I've noticed that "better metallurgy" often seems to be the go-to solution in Musk's companies - use more exotic/expensive alloys in key areas in order to save a lot of money down the road, and developing the experience working with these alloys. Part of the same thing behind Boring Company, for example - rather than simple, passively cooled steel cutting discs, they plan to use high temperature / high strength alloys and actively cool them. They'll still have to replace then, and the replacements will cost a lot more, but that's nothing compared to the amount of cost savings involved in being able to run the cutting head many times faster.
Except for the hundreds of people who have already gotten theirs and have been raving about them over on the forums - and the forum members who continue getting them.
That's what THEY say. There is no public evidence.
Huh? So poor performance firings should require a detailed public airing of the company's grievances against the employees? And what the heck kind of crappy "layoff" would involve under 2% of the company's employee base?
MUCH further behind than that.
False. Here's Tesla's official announced production plan. They're one month off. July was supposed to be around a hundred, August was supposed to be a few hundred, and September 1500. A few hundred were delivered in September. That's one month off.
It's also worth noting that when Model 3 was announced, their initial goal was to start production in late 2017, with no specific numbers for deliveries. They moved the start up by half a year.
And I see you have a history of making excuses for Musk's...let's say... puffery
Funny, given that people like you keep calling his claims impossible BS, and he keeps delivering the supposed "impossible BS". Do you ever tire of being wrong, or are you always refreshed by the latest opportunity to be even more spectacularly wrong?
You don't have to have a 50% throttle capacity even in that situation; you can hoverslam land it. Of course, hoverslam landing without a pad would be risky to say the least...
At what point do we ask why this guy is given billions of dollars in state and federal subsidies (which is promptly burned)?
If you're referring to the auto industry loans, Tesla paid them back, with interest, years ahead of time. Unlike part of the Big Three loans. If you're referring to EV subsidies, they're available to any manufacturer, and more to the point were specifically designed to be based on the size of the Chevy Volt's battery pack. It's amusing to see the Big Three struggling against an environment that they crafted.
His latest car factory is actually human powered
It depends on what you mean. If you mean, "There are humans involved in stages of the manufacturing process", yes - but more to the point, you're describing every car factory on Earth. If you mean there's no robotic manufacturing, that'swrong. If you mean "the factory is not fully set up / tuned and requires more manual labour than it will in the end", no-freaking-duh, that's the very reason for announced S curve production plan. Most manufacturers, for a new line, will set it up and work on it for about half a year before starting sale of their production. This is not the approach Tesla is taking. While the plant is most definitely being set up for massive volumes, they are at present one month behind their planned production level at this point in time, and even that planned level was only two cars per hour.
and products are overpriced
Nearly half a million people have disagree with you, and put their money behind their disagreement.
Competition is coming,
Hahahahaha;)
Sorry, it's just we've heard this constantly for the past decade. And there are no signs that anyone else is taking this seriously, despite their best PR efforts to come across that way. Nobody else is working on similar battery production volumes for any given production year. Nobody else is pouring nearly as much money into production and R&D (100% of Tesla's EV-related spending - excepting that directly dedicated to vehicle production, which earns 25% margins - goes into this. Billions per quarter at present). The competitors are literally missing a "0" at the end of their investment figures from what they need to be investing. Nobody else is even remotely close on fast charging networks, the key differentiating factor that actually lets you do long trips in your vehicle. The closest announcement - VW's network (forced on them by CARB) - will not even get close to what Tesla has today when it's done, let alone the scale of Tesla's network by that point in time.
It's funny watching all of the people who see concept cars announced, compare them to Tesla's offerings today, and saying "See, Tesla is about to face serious competition!" Because, again, we've seen this for a decade, but more importantly, it expresses a profound ignorance about how concept cars work. What you see presented as a concept car does not make it to production like that. Regardless of what the company says. They're not designed to be affordable to build, to meet crash standards, to be remotely efficient, and on and on. Most never go to production at all. When they do, they look radically worse (here was the concept Volt, for example), perform worse, and are priced worse. And they only try to sell them where there's pressure on them to sell EVs. Take the Bolt, for example. Go to a Chevy dealership in a ZEV state and there will be Bolts on the lot, and they'll actually push them. Go to one in a non-ZEV state, and the situation is reversed. Go to most
Are you talking about the current collector maybe? They use copper for that. Better conductivity than platinum, no need for platinum's abnormally good corrosion resistance (sealed cells), and far cheaper.
