Your assumption is that they need equal quantities of graphene and concrete. I'd be pretty certain that is a false assumption.
Since this process halves the amount of concrete needed, the graphene needs to be less than $50 per . Not only that but the graphene improves the water resistance of the concrete which means that buildings made of it will last longer which is another cost saving.
But Musk doesn't own the whole company. Other shareholders are in it for the money and they'll sell if Tesla fails to deliver, especially as Tesla is significantly overvalued at the moment.
However, there is nothing to worry about. Musk only has to announce a new car and people flock to put $50k down for it even though it won't be in production for at least two years. Or they'll pay $3k up front for a fully autonomous driving system that may never exist.
You are privileging Euclidean geometry. If a straight line is defined as the shortest distance between two points, then on the surface of the Earth, a straight line is the same thing as a great circle.
If the writer doesn't want to use "he or she" to talk about a person of unspecified gender, they can use "they", although to some people it looks a little clunky.
Answers like that are quickly downvotes to oblivion. If the question really has been asked before, the new one will be closed as a duplicate with a link to the original question.
I don't see how that's possible. The energy costs for my petrol powered car probably come to around $2,000 per year (I am in Europe). You're saying that, if I had an electric car, the electricity would be free. Ha, ha.
On any rational examination of Tesla's financials, its stock is currently overpriced. For example, if you compare its revenue with that of General Motors, its market cap. is about ten times what it should be.
People are shorting Tesla because they expect it to go down and it should be going down. No other company that is not making a profit and is experiencing manufacturing delays on the one product that is supposed to bring profitability would still have such a high stock price.
That seems like a reasonable number to me. If the manufacturer quoted range is 300 miles, you can bet that is under ideal conditions i.e. on a flat route with no heavy acceleration or deceleration and with the air conditioning turned off. Also, if you know you will only be doing 100 miles in a day, you might drive a bit harder, reducing the range still further.
In my country, the average driver is not drunk. I probably saw hundreds of drivers on my way to work this morning. If any of them were drunk, I'd be surprised. If 10% were drunk, that would still mean the average is not drunk.
If it weren't for the massive injections of credulous investors' cash, Tesla would already be bankrupt. The problem with the model 3 production line is not "can they get it up to capacity" but "can they get it up to capacity in time". All the while they are not profitable, they are accruing debt and that debt is getting more and more expensive (because their credit rating is getting downgraded). It may get to the point that Tesla cannot increase production of the model 3 fast enough to produce the required profit per car to service their debt.
Then the FSD issue might become a millstone. What if they can't do FSD without expensive upgrades that have been promised for free? What if people start taking legal action because FSD hasn't arrived or the advertising is deemed fraudulent.
Don't buy Tesla stock right now unless you are up for high risk investments.
They didn't. The supplier thing is bullshit. The production problems are really of Tesla's own making and due to the fact that their previous cars have been cobbled together. The model 3 is the first one for mass production and it should not be surprising that Tesla does not know how to do mass production.
Olun Misk: "In the long run I plan to shit gold bricks".
You: The long run hasn't happened yet and in any case plans change.
I think the point is that Elon Musk frequently fails to deliver on his promises in respect of Tesla. Plans don't change by magic, they change in response to unforeseen problems or unrealistic targets. For Musk, unforeseen problems seem to include things like not foreseeing that his own ego is no substitute for proper design practice (e.g. freeze it before building the production line) and proper testing (of newly installed production lines).
I'm sorry, but you would be crazy to believe anything Musk says without convincing independent evidence to back it up. He is not trustworthy.
Yes those pesky DLLs with their shared object code....... You do realise that the exact same concept exists on all all modern Unix-alikes including Linux, only they are called shared object libraries.
Also I wouldn't bet against there being many early 90's era Posix apps that do not compile cleanly for 64 bit. For a start,, any app that assumes ints and pointers are the same size - and there were a lot - is completely broken under LP64.
First time I've heard anybody claim crocodiles are dinosaurs.
Because they are not. Dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs. But to claim one group is descended from the other is incorrect in much the same way as I am not descended from my brother.
Crocodiles are also not lizards. Lizards split with archosaurs before dinosaurs and crocodiles split. So crocodiles are not lizards in the same way as I am not descended from my cousin.
The alleged "we will use our own chips" thing is slated for 2020. They just said the Mac Pro is a 2019 product.
Furthermore, if there is one Mac that really needs to stay on x86_64 architecture, it is the Mac Pro where power consumption is not an issue but absolute performance is.
Also, I find it quite amusing that people are assuming that the new Apple chip for PCs will use the ARM architecture. Is there any reason why Apple couldn't do their own x8664 compatible?
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumption is that they need equal quantities of graphene and concrete. I'd be pretty certain that is a false assumption.
Since this process halves the amount of concrete needed, the graphene needs to be less than $50 per . Not only that but the graphene improves the water resistance of the concrete which means that buildings made of it will last longer which is another cost saving.
Actually, they don't need Tesla to fail, they just need its share price to readjust to the point where it is a fair valuation.
But Musk doesn't own the whole company. Other shareholders are in it for the money and they'll sell if Tesla fails to deliver, especially as Tesla is significantly overvalued at the moment.
However, there is nothing to worry about. Musk only has to announce a new car and people flock to put $50k down for it even though it won't be in production for at least two years. Or they'll pay $3k up front for a fully autonomous driving system that may never exist.
