Indeed - "feeder tunnels" and onramps/offramps are an explicit part of their plan. That's a relatively straightforward part - just more boring, at depth. It's the vertical access shafts that they've not talked much about, and which seem to be the trickiest part. So here's to hoping for more info about their approach here.
Here's to hoping that we soon get more info about their surface connections. Because they've talked almost nothing about them and to me it seems like the hardest part. Loop, in their ultimate design goal, fundamentally requires large numbers of these surface stations (in contrast to subways that use a smaller number of large terminals), so you have to be able to build them quickly and cheaply. You obviously can't make them with a TBM, it's not just going to make a sharp right-angle turn and drive vertically to the surface. And while the main tunnel can be as deep as you want in order to avoid city infrastructure, every single one of the surface stations has to penetrate every layer below it en route to the Loop tunnels.
I really want to see what their approach is to be able to rapidly make the vertical tunnel segments while quickly detecting and avoiding or rerouting any unmarked underground hazards or infrastructure. Their ease of getting permits en masse will depend on how well they can demonstrate causing minimal disruption to everyday life. To me, this sounds like the hardest part of the whole Loop goal.
You FUDsters are hilarious. Musk goes on Joe Rogan, demonstrates little knowledge about pot (including being apparently unaware of the existence of blunts, asking whether it's a joint or a cigar, and after having it explained to him, responding, "so it's like posh pot, tobacco pot?"), studies it like a curious scientist examining an alien species for the first time, takes one non-inhaled puff, shrugs his shoulders (**everyone screenshots here), shakes his head no, gives it back, and later talks about how he doesn't like marijuana because it hinders his ability to accomplish things that make a difference in the world.
In FUD world, this translates to "Boring's CEO may be too busy hitting the rock and/or getting stoned"
I'll repeat: you FUDsters are hilarious;) Meanwhile, Musk got 11 million people (in under a week) to watch a 2 1/2 hour interview with him which has gotten over 72 thousand comments on Youtube, with by far most reactions to Musk being positive. As an example, at the time of writing this post, here's the newest comments in the thread that concern Musk:
"The way elon scans his brain after every question freaks me out but it's kinda badass"
"I love this man. He's not a typical high roller business man that's for sure. We need more Elon Musks in the world. "I love humanity, I think it's great.""
"Why does it seem like Elon Musk has already seen the end? He must be visiting us from an unknown realm and couldn't help but feel sorry for us."
"Elon seem mildly autistic"
"Damn, this guy is really a genius."
"This will be a tough one to beat. This one was by far my favorite Joe Rogan interview and likely my favorite interview I’ve ever watched. I’ve given Joe jazz in the past, but we’re all human, and I can’t deny the great job Joe does giving us Internet consumers one hell of a platform into so many fascinating minds - including Joe’s. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Elon. This was truly great. We’re living in a amazing time in history. Love IS the answer. It starts with oneself."
"So i just rewatched Iron Man recently... And Elon Musk is basically our real life Tony Stark. I love that guy."
I'll also add that while I'm personally not a fan of intoxicating substances of any stripes, I find it rather silly that nobody seems to care about the fact that they're drinking whiskey during the interview. Which is more of a "debilitating" substance. One non-inhaled puff on a blunt? "OMG!" Drinking whiskey? "Meh...."
This has nothing to do with Hyperloop. Hyperloop is a longer-term objective. This is about Loop. That said, both Loop and Hyperloop are - regardless of what the Dugout Loop prototype will do - designed for hauling both cars and passenger capsules. The whole point of all of the work they're doing right now is prototyping and testing. Even Dugout loop is just a larger-scale test.
Sometimes I don't know if you shorts get things wrong through deliberate FUD, or just a really bad game of telephone. Because your (incorrect) initial rumour was "The Air Force is considering revoking Musk's security clearance", but that's apparently already morphed to "has just revoked his security clearance and canceled all contracts". The latter BTW having nothing to do with Musk's security clearance regardless.
Model 3 does not use 18650s ("laptop batteries"), it uses 2170s. And S & X's 18650s, while a standard format, have a chemistry and structure engineered for battery packs, on a line that only produces them for the S & X.