It is most distinctly not. According to their graphs it's not even that. They've "tripled" how far it can go on a 6 minute charge, but only because 6 minutes brings it to a much higher percentage of its max charge state than before; the max charge state, according to their graphs, only looks to be about 40-50% more than current titanates. Which means that they're catching up to the energy density of li-ions in the early 1990s.
And yes, was used in the MiEV and Fit. Which have had tiny battery packs. The range on the MiEV was 62 miles, while the Fit was 82 miles. A high price per kilowatt hour isn't terrible when you don't have many kWh. They were both low-sales compliance EVs, meaning that it didn't really matter that much to the manufacturer how much they cost to make. Also, note the past tense. They've both been discontinued. The Fit wasn't even sold, it was just leased.
Lastly, I'll repeat: a chemistry that takes an already expensive chemistry and adds in a $200/kg metal is not going to have an impact on the EV market. At all. Price is the number one discriminator to EV manufacturers when it comes to batteries, trumping all else. That doesn't mean that they're useless; there are lots of niche applications where charging speeds are the top metric. But mainstream EVs? No. Take a Tesla Model 3 LR. The entire car retails for $44k. Just going to current titanates, *without* niobium, would make the battery pack *alone* cost $75k. And increase its weight 2 1/2x (less, but still significant, with their new niobium-based chemistry). It's a total non-starter for EVs, except again in niche applications (e.g. super expensive track cars designed for short races, track motorcycles, etc).
Same reason as SpaceX: people who want to change the world and do something that they find interesting will put up with a lot more than those working just for a paycheck. It's like asking, "Why do people put up with the long hours, low pay, and job instability of the video game industry?" Answer: Because they want to work in the video game industry. Same reason a lot of pilots put up with their situation: they want to fly planes and get paid for it. And same for many other jobs.
Anyway, it feels like we're hitting Peak TSLA-Shorter with "news" like this. "Company fires 2% of workers after performance reviews, starts looking for their replacements!" Next up: "Tesla paves new parking lot with asphalt rather than concrete: what's wrong with the stability of the ground at the Gigafactory? Will the foundation collapse and the factory explode in a column of flame that destroys a passing jetliner carrying World's Cutest Child contestants and boxes of extra-snuggly puppies? Stay tuned!"
LTO (like Toshiba's SCiB) has only recharge speed and durability going for it. Everything else about it is terrible, including energy density (vastly inferior to other li-ion chemistries - their best ones are something like 100Wh/kg), and the most important aspect, price. LTO is extremely expensive ($1000/kWh at present; most EVs use batteries in the ballpark of ~$150/kWh).
So now Toshiba has announced that their next generation is going to include.... niobium? A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?
I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum;)
Employee: "I've been working project you assigned me last but I don't have enough to get it done." Boss: "Excuse me?" Employee: "Do you not want me to the project or should I instead?" Boss: "... Can you please use adequate language when speaking with me?" Employee: "Go yourself."
This is degenerating into absurdity. You claimed someone invented it before him. There are two possibilities here.
1) You can tell me who. 2) You can ask me to search for every piece of data that currently exists and ever has existed on Earth to see if any human who has ever lived has ever thought up the concept.
Are you seriously telling me that #2 is the proper route to take?
By the way, prior art has already been linked twice in this thread.
It most definitely has not.
I've read everything that's come out of Musk and SpaceX about the topic of Hyperloop, and no such thing occurred
Ahh... so you are a fanboy.
I'm a person who doesn't write about topics that I haven't taken the time to learn about.
If you think that the obvious combination of those three details is some kind of revolutionary innovation... Certainly, application of an idea from one discipline to another can qualify as innovation (in fact, that is most of innovation), but the combination of features that you list is utterly obvious/generic to anyone who is an inventor or engineer.
Then point to just one person - One - who has ever proposed it before. If someone had, it's not like it would be obscure. We know of vactrain and pneumatic train proposals going back to the 1700s. Vactrains have been a staple of scifi. Where has this "obvious" solution been?
