Or like concrete. The concrete itself actually becomes stronger, denser and less permeable with age by absorbing carbon dioxide and converting to limestone.
The main reason why this is considered a bad thing is because modern concrete uses steel rebar reinforcement, and carbonation reduces the concrete's pH. High pH in concrete is required to protect the steel. Once the pH drops enough to prevent the passivation of the rebar, it begins rusting, expands by nearly an order of magnitude, and the concrete spalls out.
The first four pages are the likelyhood of injury in each of the four categories. These are combined into an overall safety score on the 5th page (Comb VSS+Overall Ratings). VSS is the probability of injury. Look at it, and get out of denial.
Anything with a lower VSS than 0,67 is declared as "five stars". But that doesn't change the fact that the probability of injury itself is VSS, and at the Model 3's value of 0,38 is the lowest ever tested by the NHTSA.
Again: I'm sorry facts appear to bug the hell out of you, but they remain facts.
Nothing you wrote changes the fact that what was written in the article is erroneous.
* If one considers Tesla's Autopilot to be in same category as Waymo, then the claim that Waymo has driven more miles than Tesla's system is simply false * If one considers Tesla to not have a system in the same category as Waymo, then the claim that Waymo has driven more miles than Tesla's system is nonsensical.
Uh, Tesla's "autopilot" is a driver assist, not a self-driving vehicle
Semantics and legalities. It's still collecting data and allowing for the refinement of algorithms. Just over a hundred times more data.
If the article is going to claim that Waymo is "leading the pack in terms of road miles driven", they shouldn't explicitly list Tesla as a company that they've driven more miles than. Peroid. Because that's simply not a valid claim. You can argue that Waymo and Tesla's goals are different, but which one has driven more miles is not up for debate.
And it racks up the miles on expressways-- that's the easy kind of driving.
People use Autopilot both on expressways and smaller roads. You're thinking of Cadillac Supercruise, which is geofenced to highways that they've pre-mapped. More to the point, probably the most popular use for Autopilot is in stop-and-go-traffic.
Yes, Soyuz 7K-T No.39 / Soyuz 18a and Soyuz 7K-ST No. 16L / Soyuz T-10-1. There have also been similar high-G experiences in Soyuz capsules from other causes, such as Soyuz 33, Soyuz TMA-1, and Soyuz TMA-11.
Nominal G forces in an abort in a Soyuz capsule are 15g. Sometimes they can be even more. The landing site is also untargeted in an abort and can be hazardous. Heck, even the normal landings in Soyuz spacecraft are pretty rough - over a third of all NASA astronauts who had flown in Soyuz capsules as of late 2016 were injured during landing.
All sides have every incentive to play up the "the crew is safe" aspect, but there's frequently injuries associated with these aborts, and sometimes long-term ones. I hope they're actually in good health after this.
Competing with other companies with autonomous-vehicle programs like Uber, Tesla, Apple, and GM's Cruise, Waymo is leading the pack in terms of road miles driven.
Um, huh? Tesla's Autopilot had driven 1,2 billion miles as of July. Two orders of magnitude more than Waymo.
10 million miles is really nothing. In the US, there's only one fatal accident per 86 million miles on average.
Tesla never claimed that the NHTSA gave them higher than five stars. They claimed that the NHTSA data shows that it has the lowest probability of injury of any car ever tested. Which is a fact whether you like it or not.
Musk has tweeted that the article is incorrect. Good. James Murdoch tries to paint himself as the "renegade son" who rejects his father's philosophy, while actually sharing a large chunk of it, and engaging in just as scummy tactics (see the BBC phone hacking scandal.... the resulting investigation of which basically declared James as unfit to manage a corporate board).
