The 100% successful execution upside for Tesla does not result in a 50% stock increase. A flawless execution puts Tesla at 1.5 trillion dollars by 2030, that should be a 3000% stock increase.
A flawless execution is unlikely, but even moderate success in 4-5 of the market segments Tesla is positioned to in should double the current evaluation in 3 years, and then double again by 2030.
50 miles electric range is trivial to implement TODAY, zero innovation required. Several countries are planning zero emission requirements 10-15 years earlier than the UK proposal for 50 miles electric range.
By 2040 it will be difficult to find a new car with a combustion engine anyway, regardless of that the UK government does.
Giving up cow meat has both health and environmental advantages.
The environmental impact of producing meat from poultry and pork is efficient and is in line with vegetarian products in terms of environmental impact per kcal and per gram of protein.
Not enabled in production cars. Tesla does automatic lane changes, can drive 10s of miles without any input on dual carriageway roads / divided highways, works with minimal input in stop-and-go traffic and on undivided highways.
Audi does one of these things better, but the feature is not enabled yet, and are far behind or are missing features to do the rest. Mercedes is no where near feature parity yet.
Bitcoin and stocks are high risk. Houses are not. Baring special circumstances (like a cornerstone factory being closed in a small town) a housing bubble would reduce the value to 25-75% of the current evaluation. Housing might also continue to increase at 3-10% a year.
For both (individual) stocks and bitcoin the whole value might disappear, so the downside is much larger. But the upside is also much larger. Depending on the stock (and risk) you might see 100%, 1000% or more return on investment. Same with bitcoin, but the with a small possibility of another hundredfold increase in value.
Did you even read what you replied to? If you charge at home, you'll spend way less time than you currently use refueling your gas car. How much time do you spend driving to the gas station, wait while it's fueling and paying in a month?
One visit to the gas station takes more time than I spend recharging a whole year.
An electric car is 3-4 times as efficient as an ICE car. 1MW for 5 minutes is almost 85kWh, the total battery capacity of a Tesla S85D with a 270 mile range. Charging at 1MW seems improbable in the near term. 350kW is planned. That would charge a 100kWh battery to 80% in about 15 minutes.
Current EVs manage a 60% duty cycle on a home charger (22kW), or 85% with a high-speed charger (100-120kW). The next CCS charging standard will support up to 350kW, resulting in less than 5% downtime due to charging.
I'm convinced the savings on fuel and maintenance costs makes EVs better for fleet usage already now, with 15% downtime.
That means your range would be reduced by 8-16 miles per hour of driving. The most power hungry level 5 computer meant for production vehicles is the Nvidia Drive PX Pegasus at 500W. That would eat up 2 miles per hour of driving.
You're describing the hardware in the first Autopilot (AP 1.0) based on Mobileye with one camera + radar. The current hardware has 8 cameras, radar and ultrasound sensors (AP 2.0).
This video shows AP 2.0 hardware in action with an early version of the self driving software from last year : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Far from perfect, but it can do much more than just lane keeping and cruise control.
Hollywood makes movies for ages 9-18, not 18-30. Almost everything is PG/PG-13. Back in the days of Ferris Bueller a large percentage of movies would be made for an older audience and have a R-ratings. From the rating system started 1968 to 2000 55% of movies were R-rated. 20 years ago R-rated movies had a market share of >40%. Today it's below 25%.
The comulative battery capacity sold puts Tesla S ahead of Toyota Prius.
4 million cars (in 20 years) with the majority having 0.8-1.3 kWh battery capacity (with a few phev at 4.4 kWh). 150 000 Tesla S with between 60 and 100 kWh capacity in each car puts them well ahead.
While I'm not particularly left-leaning in the political spectrum where I'm from (but then again, our centrists are left of Sanders), I'm definitely believe AGW is this biggest threat to civilization to date.
I'm all for responsible use of nuclear energy, and it should definitely be a part of the solution. The biggest problem for nuclear is costs, but increased activity in the sector could get the costs down to manageable levels.
Nuclear is however not *the* solution. Short term we need to put money into other projects as well, where capacity can be built faster. A new nuclear project started today will not produce anything before after 10-15 years, and with the large construction costs (both in money and co2) short term reduction is better achieved by building hydro, wind and solar. The solution is not one single technology, but investing in all of them.