SpaceX has taken over the lion's share of the entire planet's commercial launch industry. But "meh", right?
The stock opened over 9% down. I bought at $256.11. Very happy with that.:)
As I've written elsewhere, I'm not a day trader. I'll sell on a peak if it gets high enough (because with TSLA, volatility is pretty much assured), but only to buy more at the next low. My main goal is to hold through at least Q4, to get two quarters of profitability under Tesla's belt, to take the wind out of the "they can't be profitable" notion (Q3 alone won't be enough, they'll just claim it's a one-time thing). In the mean time, I use the lows to accumulate shares. After Q4, they'll have to revert to their always-humourous, always-wrong "competition is going to kill Tesla any day now!" hypothesis that they've been pushing through Tesla's entire history (but they really really mean it this time!;) )
I mean, if you're a day trader, I guess today sucks to be you. But Tesla doesn't give a rat's arse for even pro-Tesla day traders. Their goal is the long-term - as it should be.
Even if you assume that her "personal reasons" and "family" is PR speak (and not literally what it says on the tin), the simple matter is that - as a company which has nearly two dozen people at the VP level or higher (not even counting department heads) - executive departures will happen at regular intervals. Just like they do at all companies (but particularly in Silicon Valley, where average executive stays are shorter than average). The main difference is that people don't have a giant FUD blitz every time, say, some VP in Kraft Foods leaves.
It actually was. And anyone criticizing it for the "OMG Elon Is A Pothead Promoting Drug Usage!" notion clearly never watched it. It's practically an anti-pot ad. Musk is offered a joint (which he has to ask if it's a joint), takes one puff, doesn't even inhale, looks at it, shakes his head no, passes it back - then later on they discuss marijuana, and Musk says that he doesn't like it because it inhibits his ability to get things done and have a meaningful effect on the world.
But of course, that doesn't make for a clickbait headline, now does it?
Seriously, this Slashdot "summary" is one of the clickbatiest, most misleading summaries I've seen in ages. Also poorly copyedited - starting to talk about marijuana, then acting like it's going into a summary about pot, but instead going back to Morton. Naturally, their quoting of Morton cuts out before his line, "I want to be clear that I believe strongly in Tesla, its mission, and its future prospects, and I have no disagreements with Tesla’s leadership or its financial reporting." - because, hey, why bother to mention a trivial thing like that when you have a hit piece to right?
And of course, there's no mention of the in-detail reporting on why Morton left. Specifically, Morton was brought in because his background was privatizations. But he felt like nobody appreciated his ideas as Tesla and he was being ignored. His ignored ideas included, and I quote, "advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private". Had Morton bothered to listen to a single earnings call, they would have heard the Tesla executive team repeatedly and strongly ruling out capital raises from equity; instead that their capital expenditures going forth are to be from profit and debt. He seems to have misunderstood that privatization wasn't a means, it was a goal: to eliminate short-sellers, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the company - as well as to eliminate the end-of-quarter rush and allow the company to stay more long-term strategically focused.
By the way, as for executives leaving in general: Tesla has 23 people at the VP level or higher - we're not even counting department heads here. The average stay of a high level executive is around 4 years, and less in Silicon Valley. Executive departures will happen. Get used to it.
Of course, Slashdot concludes with a paragraph that is an epic smear, curiously sourced from some random person commenting on some other site's message board (is that a first here?):
It's now obvious that everything Elon tweeted that manipulated the market was a lie.
Meanwhile, in the universe that we live in, there were multiple entities competing to buy Tesla. Including, among others, multiple sovereign wealth funds (not just the Saudis), and Volkswagen. The terms however were more painful to Tesla than staying public, including various combinations of loss of control, requirements to build large local production facilities and so forth. It also became clear that the best their advisers could do for allowing retail investors to remain in (which was part of the plan, to minimize the size of the buyout) was an exotic trust structure that would have had a low chance of being approved by regulators.
But naaaaaah - who cares about actual investigative reporting when you can base articles on "Megatrex from the comment section of Ars Technica"? FUD away everyone! It's a lot more fun!