The only part of the above I wished my phone had was the super res zoom. The weeding out blurry images would be good, except my phone has such good low light sensitivity (Xperia XZ2 Premium) that in the couple weeks I've had it I've so far not managed to get a single meaningfully blurry shot in "normal" photography tasks (e.g. excluding things like astrophotography).:) I mean, I can make it happen if I try, but I have to try to make it happen. Just the other day I was out doing astrophotography with it and discovered when looking at my photos that the northern lights were out (I couldn't see them, but the phone could, quite clearly). Could also clearly make out the brightest seven stars in the Pleiades, too, and see echoes of others (they probably would have been clearer had I not been holding the phone by hand and had seeing conditions been better).
Or to put it another way: better cameras beats software to remove the defects of inferior cameras. Which is why it's baffling to me that they only included one rear camera. More rear cameras means more sensor area and more aperture, and gives more options for how to handle the incoming light. For example, XZ2 Premium's second rear camera is greyscale, so it lacks the colour filters and is thus more sensitive to light. This data gets then blended in with the main colour camera to enhance it. The difference in position between the two cameras also allows for using the parallax data (such as for making really nice bokehs).
Rear cameras are for serious photography. Front cameras are just for cutesy stuff.
The top 5 cars people are trading in to buy Model 3s are: Toyota Prius, BMW 3-Series, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Leaf.
It isn't "green". No personal car is "green"
That's like saying about rhubarb vs. water hemlock, "It isn't nontoxic. No food is devoid of toxic compounds". While true, people need cars and not all cars are equal.
Are you getting paid to shill for Tesla?
My Shill Check strangely hasn't arrived! Do you know where it might be? Does this mean that they've gone Bankwupt?!;)
What is it?
Um, exactly what it says on the tin? I like the cars, I like the tech, and I like the company.
You know you can look at quarterly reports, right? Tesla does have one of the highest gross margins in the industry, far higher than most automakers. Tesla's normally runs around 25%, although it was dragged down by Model 3 in Q4 '07 to (GAAP/non-GAAP) 18,9%/13,8%, rose in Q1 to 19,7%/18,8%, then again in Q2 to 20,6%/21%, and will be even higher in Q3 when we get the report. Ford, by contrast, has a gross margin of 8.64%.
Now, a fair criticism is that since Tesla bears the cost of running its stores (rather than passing the costs off to dealerships), it needs higher gross margins. But bears often vastly overestimate this aspect, pretending that running Tesla stores makes up 100% of SG&A, and as if stores scale linearly with volume (as if they were dealerships) - ignoring that they demonstrably don't, and haven't.
Note that my statement was about specifically the Model 3. There's not merely "a couple hundred million miles" on S and X; Tesla's total miles as of April (when Model 3 miles were low) was 7,2 billion. Also, S and X use a different battery tech from the 3 (but are still an order of magnitude less likely to catch on fire than a gasoline car).
The problem with internal combustion engines is that they're large, relatively incompressible objects. And a crash wants to shove that object straight into the cabin. With an electric car - particularly one with a large frunk - the whole front end is available for crumpling; there's no large objects to get pushed back like a battering ram.
Beyond that, EVs are inherently very rollover resistant - they're like weebles. Model 3 also has a very low polar moment of inertia, because the drive units and battery pack area all within the wheelbase. This makes it easier for a car to deal with off-centre impact force by rotating rather than by crushing. The battery pack - while not functioning as a primary support - also acts as a stiffening element to the primary support beams on the underside.
Yes, you tell 'em, statistics be damned, EVs catch fire way more often than the designed-to-burn-easily hydrocarbon in ICE vehicles that you store in big tanks, with lines of the stuff reaching around a hot engine.
With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s so far has been.... zero. For gasoline cars, it's one every 20 million miles. So far the only evidence of a Model 3 fire of any kind was one in a salvage lot in Fremont with 1 mile on the odometer, aka, not a customer car. And the fire damage was heaviest on the front bumper, not around the battery.
Tesla lives and dies on Musk's cult of personality
No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacturer, overwhelmingly positive reviews, top notch safety, and margin expected to be already up to about 15% (and growing) this quarter, production rates growing faster than Panasonic can keep up with cells, with ample reservations (Tesla hasn't even opened sales to most of its global market), SR not being available yet, non-PUP not being available yet, air suspension not being available yet, tow package not available yet, leases (how most people acquire cars) not available yet, only one model year old (most people prefer to wait for at least 2-3 years old) and surrounded by FUD, sparse store network, no advertising budget, and about a dozen things.