Lines of latitude aren't straight.
You are privileging Euclidean geometry. If a straight line is defined as the shortest distance between two points, then on the surface of the Earth, a straight line is the same thing as a great circle.
You know, on Stackoverflow, there's a little button on the left that you can press to downvote an answer that you believe to be wrong?
If the writer doesn't want to use "he or she" to talk about a person of unspecified gender, they can use "they", although to some people it looks a little clunky.
No you don't.
Answers like that are quickly downvotes to oblivion. If the question really has been asked before, the new one will be closed as a duplicate with a link to the original question.
I don't see how that's possible. The energy costs for my petrol powered car probably come to around $2,000 per year (I am in Europe). You're saying that, if I had an electric car, the electricity would be free. Ha, ha.
On any rational examination of Tesla's financials, its stock is currently overpriced. For example, if you compare its revenue with that of General Motors, its market cap. is about ten times what it should be.
People are shorting Tesla because they expect it to go down and it should be going down. No other company that is not making a profit and is experiencing manufacturing delays on the one product that is supposed to bring profitability would still have such a high stock price.
That seems like a reasonable number to me. If the manufacturer quoted range is 300 miles, you can bet that is under ideal conditions i.e. on a flat route with no heavy acceleration or deceleration and with the air conditioning turned off. Also, if you know you will only be doing 100 miles in a day, you might drive a bit harder, reducing the range still further.
On the other hand, they have got $3,000 now that they can spend on things that exist.
80% of what? 80% of trips? 80% of miles? 80% of different types of conditions?
People drive every day and most have had only a tiny number of accidents. I think we do a lot better than 80%
In my country, the average driver is not drunk. I probably saw hundreds of drivers on my way to work this morning. If any of them were drunk, I'd be surprised. If 10% were drunk, that would still mean the average is not drunk.
Tesla's stock is massively overpriced given its current revenue and production. That's not talking down the price , it is stating a fact.
General Motors has revenue of about $148 billion and a market cap. of around $40 billion
Tesla has revenue of $12 billion and market cap. of about $50 billion.
Neither company makes a net profit, however Tesla is apparently worthy more in spite of have less than a tenth of the income. It's overpriced.
If it weren't for the massive injections of credulous investors' cash, Tesla would already be bankrupt. The problem with the model 3 production line is not "can they get it up to capacity" but "can they get it up to capacity in time". All the while they are not profitable, they are accruing debt and that debt is getting more and more expensive (because their credit rating is getting downgraded). It may get to the point that Tesla cannot increase production of the model 3 fast enough to produce the required profit per car to service their debt.
Then the FSD issue might become a millstone. What if they can't do FSD without expensive upgrades that have been promised for free? What if people start taking legal action because FSD hasn't arrived or the advertising is deemed fraudulent.
Don't buy Tesla stock right now unless you are up for high risk investments.
FSD doesn't exist yet. They need to write the software and do any upgrades necessary on the cars for less than $3k per customer. Good luck with that.
Looks like they predict there is enough demand for the higher end versions to soak up all the production in 2018
That's not necessarily a good thing. It might be b because they can't get production up to reasonable numbers.
They didn't. The supplier thing is bullshit. The production problems are really of Tesla's own making and due to the fact that their previous cars have been cobbled together. The model 3 is the first one for mass production and it should not be surprising that Tesla does not know how to do mass production.
Olun Misk: "In the long run I plan to shit gold bricks".
You: The long run hasn't happened yet and in any case plans change.
I think the point is that Elon Musk frequently fails to deliver on his promises in respect of Tesla. Plans don't change by magic, they change in response to unforeseen problems or unrealistic targets. For Musk, unforeseen problems seem to include things like not foreseeing that his own ego is no substitute for proper design practice (e.g. freeze it before building the production line) and proper testing (of newly installed production lines).
I'm sorry, but you would be crazy to believe anything Musk says without convincing independent evidence to back it up. He is not trustworthy.
Yes those pesky DLLs with their shared object code.... ... You do realise that the exact same concept exists on all all modern Unix-alikes including Linux, only they are called shared object libraries.
Also I wouldn't bet against there being many early 90's era Posix apps that do not compile cleanly for 64 bit. For a start,, any app that assumes ints and pointers are the same size - and there were a lot - is completely broken under LP64.
Apart from the fact that crocodiles, being carnivores are likely to avoid toxic plants on the grounds of them being plants.
No, it's just that all the plants with tasteless poison got eaten leaving the ones with bad tasting poison behind to reproduce.
First time I've heard anybody claim crocodiles are dinosaurs.
Because they are not. Dinosaurs and crocodiles are both archosaurs. But to claim one group is descended from the other is incorrect in much the same way as I am not descended from my brother.
Crocodiles are also not lizards. Lizards split with archosaurs before dinosaurs and crocodiles split. So crocodiles are not lizards in the same way as I am not descended from my cousin.
Yeah, that's bollocks,
The alleged "we will use our own chips" thing is slated for 2020. They just said the Mac Pro is a 2019 product.
Furthermore, if there is one Mac that really needs to stay on x86_64 architecture, it is the Mac Pro where power consumption is not an issue but absolute performance is.
Also, I find it quite amusing that people are assuming that the new Apple chip for PCs will use the ARM architecture. Is there any reason why Apple couldn't do their own x8664 compatible?