Its not about emotions, it's about useful terminology. To a planetary scientist, a planet is a body that's large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, which creates a fundamental distinction between two very different types of bodies. A body in equilibrium is differentiated, has been altered by fluids, has experienced geothermal heat over long time periods, etc. A body not in equlibrium is undifferentiated and - if old - comprised of the primitive relics of our solar system. To a planetary scientist, the large moons are likewise "planetary" moons, in that they're gone through the same sort of differentiating processes as planets; their position and path of motion does not change what they are.
The IAU, which is primarily astronomers and not planetary scientists, made a big mess for actual planetary scientists. Rather than creating their own new orbital classification for their needs, they took away a term in widespread use from another set of scientists. The latter have been the leading voices for overturning the IAU decision since then.
The fact that the planetary science definition is much closer to the popular definition than the IAU definition is is actually a side point. Although one worth bringing up nonetheless. New Horizons lead Alan Stern likes to bring up the "Captain Kirk Test", when discussing the popular usage of the term, as distinct from either scientific usage of the term. That is, if the Starship Enterprise was in orbit around it, and Captain Kirk said "Beam us down to that (blank)", would that word be "planet", or something else? As humans, we automatically recognize "object in space so large that its gravity has pulled it into a sphere" as a planet. To the point that we sometimes struggle when discussing science fiction when such bodies are presented as moons. Think of how many times you've heard Star Wars fans refer to the Forest Moon of Endor as a planet or whatnot.
Of course, all *this* is tangential to the fact that the IAU definition is a completely self contradictory minefield based on false premises (foremost of which is that planets actually clear their own neighborhoods - Mars's neighborhood, for example, was primarily cleaned by Jupiter, not Mars***), but that's an entirely different story....
*** No, the Stern-Levison parameter doesn't help. It's based on a current body's ability to clear asteroids, not a planetisimal's ability to clear other planetisimals. And indeed, Stern is as mentioned one of the biggest opponents of the IAU definition. Basing your argument on a guy who disagrees with it is never a good start!
He should have listened to at least one earnings call before accepting the job. Namely, he appears to have misunderstood going private as a means for fundraising. Tesla has repeatedly (endlessly) said - to the endless disbelief of shorts - that it has no interest in fundraising with dilution, and that it only plans to fund further capital expenses through profit and debt. So when there's things like:
When Morton offered advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private, he was ignored, said the person.
No duh he was ignored. Privatization wasn't a means, it was the goal. In order to eliminate shorts, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the stock, as well as the need to focus on quarterly earnings rushes and instead stay focused on long-term strategy.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Tesla is on a roll. They now make over half the world's EV battery capacity. Model 3 margins were positive in Q2 even without AWD and P, which are high-margin options. And despite the hype about "6000 per week", Tesla's actual production goal for this quarter is 50-55k, which is 4k per week average, which they're well on track for.
But on the other hand, the CEO took a half-arsed puff on a joint when offered, shook his head no, and talked about how he doesn't like pot because it hinders productivity. So I guess there's a balance, right?
* The whole sequence started out with Musk asking, "Is that a joint?" Just like your average hardcore pothead who doesn't know what a joint looks like, right?
* After a reminder that it's legal in California, Musk hesitantly takes it, examines it, then takes a tiny puff, then shakes his head no.
* Comments start filling up the Youtube thread from actual pot smokers complaining: OZGUN ST-PIERRE: Dudeeee wtf he didn’t inhale tg300050 he didnt inhale Samuel Gobrecht +OZGUN ST-PIERRE some people just dont like how it makes them feel
Obviously he doesn't know how to smoke NO T H O T S NOOOO ****ING WAY Geo Hurtado Inhale!!!!
* Topic changes back to cars.