Tesla's fundamentals are rocking.
There's this common notion that Tesla has a "Musk premium". Quick question: whenever you hear TSLA bulls talking about Tesla, are they predominantly talking about how awesome Musk is? No, of course not; they're talking about how awesome the company and its products are. Tesla's value is as high as it is because TSLA bulls love its fundamentals, and these fundamentals exist with or without Musk. Contrary to this popular belief, Musk is generally a drain on Tesla's stock price, because he's such a polarizing figure who's always saying polarizing things. We like having him at the helm because we like his aggressive moat-bridging strategies, but he is not a boost to the stock price. Wall Street would love it if he packed his bags and moved to Mars and left JB in charge of the company (yes, there would be a short term freakout, as always happens when there's change and uncertainty, but then the story would go back to the fundamentals - without the distractions of random tweets)
Turning on and off the headlights manually? Lol. And where's the handcrank for the engine too, right?;) At least autowipers aren't perfect and occasionally people want to override them (in the Model 3, single swipes and cleaning can be done with the left stalk, this also and automatically brings up the general wiper control menu just to the side of your right hand). But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?
I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?
As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. Put your hands on your keyboard. Keep your focus straight ahead, not at the keyboard. Now lift your hands up so that your hands have to actually move to touch a key (go with, say, 2 finger lengths away). Now - still without looking at the keyboard - picture half a dozen random letters and try to type them, with your hands returning fully to that elevated position each time. How well did that go? If you're like a normal human being, the answer is "very poorly". You probably had better success with larger buttons (space, enter), but not with smaller ones. Now put your hands back down in a normal typing resting position (aka, touching the same solid surface as the keyboard) and try again. Trivial to type without looking, right?
The simple fact is, we can control things in immediate reach of our hands from a fixed reference frame without looking, but when it comes to trying to control "button sized things" that we have to move our hands to reach, it's far harder. Which is why we look. You may believe that you do it without looking in your car, but for most tasks, you don't - start paying attention to yourself when you drive. You look because it's much faster and more accurate to do so.
Another test. Picture an area about 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square somewhere on the edge of your screen (it helps to have a fullscreen graphic up). Let's even forget about keeping your hands two finger lengths away! Look somewhat the side of your screen so that portion of your screen is in your peripheral. Now try to press that point on the screen. Do this several times. You probably did better than you expected to - simply because that's such a large virtual "button" you were trying to press. Give yourself even a brief glance at your screen and your accuracy will be almost perfect (again, due to button size). However, trying to hit "buttons" toward the centre of the screen, you'll find you have much worse accuracy than on the edges. If you were being bounced around, the centre would be all the worse, even with such a large button size.
So what's the strategic takeaway from this, in terms of keeping people's attention on the road?
1) Automate everything you can, so that there's no need to fiddle in the first place.
2) Tie all settings you can into driver profiles, so there's no need for basic adjustments, only the things that vary on a ride.
3) Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.
4) Put all "semi-frequent" interactions as close to the wheel as possible, as close to something your hands can physically touch as possible, with as large of a button as possible. Example: against the left or bottom edges of a screen (screen edge acts as a guideline for your hand), with buttons 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square, so that they're very difficult to actually miss.
5) Put infrequently used / only used when stopped functionality in menus. Make any displays as large as possible so "always on" things such as nav or cameras can be seen easily in your peripheral and so that they're easy to interact with.
This is, in a nutshell, Tesla's design philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
Or like concrete. The concrete itself actually becomes stronger, denser and less permeable with age by absorbing carbon dioxide and converting to limestone.
The main reason why this is considered a bad thing is because modern concrete uses steel rebar reinforcement, and carbonation reduces the concrete's pH. High pH in concrete is required to protect the steel. Once the pH drops enough to prevent the passivation of the rebar, it begins rusting, expands by nearly an order of magnitude, and the concrete spalls out.
