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
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.
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'."
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?
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
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.
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.