* Later, topic changes back to pot. The conversation is, to quote:
Joe: Is that bad for you? It's legal. It's government approved. Musk: I'm not a regular smoker of weed. Joe: How often do you smoke it? Musk: Almost never. Joe: Mm. Musk: I mean, I don't actually notice any effect. (topic detours to Buddhist monks taking acid, before getting back on the topic of weed) Musk: You know... I know a lot of people like weed... and that's fine. But I don't find that it's very good for productivity. Joe: For you. Musk: Not for me. Joe: Yeah, I would imagine that for someone like you it's not. For someone like you, it'd be more like a cup of coffee. Musk: Actually it's more like the opposite of a cup of coffee. Like a cup of coffee in reverse. Joe: Weed is? Musk: Yeah. Joe: No, I was saying you would like more, more what would be beneficial to you would be like coffee. Musk: I like to get things done, I like to be useful. That's one of the hardest things to do.
The key is "efficient". Sugar crops as a whole generally only yield a fraction of a percent of their received solar energy as sugar. Even just considering the leaves alone, they only net about 5% net sugar yield.
If you want efficiency, you're going to want a direct chemical process. I looked into this at one point and was surprised at how complicated it appears to be to make simple sugars, in terms of the number of requisite steps. Much simpler would probably be a direct conversion to fatty acids; they're carboxylic acids and there's a number of ways to directly synthesize free carboxylic acids from simple raw materials (the main challenge would be specificity)
Forest? *snicker*. Here's the joke everyone over the age of 8 here knows:
Q: What do you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest? A: Stand up.
I've actually not been to Hornstrandir; it's been on my TODO list for a long, long time, but I've lacked one of the obligatory "round tuits". So it's actually surprising to hear that there's not internet access (via cell towers) there, because in general even the most remote places here have cell access. When Bárðarbunga erupted, deep in the highlands, the eruption was livestreamed. And there's a lot more people in Vestfirðir then in the highlands!
This would of course be more about visitors than residents, given that there's no permanent residents in Hornstrandir. And in some ways I can sympathize. For example, there's always a lot of opposition to improving the highland roads because we don't want to have more cars driving through and tons of people flooding in, and driving really fast on some paved road would totally change the experience of going into the highlands... it would just turn into a set of "sites to see" rather than a journey. The effect of the isolation on you can really be profound. You feel like a person exploring Mars - so tiny in an endless empty expanse, completely devoid of any signs of human civilization except the half-bulldozed-out "road" you take, the endless travel punctured by rushes of adrenaline as you try to ford a river or trying to avoid ruining your car crossing a lava field. And people who know that experience generally don't want to see it altered. So I imagine it's the same thing for Hornstrandir. The difference being, as previously mentioned, in much of the highlands there's cell coverage. At least as far as I know, when I go out I'm not checking Facebook all the time.;) But I don't recall any meaningful loss of coverage events.
ED: Just checked a map from my cell provider. Looks like most of Hornstrandir is indeed marked in white (no coverage), while most of the highlands is light blue (2G) or in some places blue (3G) - even a good chunk of Vatnajökull (largest glacier in Europe).
The patent is an extension on an already-extant concept of automatic turn signals based on a person about to leave a lane. These suffer from an excessive rate of false negatives and can annoy the driver. The patent extends the concept to reduce the rate of false negatives by checking to see if a turn signal would actually even benefit anyone, and if not, not bothering to turn it on. The flow chart (as spelled out in Fig. 12-14) is "Is vehicle about to cross lane line?" -> "Is driver applying steering action?" -> "Is another vehicle in the vicinity that would benefit?" -> "Activate turn signal". Other elements of nuance include things like where the road is going and thus whether the steering input is likely simply to keep the driver within their lane; and looking at the route the user has selected in navigation to see whether they're likely to (or at least supposed to) be taking a given exit and are likely switching lanes for that.
It's basically just taking more data into account in order to reduce the false positive rate on an already-existing concept.
Ignoring the other trolling posts, and only responding to this non-trolling post:) You're absolutely correct (and there's also accredited investor restrictions). However, there are a number of ways to work around this to varying degrees, such as funds being among the owners of a private corporation (although there may be limits to how much of the fund can be comprised of one company), unlisted public companies owning a stake of a private corporation, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - "feeder tunnels" and onramps/offramps are an explicit part of their plan. That's a relatively straightforward part - just more boring, at depth. It's the vertical access shafts that they've not talked much about, and which seem to be the trickiest part. So here's to hoping for more info about their approach here.