The most dangerous philosophy when trying to tackle AGW is not denial, it's the old guard environmentalists who think we can get out of the mess by reducing consumption (of power and goods) and being frugal. No matter how much we cut consumption, the rising wave of the Asian middle class will out-consume any reduction achieved elsewhere. AGW is a problem that we must invest our way out of - and investment in nuclear (both power plants and research) must be part of the solution.
Science does NOT require experiments. Science requires TESTABLE hypotheses.
Experiments are not required for a hypothesis to be testable. Making predictions that can be tested by new observations is the modus operandi for the scientific process.
In some cases the test is done by observing the result of an experiment, but experiments are just a convenient way of limiting the factors observed when testing a hypothesis or parts of one.
Probably. But the satellite was ordered in october 2013 and was built to the same specifications as the previous 3, ordered in 2010. It's not something they could or would change based on the improved performance of Falcon 9 (F9 1.2 FT).
I think the satellite was booked on Falcon Heavy (FH), but the delay of FH and the improvements to F9 1.2 made it possible to launch as F9 expendable.
The limit for recoverability for GTO missions depends on weight and the exact orbit. A 5300kg (~11600lbs) GTO payload mission has been flown with recovery, wikipedia lists 5500kg as max (perhaps a bit optimistic) for reusable and 8300kg for expendable.
With the same ~33% penalty in payload weight for a recoverable mission, the 5300kg reusable mission could have been a 8000kg expendable mission. In other words, the 6070kg mission flown yesterday was in just a bit over reusable weight and the in the lower end of expandable mode.
The 13th floor was overshadowed by the Matrix, but in the end it was a much better story than the Matrix (unless you stop after the first Matrix). I expected some 13th floor level nested realities with the Matrix, but was very disappointed (especially after the scene in where Neo seemed to have gained superpowers in the real world).
Slashdot Mirror
The solution is to tax productivity and not employment.
The 100% successful execution upside for Tesla does not result in a 50% stock increase. A flawless execution puts Tesla at 1.5 trillion dollars by 2030, that should be a 3000% stock increase.
A flawless execution is unlikely, but even moderate success in 4-5 of the market segments Tesla is positioned to in should double the current evaluation in 3 years, and then double again by 2030.
The base model 3 is supposed to be $35k before the tax rebate.
12 years should have been more than enough. The car companies whining about it when it's 22 years is just shameful.
50 miles electric range is trivial to implement TODAY, zero innovation required.
Several countries are planning zero emission requirements 10-15 years earlier than the UK proposal for 50 miles electric range.
By 2040 it will be difficult to find a new car with a combustion engine anyway, regardless of that the UK government does.
Giving up cow meat has both health and environmental advantages.
The environmental impact of producing meat from poultry and pork is efficient and is in line with vegetarian products in terms of environmental impact per kcal and per gram of protein.
Not enabled in production cars.
Tesla does automatic lane changes, can drive 10s of miles without any input on dual carriageway roads / divided highways, works with minimal input in stop-and-go traffic and on undivided highways.
Audi does one of these things better, but the feature is not enabled yet, and are far behind or are missing features to do the rest. Mercedes is no where near feature parity yet.
Only Chernobyl caused any significant harm. And nothing about the accident had anything to do with normal operation.
Bitcoin and stocks are high risk. Houses are not.
Baring special circumstances (like a cornerstone factory being closed in a small town) a housing bubble would reduce the value to 25-75% of the current evaluation.
Housing might also continue to increase at 3-10% a year.
For both (individual) stocks and bitcoin the whole value might disappear, so the downside is much larger. But the upside is also much larger.
Depending on the stock (and risk) you might see 100%, 1000% or more return on investment. Same with bitcoin, but the with a small possibility of another hundredfold increase in value.
Did you even read what you replied to?
If you charge at home, you'll spend way less time than you currently use refueling your gas car.
How much time do you spend driving to the gas station, wait while it's fueling and paying in a month?
One visit to the gas station takes more time than I spend recharging a whole year.
No lidar, but they have a forward facing radar.
8 cameras, 1 radar and 8 ultrasound sensors. Way more than a we have.
Falcon 9 has been used for more than half of all US launches in 2017. Spacex isn't going away anytime soon.
An electric car is 3-4 times as efficient as an ICE car. 1MW for 5 minutes is almost 85kWh, the total battery capacity of a Tesla S85D with a 270 mile range.
