except that you don't actually know how much more accurate it is because you are also guessing.
The only guess is the average number of hours per frame. The time in seconds has a margin of error of +/- 59 maybe? Assuming that they would truncate instead of round when reporting the duration. Your numbers guess at all 3 of them, even when a guess is not even necessary because we know.
And even with your "more accurate" numbers, my ball park number is still within an order of magnitude (i.e. ball parks are large).
Congratulations, your estimate is probably accurate within a factor of 10x.
I think the real issue is that I can't post some *ball park* numbers with a disclaimer, without someone trying to nitpick it.
If most currently produced movies where 3 hours long, I probably would have used that ball park number.
That's my point - if your goal is to estimate the total amount of computer hours used to render this movie, then why use anything other than the actual duration (105 minutes) and the actual frame rate (24)? Seriously, why use anything else? It's only going to be an estimation anyway, why introduce additional error into it?
You had this:
35 hours per frame 120 frames per second (2x 60 fps) 7200 seconds (2 hours) per movie = 30,240,000 hours to render the movie = 3452 years
Let's adjust for reality:
35 hours per frame 48 frames per second (2x 24 fps) 6300 seconds (105 minutes) per movie = 10,584,000 hours to render the movie = 1208 years
There you go, still a ball park estimate but up to 285% more accurate!
you are completely wrong about humans not being able to perceive framerates higher than 24
Is that where I said this:
Because if people can really only detect 24 fps
or this:
Most people will physically not be able to notice the difference
Because, based on words like "can really only" or "most people", I'll go with an answer like this:
In fact I specifically said "Ball park numbers" (i.e. I am guessing).
That's a weasel way out. My original reply to you only said that the film was done at 24fps instead of 60, and you responded with how a lot of things coming out now are 60, and that you've seen trailers for the movie also at 60 (why does any of that matter if this movie was done at 24?). So, no, I suppose you didn't specifically claim that the movie was at 60 fps, but you did everything but that.
The hell you say, I don't detect any spin at all in the summary. These two sentences totally aren't in conflict being right next to each other:
The Department of Energy calls the leak "anticipated," posing no threat to the public. Mike Geffre, the worker who discovered the leak, told King5 News, "This is catastrophic."
I've wondered that also, because it appears to have zero value to anyone. There aren't any links, so it's not just spam (unless the links have been filtered out from bad markup or something, in which case whoever runs that has no clue what they're doing). It doesn't have any value as a troll or flamebait type of thing. The only value I could see in it would be steganography. There is no point to writing a program that would post random crap like that unless you just wanted to prove that it's possible, but even then why not post something that makes some sort of sense?
The only reason people *should* have money there is because a transaction is in process. Maybe people never bother to transfer the remainder back to their own wallet, I don't know. If you're the type of person where you make one transaction every few weeks or months then there is no reason to store any balance on the site other then when you are actually ordering.
And, therefore, Jon Favreau decided to make The Jungle Book using 60 fps? Are you still after that claim? You should rework your ballpark numbers. You should also use a time of 3 hours for the movie, because I just think that story should be told in 3 hours regardless of what the reality is. If you're not going to bother to use the actual time or the actual frame rate then might as well make it so that it just feels right.
Yeah, exactly, fantastic reasoning. They should just produce everything at 1,200 fps for that matter, right? Let's really future-proof what we're doing and just set 12,000 fps as the standard. Because if people can really only detect 24 fps, who cares, why not just do 500 times the work to produce a product that people will experience the same way?
Assuming that neither of us are completely retarded, if they have an expected workload measured in tens of millions of computing hours, why are they going to increase that workload for little to no benefit? The producers decided that 24 was right for this project, so why have you decided that they should have used 60?
The budget for this was $175 million, but fuck all that noise, let's produce 2 and a half times as many frames and require 2 and a half times as much computing power to get the thing done in roughly the same time frame, right? Most people will physically not be able to notice the difference, but it makes everyone feel better, right?
How do you figure? Their shareholder report lists 74.76 million members at the end of the quarter, 43.40 million of which are US paid members (and 44.74 million total US members). They list 30.02 million international memberships. Do you think that many people would go through a US proxy to access Netflix?
I'm sure that someone could take a clip of the trailer and stretch it out to 120fps if they really want to, but the movie was still actually produced using 24fps. That fact is in both the summary and the article. Why would they do 2 and a half times the work when they don't need to? Why should they spend 2 and half times as long to create the movie when they don't need to?