Indeed. It was only a matter of time. I look forward to the upcoming Musk startups, Giant Lasers Incorporated and Sharks Unlimited.
Here's to hoping that we soon get more info about their surface connections. Because they've talked almost nothing about them and to me it seems like the hardest part. Loop, in their ultimate design goal, fundamentally requires large numbers of these surface stations (in contrast to subways that use a smaller number of large terminals), so you have to be able to build them quickly and cheaply. You obviously can't make them with a TBM, it's not just going to make a sharp right-angle turn and drive vertically to the surface. And while the main tunnel can be as deep as you want in order to avoid city infrastructure, every single one of the surface stations has to penetrate every layer below it en route to the Loop tunnels.
I really want to see what their approach is to be able to rapidly make the vertical tunnel segments while quickly detecting and avoiding or rerouting any unmarked underground hazards or infrastructure. Their ease of getting permits en masse will depend on how well they can demonstrate causing minimal disruption to everyday life. To me, this sounds like the hardest part of the whole Loop goal.
I so want to see the craigslist ad for this one ;)
You FUDsters are hilarious. Musk goes on Joe Rogan, demonstrates little knowledge about pot (including being apparently unaware of the existence of blunts, asking whether it's a joint or a cigar, and after having it explained to him, responding, "so it's like posh pot, tobacco pot?"), studies it like a curious scientist examining an alien species for the first time, takes one non-inhaled puff, shrugs his shoulders (**everyone screenshots here), shakes his head no, gives it back, and later talks about how he doesn't like marijuana because it hinders his ability to accomplish things that make a difference in the world.
In FUD world, this translates to "Boring's CEO may be too busy hitting the rock and/or getting stoned"
I'll repeat: you FUDsters are hilarious ;) Meanwhile, Musk got 11 million people (in under a week) to watch a 2 1/2 hour interview with him which has gotten over 72 thousand comments on Youtube, with by far most reactions to Musk being positive. As an example, at the time of writing this post, here's the newest comments in the thread that concern Musk:
"The way elon scans his brain after every question freaks me out but it's kinda badass"
"I love this man. He's not a typical high roller business man that's for sure. We need more Elon Musks in the world. "I love humanity, I think it's great.""
"Why does it seem like Elon Musk has already seen the end? He must be visiting us from an unknown realm and couldn't help but feel sorry for us."
"Elon seem mildly autistic"
"Damn, this guy is really a genius."
"This will be a tough one to beat. This one was by far my favorite Joe Rogan interview and likely my favorite interview I’ve ever watched. I’ve given Joe jazz in the past, but we’re all human, and I can’t deny the great job Joe does giving us Internet consumers one hell of a platform into so many fascinating minds - including Joe’s. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Elon. This was truly great. We’re living in a amazing time in history. Love IS the answer. It starts with oneself."
"So i just rewatched Iron Man recently... And Elon Musk is basically our real life Tony Stark. I love that guy."
I'll also add that while I'm personally not a fan of intoxicating substances of any stripes, I find it rather silly that nobody seems to care about the fact that they're drinking whiskey during the interview. Which is more of a "debilitating" substance. One non-inhaled puff on a blunt? "OMG!" Drinking whiskey? "Meh...."
This has nothing to do with Hyperloop. Hyperloop is a longer-term objective. This is about Loop. That said, both Loop and Hyperloop are - regardless of what the Dugout Loop prototype will do - designed for hauling both cars and passenger capsules. The whole point of all of the work they're doing right now is prototyping and testing. Even Dugout loop is just a larger-scale test.
Sometimes I don't know if you shorts get things wrong through deliberate FUD, or just a really bad game of telephone. Because your (incorrect) initial rumour was "The Air Force is considering revoking Musk's security clearance", but that's apparently already morphed to "has just revoked his security clearance and canceled all contracts". The latter BTW having nothing to do with Musk's security clearance regardless.
But for those who actually care? Even the initial claim was wrong. "Reports that Musk security clearance under review are inaccurate: U.S. Air Force".
