Elon Musk: Big Dreamer or Monorail Salesman?" -- referencing a satirical 1993 episode of The Simpson's. "Here's a spoiler alert," the segment concludes. "If you haven't seen that episode...the monorail plan doesn't work out too well. Let's put it that way."
I am wondering why anyone and at Slashdot especially, would take CNN any serious. Why? These are folks who spread f*k* news I know.
Other wise they might have known - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/30/elon-musks-big-battery-for-south-australia-already-half-complete
Heresy, pure heresy.
Everyone knows CNN is fake news anyway, so no story here.
But Elon Musk "has a history of some pretty pie-in-the-sky promises,"...
Elon Musk announced that SpaceX is developing a direct-to-home pie delivery service.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
This is a tricky one. Do I believe the huckster with the reality distortion field that would put Steve Jobs to shame or the "news" channel where the reporters are all still pissed that Donald Trump ruined their awesome "SHE DID IT!" party back in November?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Musk cheerleaders, Musk naysayers, and the truth.
The way I see it, Musk is a bit of a 'showman' and in that role has a tenuous connection to the truth... but he did deliver a tail-landing rocket and he did deliver electric cars when the naysayers were calling him a liar for even saying it was possible.
So I tend to look at what Musk promises, not when.
I've always wondered how many people would be driving electric cars if it wasn't for the state/Fed subsidies (rebates) or other benefits like Leaf's free charging. Though Elon Musk, as of 2015 had benefited from almost $5B in Gov't subsidies.
I see people driving $100k Teslas, and they're not doing it to be green. It's the new status symbol of wealth (used to be BMW/Benz).
If there's one thing that has become very clear it is that Musk is not good at estimating how long something will take. At the same time, when he says it will happen, it does generally happen. The really good example of this is SpaceX. The Falcon 9 took far longer to get off the ground and be really reliable than he predicted, but once it did, it became an absolute monster in the industry. More than a third of all rocket launches worldwide this year are SpaceX launches http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a27290/one-chart-spacex-dominate-rocket-launches/ and the projections suggest that will be more than half next year, even without the Falcon Heavy (which is another example of this since it has taken much longer but will eventually go). The real issue with Tesla is that if things go slowly enough then the other car companies will essentially out-compete him; but by his own description he's essentially ok with that, since the primary point of Tesla was help deal with global warming.
You know it's grade-A news when it cites a twenty-five-year-old Simpsons episode as its reasoning.
CNN is a liberal news outlet that can't even be bothered to coin its own irrelevant snark. It has to swipe someone else's.
Great advances aren't created through incremental changes from old things. The famous saying on the topic is: "If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses", attributed to Henry Ford. But on the other hand it's often not a single flash of genius either: Usually many people see the opportunity for big change. There isn't a person in a technical field who doesn't have a pet peeve about something that is obviously more cumbersome than it needs to be. Most people never do anything about it, especially when big change is necessary. What it really takes is someone with the ability to recognize the opportunity, and the will and means to see it through. What that means is not letting small problems throw you off course. So it takes a little longer. But if the concept is solid, then that doesn't matter. It will work. Seeing that is the key. It takes people who can work years on something while everybody else thinks they're wasting their time and that whatever they're working on will never work. But they keep working because they know that the concept is sound, they just haven't found the way to get there yet. This isn't quarterly thinking. It's how engineers think. Knowing you can build it, you just don't know how yet.
So Musk promised more Model 3's than he ended up delivering, and bigger SpaceX rockets and spacecraft than he ended up delivering, but I still don't see the competition quite catching up. The rockets that he did deliver still dominate the launch market and manage to land their first stages ass-first, intact. So it's not like Elon is all fake, instead it's all about managing expectations. The guy promises you a city on Mars next year, and delivers only a village on the Moon five years late, while all the others give you a hut in Alaska.
I recall everybody singing her praises until the fraud was exposed.
Circumcision is child abuse.
She didn't get a free pass because all of her snakeoil was bullshit. Elon Musk has cut real metal and made real products delivered to real customers. I call bullshit on his pie in the sky, but I give him props for things he's actually done. Elizabeth Holmes never had anything to her name besides the hype and a black turtleneck sweater.