Tesla only has one system. Just different revisions of it. When they complete one revision, they deploy it and move on to the next.
Look at the data for yourself, for crying out loud.
The first four pages are the likelyhood of injury in each of the four categories. These are combined into an overall safety score on the 5th page (Comb VSS+Overall Ratings). VSS is the probability of injury. Look at it, and get out of denial.
Anything with a lower VSS than 0,67 is declared as "five stars". But that doesn't change the fact that the probability of injury itself is VSS, and at the Model 3's value of 0,38 is the lowest ever tested by the NHTSA.
Again: I'm sorry facts appear to bug the hell out of you, but they remain facts.
Yes, it literally is.
As pointed out: it's not a false claim, it's literally the NHTSA's data. Regardless of whether the NHTSA gives out higher than five stars or not.
I'm sorry that this bothers you so much.
Nothing you wrote changes the fact that what was written in the article is erroneous.
* If one considers Tesla's Autopilot to be in same category as Waymo, then the claim that Waymo has driven more miles than Tesla's system is simply false
* If one considers Tesla to not have a system in the same category as Waymo, then the claim that Waymo has driven more miles than Tesla's system is nonsensical.
Check the date of the article they posted. That has nothing to do with the Model 3.
Semantics and legalities. It's still collecting data and allowing for the refinement of algorithms. Just over a hundred times more data.
If the article is going to claim that Waymo is "leading the pack in terms of road miles driven", they shouldn't explicitly list Tesla as a company that they've driven more miles than. Peroid. Because that's simply not a valid claim. You can argue that Waymo and Tesla's goals are different, but which one has driven more miles is not up for debate.
People use Autopilot both on expressways and smaller roads. You're thinking of Cadillac Supercruise, which is geofenced to highways that they've pre-mapped. More to the point, probably the most popular use for Autopilot is in stop-and-go-traffic.
Yes, Soyuz 7K-T No.39 / Soyuz 18a and Soyuz 7K-ST No. 16L / Soyuz T-10-1. There have also been similar high-G experiences in Soyuz capsules from other causes, such as Soyuz 33, Soyuz TMA-1, and Soyuz TMA-11.
Nominal G forces in an abort in a Soyuz capsule are 15g. Sometimes they can be even more. The landing site is also untargeted in an abort and can be hazardous. Heck, even the normal landings in Soyuz spacecraft are pretty rough - over a third of all NASA astronauts who had flown in Soyuz capsules as of late 2016 were injured during landing.
All sides have every incentive to play up the "the crew is safe" aspect, but there's frequently injuries associated with these aborts, and sometimes long-term ones. I hope they're actually in good health after this.
Um, huh? Tesla's Autopilot had driven 1,2 billion miles as of July. Two orders of magnitude more than Waymo.
10 million miles is really nothing. In the US, there's only one fatal accident per 86 million miles on average.
Tesla never claimed that the NHTSA gave them higher than five stars. They claimed that the NHTSA data shows that it has the lowest probability of injury of any car ever tested. Which is a fact whether you like it or not.
Musk has tweeted that the article is incorrect. Good. James Murdoch tries to paint himself as the "renegade son" who rejects his father's philosophy, while actually sharing a large chunk of it, and engaging in just as scummy tactics (see the BBC phone hacking scandal.... the resulting investigation of which basically declared James as unfit to manage a corporate board).
But on the upside, its wireless discharging is quite impressive.
Um... Okay, google.
The only part of the above I wished my phone had was the super res zoom. The weeding out blurry images would be good, except my phone has such good low light sensitivity (Xperia XZ2 Premium) that in the couple weeks I've had it I've so far not managed to get a single meaningfully blurry shot in "normal" photography tasks (e.g. excluding things like astrophotography). :) I mean, I can make it happen if I try, but I have to try to make it happen. Just the other day I was out doing astrophotography with it and discovered when looking at my photos that the northern lights were out (I couldn't see them, but the phone could, quite clearly). Could also clearly make out the brightest seven stars in the Pleiades, too, and see echoes of others (they probably would have been clearer had I not been holding the phone by hand and had seeing conditions been better).