Model 3 does not use 18650s ("laptop batteries"), it uses 2170s. And S & X's 18650s, while a standard format, have a chemistry and structure engineered for battery packs, on a line that only produces them for the S & X.
SpaceX has taken over the lion's share of the entire planet's commercial launch industry. But "meh", right?
The stock opened over 9% down. I bought at $256.11. Very happy with that. :)
As I've written elsewhere, I'm not a day trader. I'll sell on a peak if it gets high enough (because with TSLA, volatility is pretty much assured), but only to buy more at the next low. My main goal is to hold through at least Q4, to get two quarters of profitability under Tesla's belt, to take the wind out of the "they can't be profitable" notion (Q3 alone won't be enough, they'll just claim it's a one-time thing). In the mean time, I use the lows to accumulate shares. After Q4, they'll have to revert to their always-humourous, always-wrong "competition is going to kill Tesla any day now!" hypothesis that they've been pushing through Tesla's entire history (but they really really mean it this time! ;) )
I mean, if you're a day trader, I guess today sucks to be you. But Tesla doesn't give a rat's arse for even pro-Tesla day traders. Their goal is the long-term - as it should be.
Nobody stepped down over it. Morton left because he was a privatization expert for a company no longer looking at going private, and felt nobody cared about his privatization ideas anyway. Toledano has been on a leave of absence for over a month. The fun thing about Toledano is that people got to FUD Tesla twice - once when she went on leave, and again when it was confirmed that she wouldn't be returning. Two for one - what a deal!
Even if you assume that her "personal reasons" and "family" is PR speak (and not literally what it says on the tin), the simple matter is that - as a company which has nearly two dozen people at the VP level or higher (not even counting department heads) - executive departures will happen at regular intervals. Just like they do at all companies (but particularly in Silicon Valley, where average executive stays are shorter than average). The main difference is that people don't have a giant FUD blitz every time, say, some VP in Kraft Foods leaves.
** hit piece to write
It actually was. And anyone criticizing it for the "OMG Elon Is A Pothead Promoting Drug Usage!" notion clearly never watched it. It's practically an anti-pot ad. Musk is offered a joint (which he has to ask if it's a joint), takes one puff, doesn't even inhale, looks at it, shakes his head no, passes it back - then later on they discuss marijuana, and Musk says that he doesn't like it because it inhibits his ability to get things done and have a meaningful effect on the world.
But of course, that doesn't make for a clickbait headline, now does it?
Seriously, this Slashdot "summary" is one of the clickbatiest, most misleading summaries I've seen in ages. Also poorly copyedited - starting to talk about marijuana, then acting like it's going into a summary about pot, but instead going back to Morton. Naturally, their quoting of Morton cuts out before his line, "I want to be clear that I believe strongly in Tesla, its mission, and its future prospects, and I have no disagreements with Tesla’s leadership or its financial reporting." - because, hey, why bother to mention a trivial thing like that when you have a hit piece to right?
And of course, there's no mention of the in-detail reporting on why Morton left. Specifically, Morton was brought in because his background was privatizations. But he felt like nobody appreciated his ideas as Tesla and he was being ignored. His ignored ideas included, and I quote, "advice about capitalizing the company through other means rather than going private". Had Morton bothered to listen to a single earnings call, they would have heard the Tesla executive team repeatedly and strongly ruling out capital raises from equity; instead that their capital expenditures going forth are to be from profit and debt. He seems to have misunderstood that privatization wasn't a means, it was a goal: to eliminate short-sellers, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the company - as well as to eliminate the end-of-quarter rush and allow the company to stay more long-term strategically focused.
By the way, as for executives leaving in general: Tesla has 23 people at the VP level or higher - we're not even counting department heads here. The average stay of a high level executive is around 4 years, and less in Silicon Valley. Executive departures will happen. Get used to it.
Of course, Slashdot concludes with a paragraph that is an epic smear, curiously sourced from some random person commenting on some other site's message board (is that a first here?):
Meanwhile, in the universe that we live in, there were multiple entities competing to buy Tesla. Including, among others, multiple sovereign wealth funds (not just the Saudis), and Volkswagen. The terms however were more painful to Tesla than staying public, including various combinations of loss of control, requirements to build large local production facilities and so forth. It also became clear that the best their advisers could do for allowing retail investors to remain in (which was part of the plan, to minimize the size of the buyout) was an exotic trust structure that would have had a low chance of being approved by regulators.