Were comedians selling shirts with trademarked logos on them?
However, courts may consider the possibility of confusion in analyzing whether a use is fair or not. Intent to show confusion is also relevant; hence, the general rule that no more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose.
The lawyers could certainly try to argue that the guy selling the shirts was attempting to confuse people and make them think that it was an official use of the trademarked logo. The guy would then try to argue that the satire was "obvious". A judge would probably roll his eyes and wonder why the hell he's dealing with this crap.
I like how that comment doesn't name anyone, or even provide any source of who is going to be appointed. I don't think such a source exists, because I don't think Bernie has filled his cabinet at this point, but still I like the complete lack of substance to go along with the fear you're spreading. Well done, that's exactly how political trolling should work. Bonus points for terms like "if the worst happens" and "hate-filled Left" (including the capitalization of "Left").
I'm guessing that's because they don't infringe on any trademarks, and also that Trump hasn't threatened those involved. The Bernie shirt in question has his official campaign logo on it, I assume that's the major issue here. It should also be pointed out that the law firm sent the C&D letter without consulting with Bernie or the campaign. And, really, there's not much point in arguing why lawyers send demand letters to people. They could just be trying to show that they are "protecting" the trademark even though a judge would tell them that this is fair use. Just because they would probably lose in a court case, that isn't going to stop a lawyer from issuing threats.
I'd like to see that too. The mosquito life cycle is only weeks long, if we spend a few years creating and releasing GMO mosquitoes all over the world then maybe we could make the populations collapse.
I'm not a huge fan of genocide of any particular species, and I realize there would be other effects of a sudden lack of mosquitoes, but that's one species that I wouldn't mind being rid of. They spread so much disease that I question if the ecosystem would really be that much worse off without them.
"T-Mobile. When I say T-Mobile to you, just a couple of words?"
Which is when a white woman chimes in, "Oh my god the first word that came to my head was... ghetto." "That sounds, like, terrible," she says. "I don't know. There's always, like, three carriers; there's AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. And people who have T-Mobile are just, like... Why do you have T-Mobile?"
That woman is, like, stupid. When I see a huge company like Sprint take something like that and show it to other people, this is what it sounds like to me:
At Sprint, our customers are idiots. Are you an idiot too, like this customer? Then you should come to Sprint.
Just like the idiotic Toyota commercials which play on both radio and TV. "Hi, this is Pat! I can't answer the phone, because I'm a fucking idiot without a cell phone who changes the message on his answering machine every time he leaves the house. I like Toyotas!" Yeah, I really want to give my money to a company yelling about how stupid their customers are.
"outer planets" is also open to interpretation (for instance, there may be 8 outer planets with mercury being the only inner planet), yet you just criticized me for leaving stuff open to interpretation? Go fuck yourself.
Haha, great example. Even Google has a specific definition for outer planets:
a planet whose orbit lies outside the asteroid belt, i.e., Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune.
Here, there's an entire wikipedia article about them too. If you even go so far as to look at a scale diagram of the orbits of the planets in the solar system, you can probably even draw your very own conclusion about why we say we have 4 inner planets and 4 outer planets. You may even be able to find an actual astronomer talking about the distinction.
Now, find a list of spacecraft which have "mysteriously been lost" so that we can argue about how "mysterious" each one is.
By the way, right now it is accepted that there are 8 planets, not 9. Even if Pluto was considered a planet it wouldn't be the only one (Eris is larger and also has at least one moon), we would have more than 9.
What you dont seem to understand is that the faster you go, the worse all collisions are.
Oh, gee, is that what I don't understand? Thanks for the physics lesson, doctor. Here's a question: could any collision in space be considered non-damaging? Do collisions in space happen between objects which are perfectly elastic? We have had very low-speed collisions when trying to dock with a space station, for example, which have damaged either the station or the ship docking. ANY collision in space is potentially deadly. You're saying that a collision at 0.2c is going to be more damaging than one at 0.05c? Wow, that's amazing. Here's a thought: any collision of a spacecraft with any other object at any useful speed is going to result in the destruction of the ship. It doesn't matter if the difference in velocity is 1000 m/s or 0.2c, the ship is still fucked. My point is that we don't have a single record of a spacecraft being destroyed by a micro-meteoroid in space. More spacecraft have been destroyed by Chinese anti-satellite missiles than from natural space debris. This is further shown to be true by the success rate of the long-distance spacecraft. If space was so crowded then the success rate of a long-distance (outer planets or beyond) spacecraft would approach zero the farther it goes, but for some reason they're all still flying. And, no, Dr. Hawking, it's not because everything is orbiting in the same direction. That's just stupid.