Have you bothered to read a single article on the topic? Apparently not. The compressor in this case
What "this case"? You haven't named a "this case"; "vactrain" is a general concept for a maglev train in a hard vacuum, not a specific implementation.
was a series of movable doors that opened and closed as the train moved through the tunnel
That would never fly in the real world. Now all that air you let in has to be pumped out down to the level of a hard vacuum.. What moronic design are you reading?
Moving the goalposts, eh? Now it's not "partially vacuum train", it's "air bearing train with compressor"
I'm describing the key aspects of Hyperloop. It doesn't work if you leave any of them out.
But that's no problem anyway, because there are so many examples they have their own classification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
None of which operate in a partial vacuum, and are thus limited to much lower speeds and much higher energy consumption. And due to the high energy needs they had to have gas turbines onboard. The fastest hovertrain ever moved at just 1/3rd the speed of Hyperloop, at orders of magnitude higher energy consumption.
1) Air bearings weren't invented in the 1960s. 2) "Air bearing != Hyperloop" any more than "Transistor = iPhone"
Come back to me with an actual example of a train inside a partial vacuum tube (rather than hard vacuum, to avoid the need for excessive pumping systems, but not open either, to allow for high rate of travel), floating on air bearings (to avoid the need for maglev), with a battery powered compressor simultaneously feeding the bearings (which can't be fully passively fed due to the low pressure) and preventing the buildup of a wall of air ahead of the vehicle.
Don't give me an argument equivalent to "But steel tube existed before Hyperloop!".
A pretty proven record of "nearly killing people" often enough but lucking into having them survive (18a, 23, 33, T-10-1, Mir EP-3, TMA-1, TMA-11). There have been lots of Soyuz close calls. And plenty of failures on unmanned Soyuz flights.
Luck doesn't last forever, and there's no sign that Russia's build quality is improving. If anything, it's worsening.
You can't buy stock pipe with that precision, but you can polish to that precision with a rotary polisher. Which was part of the Hyperloop Alpha design. Lots of mechanical systems involving pipe (such as hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders) require vastly better (orders of magnitude) engineered tolerances on diameter variation than the air bearings did.
But, perhaps there was some reason that they couldn't pull it off at scale.
How am I supposed to prove a negative? The person is asserting that there exists an example from before Musk. It is incumbent upon them to present what they're talking about, not to ask me to search the entire Earth for evidence of something that does not exist so that that I can prove my case via exhausting the entire search space. Same with their assertion that Musk was "originally pushing a vac train". I've read everything that's come out of Musk and SpaceX about the topic of Hyperloop, and no such thing occurred. If they think it did, they need to show where it occurred.
On the other hand, are you really naive enough to think that Musk was the first to conceive a train with "air bearings?"
Hyperloop has three parts, all of which are integral to the concept, because the concept does not work with any one of them missing:
1) Craft suspended by air bearings 2) Air bearings fed by a battery-powered compressor 3) System sealed inside a a) mostly evacuated, but b) not hard vacuum tube, in order to allow for extreme speed travel.
Without any one of those, Hyperloop Alpha does not exist. Without air bearings, it has to rely on maglev, which is too expensive. Without the compressor, not only would the air bearings not work in the low pressure air, but a "wall" of air would build up ahead of the craft and present too much drag. Without 3a, high speeds cannot be reached. Without 3b, #1 and #2 don't work, and the cost for pumping becomes excessive.
If you're not talking about the integration of #1, #2, and #3, and how they all tie closely together, you're not talking about Hyperloop Alpha.
There is no meaningful invention in our modern age that invents all of its component parts. An invention is how you build off of existing technology to create something that enables new possibilities.
Again: if you, or anyone else, thinks they have prior art to a system combining #1, #2 and #3, present it. Put up or shut up.
(Note: this exact same request has been made on pretty much every single Slashdot thread since the concept came out. Not a single person has ever "put up").
Also, the first tweet talked about "verbal govt approval", not "signed off on a NE corridor track". But again, keep up distorting whatever he says to meet your needs.