But naaaaaah - who cares about actual investigative reporting when you can base articles on "Megatrex from the comment section of Ars Technica"? FUD away everyone! It's a lot more fun!
Its not about emotions, it's about useful terminology. To a planetary scientist, a planet is a body that's large enough to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, which creates a fundamental distinction between two very different types of bodies. A body in equilibrium is differentiated, has been altered by fluids, has experienced geothermal heat over long time periods, etc. A body not in equlibrium is undifferentiated and - if old - comprised of the primitive relics of our solar system. To a planetary scientist, the large moons are likewise "planetary" moons, in that they're gone through the same sort of differentiating processes as planets; their position and path of motion does not change what they are.
The IAU, which is primarily astronomers and not planetary scientists, made a big mess for actual planetary scientists. Rather than creating their own new orbital classification for their needs, they took away a term in widespread use from another set of scientists. The latter have been the leading voices for overturning the IAU decision since then.
The fact that the planetary science definition is much closer to the popular definition than the IAU definition is is actually a side point. Although one worth bringing up nonetheless. New Horizons lead Alan Stern likes to bring up the "Captain Kirk Test", when discussing the popular usage of the term, as distinct from either scientific usage of the term. That is, if the Starship Enterprise was in orbit around it, and Captain Kirk said "Beam us down to that (blank)", would that word be "planet", or something else? As humans, we automatically recognize "object in space so large that its gravity has pulled it into a sphere" as a planet. To the point that we sometimes struggle when discussing science fiction when such bodies are presented as moons. Think of how many times you've heard Star Wars fans refer to the Forest Moon of Endor as a planet or whatnot.
Of course, all *this* is tangential to the fact that the IAU definition is a completely self contradictory minefield based on false premises (foremost of which is that planets actually clear their own neighborhoods - Mars's neighborhood, for example, was primarily cleaned by Jupiter, not Mars***), but that's an entirely different story....
*** No, the Stern-Levison parameter doesn't help. It's based on a current body's ability to clear asteroids, not a planetisimal's ability to clear other planetisimals. And indeed, Stern is as mentioned one of the biggest opponents of the IAU definition. Basing your argument on a guy who disagrees with it is never a good start!
And also, the reason he left wasn't "illegal shit", but because Tesla didn't like his privatization ideas and ignored him (he was hired to help with the privatization)
He should have listened to at least one earnings call before accepting the job. Namely, he appears to have misunderstood going private as a means for fundraising. Tesla has repeatedly (endlessly) said - to the endless disbelief of shorts - that it has no interest in fundraising with dilution, and that it only plans to fund further capital expenses through profit and debt. So when there's things like:
No duh he was ignored. Privatization wasn't a means, it was the goal. In order to eliminate shorts, and thus the financial incentive to FUD the stock, as well as the need to focus on quarterly earnings rushes and instead stay focused on long-term strategy.
No, you're lying.
Hopefully some day you'll learn the difference.
Bears repeating.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Tesla is on a roll. They now make over half the world's EV battery capacity. Model 3 margins were positive in Q2 even without AWD and P, which are high-margin options. And despite the hype about "6000 per week", Tesla's actual production goal for this quarter is 50-55k, which is 4k per week average, which they're well on track for.
But on the other hand, the CEO took a half-arsed puff on a joint when offered, shook his head no, and talked about how he doesn't like pot because it hinders productivity. So I guess there's a balance, right?
LOL, after all this time you've been insisting you didn't short the stock, now you're saying you did?
Did you cover? I bought this morning at 256,11. Up nearly 5% as of now.
For the record:
* The whole sequence started out with Musk asking, "Is that a joint?" Just like your average hardcore pothead who doesn't know what a joint looks like, right?
* After a reminder that it's legal in California, Musk hesitantly takes it, examines it, then takes a tiny puff, then shakes his head no.