We have had 9 different spacecraft pass through the Jupiter system. Since this is obviously a beginning science lesson in this thread, I'll point out that Jupiter is the single largest gravity sink in the solar system other than the sun. All of those little pieces of dust and rock flying around the solar system do end up finding a permanent home, and for many of them that home is Jupiter. It is a relatively crowded system, complete with rings of dust and over 100 moons, not to mention the millions or billions of pieces of dust orbiting just waiting to fall in. We've had 9 spacecraft pass through that system, and none have been destroyed. Hell, 2 of those spacecraft even stuck around to orbit Jupiter. We've had 4 spacecraft visit Saturn, including an orbiter. Saturn is this bigass planet beyond Jupiter and it also has rings of dust, but they're a whole hell of a lot bigger than Jupiter's. Guess how many of those 4 spacecraft have been destroyed when passing through the Saturn system. Go ahead, guess. I'll leave that one as an exercise to the reader.
In case you're still not following, here's the point of replying to your original post: even the current speeds at which o
I'm just trying to hold you to task when you're calling someone else out for "talking out their ass" and "waving their hands" while you use phrases like these:
"More than a few" "I dont have the exact count" "its not zero" "I am confident"
Moreover, I doubt this claim:
I am confident that the actual number of probes which we have mysteriously lost contact with is at least a dozen.
You're using the word "mysteriously", which is obviously open to interpretation if you're trying to fit the data to match your claim, but I don't think that there are even 2 spacecraft where we lost contact and have absolutely no idea why. I went down the list posted by R3d M3rcury a couple times and each spacecraft where contact was lost had a suspected cause, even if it couldn't be proven.
It seems like you're trying to imply that any spacecraft leaving the solar system quickly would be subject to collisions, but I don't see data which particularly shows that to be a threat. The vast majority of spacecraft failures happened in the early years of the space exploration era, especially on relatively short trips to the moon, Venus, or Mars. Spacecraft sent to any of the outer planets or those that left the solar system have a 100% success rate, none of them have been "mysteriously lost". That doesn't sound like space is chock full of stuff waiting to impact a spacecraft. It's actually a very empty place, even though even very small things can be fatal.
Maybe because the middle of the ocean or the top of Mt. Everest are not inside the US. I'm not a geographer or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's true. When they are trying to refer to the US, why would they point at Mt. Everest? I realize that Americans like to think that this is our planet, but I think the Nepalese and Tibetans would take offense at that.
But they do have a location, they have the country. They provide that data, and they provide the lat/long for the country. Obviously a country is not a single point, and a lat/long is a single point, so maybe that's not the best representation of a country but the position is in fact inside the country. It's not fraud, it's end users not understanding the data that they're using.
I've heard that the range of an 8 year battery is degraded enough that most people won't be able to use the car except for short in town commutes. To that point, I've seen estimates of as little as 50% capacity at the 8 year mark on Tesla discussion boards.
8 years ago the very first Tesla Roadster was coming out, so any 8 year old Tesla battery is the very earliest generation. The Model S, for example, is only 4 years old and uses better batteries than the Roadster. Even the later Model S battery packs are better technology than the earlier Model S packs. It's fair to say that the Model 3 batteries will be better technology than the Roadster batteries from 2008.
This is from the page on the Model S:
The battery is guaranteed for eight years or 125,000 miles (200,000 km in metric countries) for the base model with the 60 kWh battery pack. The 85 kWh battery pack is guaranteed for eight years and unlimited miles. A poll among drivers indicate that accumulated battery loss steadies around 5% after 30,000 miles (50,000 km), decreasing further about 1% per additional 30,000 miles.
So, "almost a brick" wouldn't be a correct assessment.
The best way to get information on the internet is not to ask a question (you just get crickets). It is to make a statement. Then people will move heaven and earth and spend lots of time researching to contradict what you said.