Or to put it another way: better cameras beats software to remove the defects of inferior cameras. Which is why it's baffling to me that they only included one rear camera. More rear cameras means more sensor area and more aperture, and gives more options for how to handle the incoming light. For example, XZ2 Premium's second rear camera is greyscale, so it lacks the colour filters and is thus more sensitive to light. This data gets then blended in with the main colour camera to enhance it. The difference in position between the two cameras also allows for using the parallax data (such as for making really nice bokehs).
Rear cameras are for serious photography. Front cameras are just for cutesy stuff.
Article Topic: "Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever"
GGP: "...either way, the tesla 3 goes on my list of 'cars to buy'..."
You: "Except for your extremely high probability of burning to death in a battery fire."
Me: "With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s..."
You: "Go to Youtube and you will see plenty of videos of Tesla's on fire"
Notice how everyone else was talking about the Model 3 but you.
Wrong.
The top 5 cars people are trading in to buy Model 3s are: Toyota Prius, BMW 3-Series, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Leaf.
That's like saying about rhubarb vs. water hemlock, "It isn't nontoxic. No food is devoid of toxic compounds". While true, people need cars and not all cars are equal.
My Shill Check strangely hasn't arrived! Do you know where it might be? Does this mean that they've gone Bankwupt?! ;)
Um, exactly what it says on the tin? I like the cars, I like the tech, and I like the company.
You know you can look at quarterly reports, right? Tesla does have one of the highest gross margins in the industry, far higher than most automakers. Tesla's normally runs around 25%, although it was dragged down by Model 3 in Q4 '07 to (GAAP/non-GAAP) 18,9%/13,8%, rose in Q1 to 19,7%/18,8%, then again in Q2 to 20,6%/21%, and will be even higher in Q3 when we get the report. Ford, by contrast, has a gross margin of 8.64%.
Now, a fair criticism is that since Tesla bears the cost of running its stores (rather than passing the costs off to dealerships), it needs higher gross margins. But bears often vastly overestimate this aspect, pretending that running Tesla stores makes up 100% of SG&A, and as if stores scale linearly with volume (as if they were dealerships) - ignoring that they demonstrably don't, and haven't.
Interesting, I found a picture of you on the internet.
Note that my statement was about specifically the Model 3. There's not merely "a couple hundred million miles" on S and X; Tesla's total miles as of April (when Model 3 miles were low) was 7,2 billion. Also, S and X use a different battery tech from the 3 (but are still an order of magnitude less likely to catch on fire than a gasoline car).
You have to shift into gear either way.
The problem with internal combustion engines is that they're large, relatively incompressible objects. And a crash wants to shove that object straight into the cabin. With an electric car - particularly one with a large frunk - the whole front end is available for crumpling; there's no large objects to get pushed back like a battering ram.
Beyond that, EVs are inherently very rollover resistant - they're like weebles. Model 3 also has a very low polar moment of inertia, because the drive units and battery pack area all within the wheelbase. This makes it easier for a car to deal with off-centre impact force by rotating rather than by crushing. The battery pack - while not functioning as a primary support - also acts as a stiffening element to the primary support beams on the underside.
Lol, a Battery Fire Truther ;)
Yes, you tell 'em, statistics be damned, EVs catch fire way more often than the designed-to-burn-easily hydrocarbon in ICE vehicles that you store in big tanks, with lines of the stuff reaching around a hot engine.
With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s so far has been.... zero. For gasoline cars, it's one every 20 million miles. So far the only evidence of a Model 3 fire of any kind was one in a salvage lot in Fremont with 1 mile on the odometer, aka, not a customer car. And the fire damage was heaviest on the front bumper, not around the battery.