Well it's hard for CNN these days. They spend 99% of their time worrying about Trump and research on real news takes time.
The fact that Slashdot is quoting those ass hats is more worrisome than whether Musk can meet a deadline.
Also, saying he only delivered 17% of the cars they had planned is distorting the truth a bit. They planned to deliver 100 in August and 1500 in September, ramping up to around 5000 a week by the end of the year. So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.
Beat me to it. Looks like it's going to be done well ahead of schedule. But hey, facts havenever stopped anyone before when trying to find reasons to bash Musk.
Facts like the fact that Musk never said he had approval from New York City - that he actually said, "verbal govt approval". Which he did - the government he was speaking of was the federal government (DOT, asked about it: "We have had promising conversations to date, are committed to transformative infrastructure projects, and believe our greatest solutions have often come from the ingenuity and drive of the private sector,""). But hey, let's leave that part out and pretend that Musk was just making things up.
Facts like, for example, that Model 3's production schedule had been moved forward to July (was originally supposed to start at the end of this year), with Musk stating at the time that the reason for the July deadline was because he knew some suppliers would inevitably fail to meet their deadline and he had to have a way to hold their feet to the fire with real penalties for failing to deliver. Of course, they actually did make the July deadline.
The Wall Street Journal will gripe about the fact that there are missing features in the (over-the-air-upgraded) software stack and that there's some manual labour / part changes in manufacture because automated assembly line isn't yet complete. Really, WSJ? Gee we all thought that the line was fully ready to produce tens of thousands of vehicles per month, but the schedule was only to produce a couple hundred for giggles. And of course, every Tesla short will whine about how there are customers acting as "beta", ignoring the fact that none of the above comes as any surprise to anyone with a deposit, particularly the earliest ones, and that they're thrilled to have the chance to get their vehicles early. I know one who, after having the car for just two weeks, already put down a deposit on a second one.
But hey, I guess someone has to try to recoup some of their losses in their ill-advised short position in TSLA.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
15 may 2016:
I'll repeat: Tesla accelerated their own schedule. Their original schedule was "something, at some point, in 2017". They changed it to an extremely aggressive S curve starting in July. As for the latter part:
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
yep, basically Elon has used weasel words to not meet the 100 day deadline. The 100 days only just started even though they have been building for months already and it isn't scheduled to be complete till December, basically all up it will be closer to double his estimate but because of the way he has done it he will still get paid.
A month behind a highly accelerated schedule. Ooh, shudder. My teapot can hardly handle this tempest.
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
If there's anything pundits, so-called experts, and know-nothing journalists should know by now it is to underestimate Elon Musk is a losing proposition. Everything these scoffers said could not be done---ever, has been done by Musk.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Right. So let me get this straight: we're supposed to be mad at Muskwhile they're moving the equipment in and installing it well within 100 days from the signing of the contract, it doesn't count, because we're supposed to judge Tesla not by the terms given (100 days from the signing of the contract), but instead a term that was never offered (100 days from the issuance of this tweet). Correct? And that there's something abnormal and unfair about a multi-million dollar power contract not being negotiated overnight?
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
Capital T trillion. Trillions in tax dollars over the decades to build streets and highways (tearing down consumer rail in the process) to support gas burning trucks and cars. Trillions given away over the years in either direct subsidies to oil and gas - tax breaks and letting them drill on public land for next to nothing - and indirect subsidies like not making them pay for environmental restoration.
But now it's a problem when we start talking a fraction of that sum to move away from CO2 production?
Shun the nonbeliever! Shun! Shuuuun!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Those batteries were stock he would always have found someone to sell to. Due to the nature of (Australian) politics there was never going to be any surety that we were going to buy them. The fact it took us this long to sign the damn contract is actually very typical in Australia. Musk could have been waiting double the time only for us to say no.
The fact you're trying to use the fact he has stock in the warehouse to sell means you likely have an agenda. So I'm calling bullshit on your post.
When do you think he got a letter of intent? Looking at their system, I think even 100 days is not too hard for them to achieve; the installation is massively parallel and the site prep isn't that hard. I am surprised they used underground conduits-- it must mean they have that much confidence in their schedule. (I would have expected cable tray overhead.)