Still a lot of work needed to receive formal approval, but am optimistic that will occur rapidly
But while the former tweet was shared by 75k people, the latter was only shared by 1,5k. Even worse was how so many people still insist on pretending he was talking about the city level rather than the DOT, which has confirmed their discussions, adding "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." You don't start seeking approval on an interstate project at the city level. But hey, any chance to bash Musk, so go for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed that "better metallurgy" often seems to be the go-to solution in Musk's companies - use more exotic/expensive alloys in key areas in order to save a lot of money down the road, and developing the experience working with these alloys. Part of the same thing behind Boring Company, for example - rather than simple, passively cooled steel cutting discs, they plan to use high temperature / high strength alloys and actively cool them. They'll still have to replace then, and the replacements will cost a lot more, but that's nothing compared to the amount of cost savings involved in being able to run the cutting head many times faster.
Except for the hundreds of people who have already gotten theirs and have been raving about them over on the forums - and the forum members who continue getting them.
Huh? So poor performance firings should require a detailed public airing of the company's grievances against the employees? And what the heck kind of crappy "layoff" would involve under 2% of the company's employee base?
False. Here's Tesla's official announced production plan. They're one month off. July was supposed to be around a hundred, August was supposed to be a few hundred, and September 1500. A few hundred were delivered in September. That's one month off.
It's also worth noting that when Model 3 was announced, their initial goal was to start production in late 2017, with no specific numbers for deliveries. They moved the start up by half a year.
Funny, given that people like you keep calling his claims impossible BS, and he keeps delivering the supposed "impossible BS". Do you ever tire of being wrong, or are you always refreshed by the latest opportunity to be even more spectacularly wrong?
You don't have to have a 50% throttle capacity even in that situation; you can hoverslam land it. Of course, hoverslam landing without a pad would be risky to say the least...
I'm confused. Do you think the company should have fired poor-performing employees earlier, or not at all?
Yes, they're a month behind. Raise your hand if you're actually shocked by this. Anyone? Beuller?
FTFY.
You should write for TTAC. ;)
If you're referring to the auto industry loans, Tesla paid them back, with interest, years ahead of time. Unlike part of the Big Three loans. If you're referring to EV subsidies, they're available to any manufacturer, and more to the point were specifically designed to be based on the size of the Chevy Volt's battery pack. It's amusing to see the Big Three struggling against an environment that they crafted.
It depends on what you mean. If you mean, "There are humans involved in stages of the manufacturing process", yes - but more to the point, you're describing every car factory on Earth. If you mean there's no robotic manufacturing, that's wrong. If you mean "the factory is not fully set up / tuned and requires more manual labour than it will in the end", no-freaking-duh, that's the very reason for announced S curve production plan. Most manufacturers, for a new line, will set it up and work on it for about half a year before starting sale of their production. This is not the approach Tesla is taking. While the plant is most definitely being set up for massive volumes, they are at present one month behind their planned production level at this point in time, and even that planned level was only two cars per hour.
Nearly half a million people have disagree with you, and put their money behind their disagreement.
Hahahahaha ;)
Sorry, it's just we've heard this constantly for the past decade. And there are no signs that anyone else is taking this seriously, despite their best PR efforts to come across that way. Nobody else is working on similar battery production volumes for any given production year. Nobody else is pouring nearly as much money into production and R&D (100% of Tesla's EV-related spending - excepting that directly dedicated to vehicle production, which earns 25% margins - goes into this. Billions per quarter at present). The competitors are literally missing a "0" at the end of their investment figures from what they need to be investing. Nobody else is even remotely close on fast charging networks, the key differentiating factor that actually lets you do long trips in your vehicle. The closest announcement - VW's network (forced on them by CARB) - will not even get close to what Tesla has today when it's done, let alone the scale of Tesla's network by that point in time.
It's funny watching all of the people who see concept cars announced, compare them to Tesla's offerings today, and saying "See, Tesla is about to face serious competition!" Because, again, we've seen this for a decade, but more importantly, it expresses a profound ignorance about how concept cars work. What you see presented as a concept car does not make it to production like that. Regardless of what the company says. They're not designed to be affordable to build, to meet crash standards, to be remotely efficient, and on and on. Most never go to production at all. When they do, they look radically worse (here was the concept Volt, for example), perform worse, and are priced worse. And they only try to sell them where there's pressure on them to sell EVs. Take the Bolt, for example. Go to a Chevy dealership in a ZEV state and there will be Bolts on the lot, and they'll actually push them. Go to one in a non-ZEV state, and the situation is reversed. Go to most
Are you talking about the current collector maybe? They use copper for that. Better conductivity than platinum, no need for platinum's abnormally good corrosion resistance (sealed cells), and far cheaper.