* Comments start filling up the Youtube thread from actual pot smokers complaining:
OZGUN ST-PIERRE: Dudeeee wtf he didn’t inhale
tg300050 he didnt inhale
Samuel Gobrecht +OZGUN ST-PIERRE some people just dont like how it makes them feel
Obviously he doesn't know how to smoke
NO T H O T S NOOOO ****ING WAY
Geo Hurtado Inhale!!!!
* Topic changes back to cars.
* Later, topic changes back to pot. The conversation is, to quote:
OMG, pillory him!
The key is "efficient". Sugar crops as a whole generally only yield a fraction of a percent of their received solar energy as sugar. Even just considering the leaves alone, they only net about 5% net sugar yield.
If you want efficiency, you're going to want a direct chemical process. I looked into this at one point and was surprised at how complicated it appears to be to make simple sugars, in terms of the number of requisite steps. Much simpler would probably be a direct conversion to fatty acids; they're carboxylic acids and there's a number of ways to directly synthesize free carboxylic acids from simple raw materials (the main challenge would be specificity)
Forest? *snicker*. Here's the joke everyone over the age of 8 here knows:
Q: What do you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest?
A: Stand up.
I've actually not been to Hornstrandir; it's been on my TODO list for a long, long time, but I've lacked one of the obligatory "round tuits". So it's actually surprising to hear that there's not internet access (via cell towers) there, because in general even the most remote places here have cell access. When Bárðarbunga erupted, deep in the highlands, the eruption was livestreamed. And there's a lot more people in Vestfirðir then in the highlands!
This would of course be more about visitors than residents, given that there's no permanent residents in Hornstrandir. And in some ways I can sympathize. For example, there's always a lot of opposition to improving the highland roads because we don't want to have more cars driving through and tons of people flooding in, and driving really fast on some paved road would totally change the experience of going into the highlands... it would just turn into a set of "sites to see" rather than a journey. The effect of the isolation on you can really be profound. You feel like a person exploring Mars - so tiny in an endless empty expanse, completely devoid of any signs of human civilization except the half-bulldozed-out "road" you take, the endless travel punctured by rushes of adrenaline as you try to ford a river or trying to avoid ruining your car crossing a lava field. And people who know that experience generally don't want to see it altered. So I imagine it's the same thing for Hornstrandir. The difference being, as previously mentioned, in much of the highlands there's cell coverage. At least as far as I know, when I go out I'm not checking Facebook all the time. ;) But I don't recall any meaningful loss of coverage events.
ED: Just checked a map from my cell provider. Looks like most of Hornstrandir is indeed marked in white (no coverage), while most of the highlands is light blue (2G) or in some places blue (3G) - even a good chunk of Vatnajökull (largest glacier in Europe).
Agreed. There's also the issue of whether unusual or unexpected behavior by the self-driving car makes other road users more likely to hit it.
Why don't people actually read the patent?
The patent is an extension on an already-extant concept of automatic turn signals based on a person about to leave a lane. These suffer from an excessive rate of false negatives and can annoy the driver. The patent extends the concept to reduce the rate of false negatives by checking to see if a turn signal would actually even benefit anyone, and if not, not bothering to turn it on. The flow chart (as spelled out in Fig. 12-14) is "Is vehicle about to cross lane line?" -> "Is driver applying steering action?" -> "Is another vehicle in the vicinity that would benefit?" -> "Activate turn signal". Other elements of nuance include things like where the road is going and thus whether the steering input is likely simply to keep the driver within their lane; and looking at the route the user has selected in navigation to see whether they're likely to (or at least supposed to) be taking a given exit and are likely switching lanes for that.
It's basically just taking more data into account in order to reduce the false positive rate on an already-existing concept.
Never happened. But thanks for putting words that I never said in my mouth, it's always appreciated!
Ignoring the other trolling posts, and only responding to this non-trolling post :) You're absolutely correct (and there's also accredited investor restrictions). However, there are a number of ways to work around this to varying degrees, such as funds being among the owners of a private corporation (although there may be limits to how much of the fund can be comprised of one company), unlisted public companies owning a stake of a private corporation, etc.