So if they only delivered just over 200 cars in September, that's less than a month's delay which is peanuts compared to other Tesla delays in the past.
His incompetence this time is less than his incompetence before. Surely that is just as good as delivering on a promise.
A month behind is a month behind.
If you called your boss and said you would be in early tomorrow, but then not show up or call for the next month, guess what your employment status will be?
A lie is a lie.
Cap'n Nobvious News.
Does anybody believe Musk can do *everything* he says he wants to do, and pull it off without so much as a delay?
Some people might think he can do them all eventually, but even those of us who expect some of his ideas never to go anywhere can't ever be quite sure about which ideas those will be. He's had a history of sticking with things even through a lot of intermediate failure.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Musk on the otherhand has launched dozens of orbital rockets, installed a quarter of a million residential solar systems, and has hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road.
And don't forget millions of credit card chargebacks at PayPal.
a) Get something done on time cutting corners and ultimately fucking it up
b) Spending a little extra time and getting it right
To quote another rocketeer: "It's done, when it's done"
Task Mangler
For why? of course is really the question. Why pick on Tesla and Elon Musk, well, at least two groups in that market, competing automotive manufacturers and fossil fuel industry. Would they pay to attack Tesla and Elon Musk as part of that attack against Tesla, do wild rabid dogs have fleas, well, yes to both. Elon Musk does like to open up on his long term dreams and there is nothing wrong with that and some dreams will be more successful than others, meh. Just typical of modern main stream media that actively serves it advertisers way ahead of it's consumers and will actively lie to and fought in court the right to lie to consumers, they call it news entertainment.
So they are entertaining us with stories about russia to head of debate on universal health care. So attacks on Tesla mainly to head off electric vehicle competition with fossil fuel and to prevent Tesla getting to great a lead on other automotive manufacturers in electric vehicles. So personal attacks on Elon Musk in order to attack Tesla, automotive and of course solar power and battery back (a new threat, the distributed power station, the structure is already built, it just needs it's generators and batteries, the power station structure your home, not just your electric needs but also the rest of the grid).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
well given they started a few months ago and they aren't scheduled to complete in December I would say 100 days is actually an impossibility at this point otherwise he would be doing it rather than having it half built prior to the 100 day timer starting.
Yeah, they rounded a bit. 200/1500=.1333
Seriously, just how much koolaide have you drank? He promised x, he failed to deliver x. That's a simple fact, not a distortion of the truth.
The federal government lacks the authority to make such a commitment. And if you actually read the article you linked, and even the text you quoted, no commitment is to be found. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Since they weren't talking about the July deadline... this is relevant, how? He promised delivery of 'x' in September, he failed to fulfill that promise. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Um, no. The plan was to produce 1500 vehicles. He failed to do so. But hey, let's leave that part out.
Or, to put it another way, you're 0 for 3 when it comes to facts.
You want to stop the practice of sending young men off to die in some far off desert? Put these dictators out of business. Make domestic energy so cheap that we don't have to go over there to get more. Implement a true "all the above" energy strategy. I hear Democrats (and it's almost always Democrats) talk about an all the above strategy to reduce CO2 output but when something threatens to actually solve the problem it gets killed in congressional bullshit.
Keystone XL is a good example. Killing this project doesn't stop people from burning oil, it just diverts the movement of oil to whatever path of least resistance might be. In this case it's oil from a friendly neighbor, Canada, not ending up in refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. Instead it would likely end up on a ship bound for China or Japan. This is because it's easier for Canada to sell the oil there, and the USA to buy oil from South America, than try to ship the oil by truck or rail.
You want to reduce oil spills? Then build more pipelines, they don't spill near as often as ships, trucks, or trains. These pipes move natural gas too. Not great as far as CO2 goes but still 1/2 the CO2 output of coal for electricity production.
Let's talk electricity production too. You want to stop the burning of coal? Then build nuclear power plants. We've started building them again but not nearly fast enough. We need to build one gigawatt nuclear power plant per month to replace the current coal and nuclear power plants at the rate they are getting shut down. That's not adding any new capacity, that's just keeping up with retiring old power plants.
We replace coal with nuclear then we can use this abundant natural gas for our cars and trucks. If you think that for some reason we can't build a new nuclear power plant every month then think again. We've done it before, we can do it again.