Where are you getting this? Li-ions use carbon (graphite, amorphous) and sometimes silicon anodes.
No commercial li-ions use platinum electrodes that I am aware of. My reference to cesium, holmium and platinum batteries was a joke.
It is most distinctly not. According to their graphs it's not even that. They've "tripled" how far it can go on a 6 minute charge, but only because 6 minutes brings it to a much higher percentage of its max charge state than before; the max charge state, according to their graphs, only looks to be about 40-50% more than current titanates. Which means that they're catching up to the energy density of li-ions in the early 1990s.
And yes, was used in the MiEV and Fit. Which have had tiny battery packs. The range on the MiEV was 62 miles, while the Fit was 82 miles. A high price per kilowatt hour isn't terrible when you don't have many kWh. They were both low-sales compliance EVs, meaning that it didn't really matter that much to the manufacturer how much they cost to make. Also, note the past tense. They've both been discontinued. The Fit wasn't even sold, it was just leased.
Lastly, I'll repeat: a chemistry that takes an already expensive chemistry and adds in a $200/kg metal is not going to have an impact on the EV market. At all. Price is the number one discriminator to EV manufacturers when it comes to batteries, trumping all else. That doesn't mean that they're useless; there are lots of niche applications where charging speeds are the top metric. But mainstream EVs? No. Take a Tesla Model 3 LR. The entire car retails for $44k. Just going to current titanates, *without* niobium, would make the battery pack *alone* cost $75k. And increase its weight 2 1/2x (less, but still significant, with their new niobium-based chemistry). It's a total non-starter for EVs, except again in niche applications (e.g. super expensive track cars designed for short races, track motorcycles, etc).
What are you talking about?
Same reason as SpaceX: people who want to change the world and do something that they find interesting will put up with a lot more than those working just for a paycheck. It's like asking, "Why do people put up with the long hours, low pay, and job instability of the video game industry?" Answer: Because they want to work in the video game industry. Same reason a lot of pilots put up with their situation: they want to fly planes and get paid for it. And same for many other jobs.
Anyway, it feels like we're hitting Peak TSLA-Shorter with "news" like this. "Company fires 2% of workers after performance reviews, starts looking for their replacements!" Next up: "Tesla paves new parking lot with asphalt rather than concrete: what's wrong with the stability of the ground at the Gigafactory? Will the foundation collapse and the factory explode in a column of flame that destroys a passing jetliner carrying World's Cutest Child contestants and boxes of extra-snuggly puppies? Stay tuned!"
This is almost head-smackingly bad.
LTO (like Toshiba's SCiB) has only recharge speed and durability going for it. Everything else about it is terrible, including energy density (vastly inferior to other li-ion chemistries - their best ones are something like 100Wh/kg), and the most important aspect, price. LTO is extremely expensive ($1000/kWh at present; most EVs use batteries in the ballpark of ~$150/kWh).
So now Toshiba has announced that their next generation is going to include.... niobium? A metal that costs about $200 per kilogram?
I guess that they better get this one out on the market before the come out with their next battery based on cesium, holmium and platinum ;)
Employee: "I've been working project you assigned me last but I don't have enough to get it done."
Boss: "Excuse me?"
Employee: "Do you not want me to the project or should I instead?"
Boss: "... Can you please use adequate language when speaking with me?"
Employee: "Go yourself."
This is degenerating into absurdity. You claimed someone invented it before him. There are two possibilities here.
1) You can tell me who.
2) You can ask me to search for every piece of data that currently exists and ever has existed on Earth to see if any human who has ever lived has ever thought up the concept.
Are you seriously telling me that #2 is the proper route to take?
It most definitely has not.
I'm a person who doesn't write about topics that I haven't taken the time to learn about.
Then point to just one person - One - who has ever proposed it before. If someone had, it's not like it would be obscure. We know of vactrain and pneumatic train proposals going back to the 1700s. Vactrains have been a staple of scifi. Where has this "obvious" solution been?