I suppose. I just spent 2 minutes looking at Wikipedia to find out those dates and other info, which would have been easy enough to do for yourself, but whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
except that you don't actually know how much more accurate it is because you are also guessing.
The only guess is the average number of hours per frame. The time in seconds has a margin of error of +/- 59 maybe? Assuming that they would truncate instead of round when reporting the duration. Your numbers guess at all 3 of them, even when a guess is not even necessary because we know.
And even with your "more accurate" numbers, my ball park number is still within an order of magnitude (i.e. ball parks are large).
Congratulations, your estimate is probably accurate within a factor of 10x.
I think the real issue is that I can't post some *ball park* numbers with a disclaimer, without someone trying to nitpick it.
Welcome to Slashdot.
If most currently produced movies where 3 hours long, I probably would have used that ball park number.
That's my point - if your goal is to estimate the total amount of computer hours used to render this movie, then why use anything other than the actual duration (105 minutes) and the actual frame rate (24)? Seriously, why use anything else? It's only going to be an estimation anyway, why introduce additional error into it?
You had this:
35 hours per frame
120 frames per second (2x 60 fps)
7200 seconds (2 hours) per movie
= 30,240,000 hours to render the movie
= 3452 years
Let's adjust for reality:
35 hours per frame
48 frames per second (2x 24 fps)
6300 seconds (105 minutes) per movie
= 10,584,000 hours to render the movie
= 1208 years
There you go, still a ball park estimate but up to 285% more accurate!
you are completely wrong about humans not being able to perceive framerates higher than 24
Is that where I said this:
Because if people can really only detect 24 fps
or this:
Most people will physically not be able to notice the difference
Because, based on words like "can really only" or "most people", I'll go with an answer like this:
In fact I specifically said "Ball park numbers" (i.e. I am guessing).
That's a weasel way out. My original reply to you only said that the film was done at 24fps instead of 60, and you responded with how a lot of things coming out now are 60, and that you've seen trailers for the movie also at 60 (why does any of that matter if this movie was done at 24?). So, no, I suppose you didn't specifically claim that the movie was at 60 fps, but you did everything but that.
In other news, this thread is stupid.
And then the Slashdot story makes it even worse
The hell you say, I don't detect any spin at all in the summary. These two sentences totally aren't in conflict being right next to each other:
The Department of Energy calls the leak "anticipated," posing no threat to the public. Mike Geffre, the worker who discovered the leak, told King5 News, "This is catastrophic."
I've wondered that also, because it appears to have zero value to anyone. There aren't any links, so it's not just spam (unless the links have been filtered out from bad markup or something, in which case whoever runs that has no clue what they're doing). It doesn't have any value as a troll or flamebait type of thing. The only value I could see in it would be steganography. There is no point to writing a program that would post random crap like that unless you just wanted to prove that it's possible, but even then why not post something that makes some sort of sense?
The only reason people *should* have money there is because a transaction is in process. Maybe people never bother to transfer the remainder back to their own wallet, I don't know. If you're the type of person where you make one transaction every few weeks or months then there is no reason to store any balance on the site other then when you are actually ordering.
And, therefore, Jon Favreau decided to make The Jungle Book using 60 fps? Are you still after that claim? You should rework your ballpark numbers. You should also use a time of 3 hours for the movie, because I just think that story should be told in 3 hours regardless of what the reality is. If you're not going to bother to use the actual time or the actual frame rate then might as well make it so that it just feels right.
Yeah, exactly, fantastic reasoning. They should just produce everything at 1,200 fps for that matter, right? Let's really future-proof what we're doing and just set 12,000 fps as the standard. Because if people can really only detect 24 fps, who cares, why not just do 500 times the work to produce a product that people will experience the same way?
Assuming that neither of us are completely retarded, if they have an expected workload measured in tens of millions of computing hours, why are they going to increase that workload for little to no benefit? The producers decided that 24 was right for this project, so why have you decided that they should have used 60?
The budget for this was $175 million, but fuck all that noise, let's produce 2 and a half times as many frames and require 2 and a half times as much computing power to get the thing done in roughly the same time frame, right? Most people will physically not be able to notice the difference, but it makes everyone feel better, right?
How do you figure? Their shareholder report lists 74.76 million members at the end of the quarter, 43.40 million of which are US paid members (and 44.74 million total US members). They list 30.02 million international memberships. Do you think that many people would go through a US proxy to access Netflix?