Let's do all the above. Wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas, and even coal. Put those oil funded dictators out of business.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It is the definition of excess risk to invest in stock valued above the merits of the cash flows of any company. That was the real cause of the economic collapses of the US and Japan. Irrational exuberance doesn't generate real cash flows.
Citation needed on the local companies. Also what time frame did they need for that reduced cost?
I live in what we call a "red state" (supports the Republican Party in case you don't know what that means) and I'm surrounded by lots of extremely conservative people. They typically think that Fox News is completely fair and objective and right down the middle in its reporting and that CNN is insanely on the left. They usually don't even know that MSNBC even exists. Their heads would explode if they did.
I used to hold up CNN as an example of a news source that I felt was pretty fair to everybody, but not any more. Chris Cillizza writes a lot of articles for their website and he's definitely biased towards the Democratic Party. He sometimes writes articles that make a lot of good points and sometimes you get partisan hack pieces. Other writers are about the same. I can't say I'm surprised to see some Musk bashing. I'd simply say that being 2 years late on a car model when you're not GM, Ford or Chrysler is maybe not that much of a big deal or a surprise. It's not like being 10+ years late. And the monorail reference is stupid. Springfield got the monorail on time. The point was that they didn't really need it in the first place, not that it was years late in being delivered. Musk has a 100 day contract to deliver to South Australia. If he fails to meet the deadline, blast him then. Everybody smart enough not to get paid for writing for CNN probably gets that his "verbal approval" for the hyperloop is vague and preliminary. I like Musk because we need dreamers to see a better future. For example, we last went to the moon over 40 years ago and we still don't know if or when we'll ever go back, let alone get to Mars, in large part because nobody has the vision needed to make tomorrow happen. Everybody would rather just stay in their comfortable rut.
IMG SRC="http://www.holyshit.com/FredSandfordHeartAttack.gif"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
How about we just mod you offtopic instead, because you always are? What the fuck does your "HOSTS file engine" or gun control have to do with this story? And how are they "supporting" a mass murderer who is already dead and gone through using this site's version of a squelch knob to increase the signal-to-noise ratio by making your posts less visible? That's some "if you don't vote for the Patriot Act you're supporting the terrorists!" kind of logic, which is exactly the kind of hypocrisy we've all come to expect from you.
Attempting to get anywhere close to on-topic with this story: is Tesla giving out free bump stocks with the purchase of a Model S and you're the first to break the story? Are the cars using hosts files to prevent connection to anything but the Tesla car network, and those are being updated by your thing you keep prattling on about? No?
Then you're just spraying piss and vinegar because mods are doing exactly what they should be doing. That's not censorship, that's just how the site works. Censorship would be full-up deleting your comments. Anyone can browse at -1 to read your off-topic bullshit. Don't be a dumbass, and you won't get modded into oblivion. Stay on topic - it's only been a rule around here forever, and it's been enforced by the moderation system since it was added well over 15 years ago.
I expect this post to similarly be modded off-topic. And I won't get all butt-hurt about it and start CAPITALIZING every other WORD and spewing NONSENSE in every article comment section like you are.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
if you haven't seen that episode of "the SImpsons" - (Season 4 Episode 12) here you go
My work here is done
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
You're right. Perfection should be all that anyone ever does, and anything less should be considered abject failure.
I really hope that you are never in charge of anything, because with that attitude you will always be wallowing in failure.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
And if the contract were never signed, he would have poured a shitload of concrete and shipped a fuckton of batteries to Australia with no payment coming in. It's called 'risk' and he accepted it. He risked that the papers wouldn't be signed and started a 6 month contract 3 months before finalization, in order to get that 6 month contract done in 3 months.
But somehow he's cheating by taking on the risk himself instead of being like every other government contractor ever and saying "whoops, we're not done on time. Guess you'll just keep paying for it until it is done and we'll pocket the overage!"
Sounds like Australia is getting what they need, at the agreed upon price, on the agreed schedule. How is this a bad thing? Oh, but it's a company headed by Musk, so BOOOO! Boo I say!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Yeah, somehow it's bad that Tesla started work early and had faith in the Aussie government to actually sign the contract, I guess. But if they wouldn't have started early and waited for the papers, it would have been "Why is nothing being done on this project? What the fuck are they waiting for?"