What "this case"? You haven't named a "this case"; "vactrain" is a general concept for a maglev train in a hard vacuum, not a specific implementation.
That would never fly in the real world. Now all that air you let in has to be pumped out down to the level of a hard vacuum.. What moronic design are you reading?
I'm describing the key aspects of Hyperloop. It doesn't work if you leave any of them out.
None of which operate in a partial vacuum, and are thus limited to much lower speeds and much higher energy consumption. And due to the high energy needs they had to have gas turbines onboard. The fastest hovertrain ever moved at just 1/3rd the speed of Hyperloop, at orders of magnitude higher energy consumption.
1) Air bearings weren't invented in the 1960s.
2) "Air bearing != Hyperloop" any more than "Transistor = iPhone"
Come back to me with an actual example of a train inside a partial vacuum tube (rather than hard vacuum, to avoid the need for excessive pumping systems, but not open either, to allow for high rate of travel), floating on air bearings (to avoid the need for maglev), with a battery powered compressor simultaneously feeding the bearings (which can't be fully passively fed due to the low pressure) and preventing the buildup of a wall of air ahead of the vehicle.
Don't give me an argument equivalent to "But steel tube existed before Hyperloop!".
Ed: That should read "Hyperloop Alpha is based on...."
A pretty proven record of "nearly killing people" often enough but lucking into having them survive (18a, 23, 33, T-10-1, Mir EP-3, TMA-1, TMA-11). There have been lots of Soyuz close calls. And plenty of failures on unmanned Soyuz flights.
Luck doesn't last forever, and there's no sign that Russia's build quality is improving. If anything, it's worsening.
You can't buy stock pipe with that precision, but you can polish to that precision with a rotary polisher. Which was part of the Hyperloop Alpha design. Lots of mechanical systems involving pipe (such as hydraulic and pneumatic cylinders) require vastly better (orders of magnitude) engineered tolerances on diameter variation than the air bearings did.
But, perhaps there was some reason that they couldn't pull it off at scale.
How am I supposed to prove a negative? The person is asserting that there exists an example from before Musk. It is incumbent upon them to present what they're talking about, not to ask me to search the entire Earth for evidence of something that does not exist so that that I can prove my case via exhausting the entire search space. Same with their assertion that Musk was "originally pushing a vac train". I've read everything that's come out of Musk and SpaceX about the topic of Hyperloop, and no such thing occurred. If they think it did, they need to show where it occurred.
Hyperloop has three parts, all of which are integral to the concept, because the concept does not work with any one of them missing:
1) Craft suspended by air bearings
2) Air bearings fed by a battery-powered compressor
3) System sealed inside a a) mostly evacuated, but b) not hard vacuum tube, in order to allow for extreme speed travel.
Without any one of those, Hyperloop Alpha does not exist. Without air bearings, it has to rely on maglev, which is too expensive. Without the compressor, not only would the air bearings not work in the low pressure air, but a "wall" of air would build up ahead of the craft and present too much drag. Without 3a, high speeds cannot be reached. Without 3b, #1 and #2 don't work, and the cost for pumping becomes excessive.
If you're not talking about the integration of #1, #2, and #3, and how they all tie closely together, you're not talking about Hyperloop Alpha.
There is no meaningful invention in our modern age that invents all of its component parts. An invention is how you build off of existing technology to create something that enables new possibilities.
Again: if you, or anyone else, thinks they have prior art to a system combining #1, #2 and #3, present it. Put up or shut up.
(Note: this exact same request has been made on pretty much every single Slashdot thread since the concept came out. Not a single person has ever "put up").
[Citation needed]
You remember wrong.
Seriously? The fact that air bearings already exists makes that prior art to Hyperloop? Nobody was talking about having invented air bearings.
[Citation needed]
Also, the first tweet talked about "verbal govt approval", not "signed off on a NE corridor track". But again, keep up distorting whatever he says to meet your needs.
The tweet was followed shortly thereafter by:
But while the former tweet was shared by 75k people, the latter was only shared by 1,5k. Even worse was how so many people still insist on pretending he was talking about the city level rather than the DOT, which has confirmed their discussions, adding "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." You don't start seeking approval on an interstate project at the city level. But hey, any chance to bash Musk, so go for it.