You mean like this? ;)
No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacturer, overwhelmingly positive reviews, top notch safety, and margin expected to be already up to about 15% (and growing) this quarter, production rates growing faster than Panasonic can keep up with cells, with ample reservations (Tesla hasn't even opened sales to most of its global market), SR not being available yet, non-PUP not being available yet, air suspension not being available yet, tow package not available yet, leases (how most people acquire cars) not available yet, only one model year old (most people prefer to wait for at least 2-3 years old) and surrounded by FUD, sparse store network, no advertising budget, and about a dozen things.
Tesla's fundamentals are rocking.
There's this common notion that Tesla has a "Musk premium". Quick question: whenever you hear TSLA bulls talking about Tesla, are they predominantly talking about how awesome Musk is? No, of course not; they're talking about how awesome the company and its products are. Tesla's value is as high as it is because TSLA bulls love its fundamentals, and these fundamentals exist with or without Musk. Contrary to this popular belief, Musk is generally a drain on Tesla's stock price, because he's such a polarizing figure who's always saying polarizing things. We like having him at the helm because we like his aggressive moat-bridging strategies, but he is not a boost to the stock price. Wall Street would love it if he packed his bags and moved to Mars and left JB in charge of the company (yes, there would be a short term freakout, as always happens when there's change and uncertainty, but then the story would go back to the fundamentals - without the distractions of random tweets)
Turning on and off the headlights manually? Lol. And where's the handcrank for the engine too, right? ;) At least autowipers aren't perfect and occasionally people want to override them (in the Model 3, single swipes and cleaning can be done with the left stalk, this also and automatically brings up the general wiper control menu just to the side of your right hand). But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?
I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?
As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. Put your hands on your keyboard. Keep your focus straight ahead, not at the keyboard. Now lift your hands up so that your hands have to actually move to touch a key (go with, say, 2 finger lengths away). Now - still without looking at the keyboard - picture half a dozen random letters and try to type them, with your hands returning fully to that elevated position each time. How well did that go? If you're like a normal human being, the answer is "very poorly". You probably had better success with larger buttons (space, enter), but not with smaller ones. Now put your hands back down in a normal typing resting position (aka, touching the same solid surface as the keyboard) and try again. Trivial to type without looking, right?
The simple fact is, we can control things in immediate reach of our hands from a fixed reference frame without looking, but when it comes to trying to control "button sized things" that we have to move our hands to reach, it's far harder. Which is why we look. You may believe that you do it without looking in your car, but for most tasks, you don't - start paying attention to yourself when you drive. You look because it's much faster and more accurate to do so.
Another test. Picture an area about 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square somewhere on the edge of your screen (it helps to have a fullscreen graphic up). Let's even forget about keeping your hands two finger lengths away! Look somewhat the side of your screen so that portion of your screen is in your peripheral. Now try to press that point on the screen. Do this several times. You probably did better than you expected to - simply because that's such a large virtual "button" you were trying to press. Give yourself even a brief glance at your screen and your accuracy will be almost perfect (again, due to button size). However, trying to hit "buttons" toward the centre of the screen, you'll find you have much worse accuracy than on the edges. If you were being bounced around, the centre would be all the worse, even with such a large button size.
So what's the strategic takeaway from this, in terms of keeping people's attention on the road?
1) Automate everything you can, so that there's no need to fiddle in the first place.
2) Tie all settings you can into driver profiles, so there's no need for basic adjustments, only the things that vary on a ride.
3) Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.
4) Put all "semi-frequent" interactions as close to the wheel as possible, as close to something your hands can physically touch as possible, with as large of a button as possible. Example: against the left or bottom edges of a screen (screen edge acts as a guideline for your hand), with buttons 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square, so that they're very difficult to actually miss.
5) Put infrequently used / only used when stopped functionality in menus. Make any displays as large as possible so "always on" things such as nav or cameras can be seen easily in your peripheral and so that they're easy to interact with.
This is, in a nutshell, Tesla's design philosophy.
As for Tes
Or Was He???