With some people around here, you just can't win. Some people are just salty, and will never be happy with anything.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If I had low production for a month, my employment status would still be "full-time employee". It's not like Tesla disappeared or produced nothing for September.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So far, my favorite Musk pie-in-the-sky promise was dramatically lowering cost to low Earth orbit.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah, they rounded a bit. 200/1500=.1333
Seriously, just how much koolaide have you drank? He promised x, he failed to deliver x. That's a simple fact, not a distortion of the truth.
"produced just 17.3% of the cars they'd planned," while technically true, was probably chosen to sound much worse than it really is. "1500 people had to wait an extra month for their new car" is probably more accurate from a "what's actually going on" standpoint, but also probably doesn't make nearly as good of a headline.
I guess what he is producing is more of a Shelbyville idea
Musk setting a neigh impossible stretch goal to try to get the most out of his people and suppliers and then falling a little short is his modus operandi, anyone who invested in TSLA without realizing that is a fool who deserves to have their money taken by people with a clue. It's because he's willing to fail that he's pushing three industries (transportation, energy, and spaceflight) forward simultaneously.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
According to the Media Research Center, CNN's major advertisers include:
Alfa Romeo
American Petroleum Institute
Audi
BMW
Cars.com
Exxon Mobil
Infiniti
Lexus
Mini Cooper
Mercedes
That represents a fairly substantial block of their revenue who all make their profits from non-electric automotive sources. Could all that advertising revenue color CNN's views a bit?
Also, lets not forget:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
â" Theodore Roosevelt
That sure is a lot of Kool-Aid you're drinking there.
"Musk has already created the fastest production car from 0-60"
So? No one at ALL said the world needed an electric sports car drag racer. MUSK said he would design and sell an electric sports car, sell it to the rich, and use the revenue to build an EV for the people. Well, he sold it to the rich using massive subsidies from the middle class... and then didn't bring in enough revenue to make the EV for the masses. That's why they've gone out for additional BILLIONS in venture capital twice since Model 3 production began.
"... reusable rockets that land themselves"
A rocket that was able to land itself is not "rockets that land themselves". It's not a proven tech. It's not mass produced. The job's not done. It's still a work in progress.
"... the largest factory in the world"
So? Literally any major company with the need to manufacture could do that if they found it necessary. And it's not like he built it himself.
"... huge batteries"
Big is not an accomplishment if the demand, affordability, production, and distribution aren't there.
"... integrated solar roof panels"
Are you sure that's actually done? Because they're not for sale yet. They've been demo'd on a few Tesla employees' roofs. And it literally will not have a cost comparable to replacing a regular shingle roof. It's still a work in progress.
There are differences between dreams, plans, experiments, production, sales, delivery, and solvency. Musk talks dreams a lot. He plans a fair share. Considering all the products he talks about, the variety of his production is fairly low. Sales of those items produced are good (Roadster, Model S, Model X, Model 3), but delivery is lacking on the Model 3. And solvency (financial surviviability on non-investment, non-subsidy revenue) is highly risky.
So they posted stuff that was inaccurate...
So they posted stuff that was deliberately misleading...
bold mine...
They actually want whatever they can get.
..... I love his ambitions but his time lines for all this stuff is WAY off. Man on Mars by 2024? NO way. Never going to happen by then. Smart guy but he needs to tone down the time lines.
You mean keep on merrily burning fossil fuels and pretending that climate change isn't a problem. Keep pretending that massive floods, droughts, forest fires and powerful are totally free, as opposed to costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
How about no.
Uh, no. All pipelines spill. All the time. Spills where happening just in North Dakota during the DAPL protests. You want to avoid spills? Leave it in the ground.
You mean switch to the most obscenely expensive power source ever invented by man, saddling the next few hundred generations with cleanup costs? Let's say that nuclear power will never ever have another accident again, ever. It is still completely and utterly unjustifiable based on cost alone. Building out a network of wind and solar power with hydrostatic batteries to back it up - and then burning $50 billion dollars in the street - would be more justifiable than building a nuclear power plant.