Charging at 1MW seems improbable in the near term. 350kW is planned. That would charge a 100kWh battery to 80% in about 15 minutes.
Current EVs manage a 60% duty cycle on a home charger (22kW), or 85% with a high-speed charger (100-120kW).
The next CCS charging standard will support up to 350kW, resulting in less than 5% downtime due to charging.
I'm convinced the savings on fuel and maintenance costs makes EVs better for fleet usage already now, with 15% downtime.
That means your range would be reduced by 8-16 miles per hour of driving.
The most power hungry level 5 computer meant for production vehicles is the Nvidia Drive PX Pegasus at 500W. That would eat up 2 miles per hour of driving.
You're describing the hardware in the first Autopilot (AP 1.0) based on Mobileye with one camera + radar. The current hardware has 8 cameras, radar and ultrasound sensors (AP 2.0).
This video shows AP 2.0 hardware in action with an early version of the self driving software from last year : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Far from perfect, but it can do much more than just lane keeping and cruise control.
Hollywood makes movies for ages 9-18, not 18-30. Almost everything is PG/PG-13.
Back in the days of Ferris Bueller a large percentage of movies would be made for an older audience and have a R-ratings. From the rating system started 1968 to 2000 55% of movies were R-rated. 20 years ago R-rated movies had a market share of >40%. Today it's below 25%.
Going for 2 core to 4 cores (U-series laptop processors) and from 4 to 6 (desktop) doesn't seem to be just relabeling.
The comulative battery capacity sold puts Tesla S ahead of Toyota Prius.
4 million cars (in 20 years) with the majority having 0.8-1.3 kWh battery capacity (with a few phev at 4.4 kWh). 150 000 Tesla S with between 60 and 100 kWh capacity in each car puts them well ahead.
While I'm not particularly left-leaning in the political spectrum where I'm from (but then again, our centrists are left of Sanders), I'm definitely believe AGW is this biggest threat to civilization to date.
I'm all for responsible use of nuclear energy, and it should definitely be a part of the solution. The biggest problem for nuclear is costs, but increased activity in the sector could get the costs down to manageable levels.
Nuclear is however not *the* solution. Short term we need to put money into other projects as well, where capacity can be built faster. A new nuclear project started today will not produce anything before after 10-15 years, and with the large construction costs (both in money and co2) short term reduction is better achieved by building hydro, wind and solar. The solution is not one single technology, but investing in all of them.
The most dangerous philosophy when trying to tackle AGW is not denial, it's the old guard environmentalists who think we can get out of the mess by reducing consumption (of power and goods) and being frugal. No matter how much we cut consumption, the rising wave of the Asian middle class will out-consume any reduction achieved elsewhere. AGW is a problem that we must invest our way out of - and investment in nuclear (both power plants and research) must be part of the solution.
Science does NOT require experiments. Science requires TESTABLE hypotheses.
Experiments are not required for a hypothesis to be testable. Making predictions that can be tested by new observations is the modus operandi for the scientific process.
In some cases the test is done by observing the result of an experiment, but experiments are just a convenient way of limiting the factors observed when testing a hypothesis or parts of one.
Probably.
But the satellite was ordered in october 2013 and was built to the same specifications as the previous 3, ordered in 2010. It's not something they could or would change based on the improved performance of Falcon 9 (F9 1.2 FT).
I think the satellite was booked on Falcon Heavy (FH), but the delay of FH and the improvements to F9 1.2 made it possible to launch as F9 expendable.
The limit for recoverability for GTO missions depends on weight and the exact orbit.
A 5300kg (~11600lbs) GTO payload mission has been flown with recovery, wikipedia lists 5500kg as max (perhaps a bit optimistic) for reusable and 8300kg for expendable.
With the same ~33% penalty in payload weight for a recoverable mission, the 5300kg reusable mission could have been a 8000kg expendable mission.
In other words, the 6070kg mission flown yesterday was in just a bit over reusable weight and the in the lower end of expandable mode.
The 13th floor was overshadowed by the Matrix, but in the end it was a much better story than the Matrix (unless you stop after the first Matrix).
I expected some 13th floor level nested realities with the Matrix, but was very disappointed (especially after the scene in where Neo seemed to have gained superpowers in the real world).
That's the book, not the movie.