I'm sure that someone could take a clip of the trailer and stretch it out to 120fps if they really want to, but the movie was still actually produced using 24fps. That fact is in both the summary and the article. Why would they do 2 and a half times the work when they don't need to? Why should they spend 2 and half times as long to create the movie when they don't need to?
Were comedians selling shirts with trademarked logos on them?
However, courts may consider the possibility of confusion in analyzing whether a use is fair or not. Intent to show confusion is also relevant; hence, the general rule that no more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose.
The lawyers could certainly try to argue that the guy selling the shirts was attempting to confuse people and make them think that it was an official use of the trademarked logo. The guy would then try to argue that the satire was "obvious". A judge would probably roll his eyes and wonder why the hell he's dealing with this crap.
I like how that comment doesn't name anyone, or even provide any source of who is going to be appointed. I don't think such a source exists, because I don't think Bernie has filled his cabinet at this point, but still I like the complete lack of substance to go along with the fear you're spreading. Well done, that's exactly how political trolling should work. Bonus points for terms like "if the worst happens" and "hate-filled Left" (including the capitalization of "Left").
So why haven't these been shut down?
I'm guessing that's because they don't infringe on any trademarks, and also that Trump hasn't threatened those involved. The Bernie shirt in question has his official campaign logo on it, I assume that's the major issue here. It should also be pointed out that the law firm sent the C&D letter without consulting with Bernie or the campaign. And, really, there's not much point in arguing why lawyers send demand letters to people. They could just be trying to show that they are "protecting" the trademark even though a judge would tell them that this is fair use. Just because they would probably lose in a court case, that isn't going to stop a lawyer from issuing threats.
They mentioned thousands of computers, and it's at 24fps not 60.
Bathrooms need to replace these damn air blades with a pair of jeans hanging on the wall.
Yeah, and when you're president you're going to fix that too and make Dyson pay for it, right?
Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that I've removed all of the hidden files.
I'd like to see that too. The mosquito life cycle is only weeks long, if we spend a few years creating and releasing GMO mosquitoes all over the world then maybe we could make the populations collapse.
I'm not a huge fan of genocide of any particular species, and I realize there would be other effects of a sudden lack of mosquitoes, but that's one species that I wouldn't mind being rid of. They spread so much disease that I question if the ecosystem would really be that much worse off without them.
God, I hate advertisers.
"T-Mobile. When I say T-Mobile to you, just a couple of words?"
Which is when a white woman chimes in, ... ghetto."
"Oh my god the first word that came to my head was
"That sounds, like, terrible," she says.
"I don't know. There's always, like, three carriers; there's AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. And people who have T-Mobile are just, like... Why do you have T-Mobile?"
That woman is, like, stupid. When I see a huge company like Sprint take something like that and show it to other people, this is what it sounds like to me:
At Sprint, our customers are idiots. Are you an idiot too, like this customer? Then you should come to Sprint.
Just like the idiotic Toyota commercials which play on both radio and TV. "Hi, this is Pat! I can't answer the phone, because I'm a fucking idiot without a cell phone who changes the message on his answering machine every time he leaves the house. I like Toyotas!" Yeah, I really want to give my money to a company yelling about how stupid their customers are.
"outer planets" is also open to interpretation (for instance, there may be 8 outer planets with mercury being the only inner planet), yet you just criticized me for leaving stuff open to interpretation? Go fuck yourself.
Haha, great example. Even Google has a specific definition for outer planets:
a planet whose orbit lies outside the asteroid belt, i.e., Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune.
Here, there's an entire wikipedia article about them too. If you even go so far as to look at a scale diagram of the orbits of the planets in the solar system, you can probably even draw your very own conclusion about why we say we have 4 inner planets and 4 outer planets. You may even be able to find an actual astronomer talking about the distinction.
Now, find a list of spacecraft which have "mysteriously been lost" so that we can argue about how "mysterious" each one is.
By the way, right now it is accepted that there are 8 planets, not 9. Even if Pluto was considered a planet it wouldn't be the only one (Eris is larger and also has at least one moon), we would have more than 9.
What you dont seem to understand is that the faster you go, the worse all collisions are.
Oh, gee, is that what I don't understand? Thanks for the physics lesson, doctor. Here's a question: could any collision in space be considered non-damaging? Do collisions in space happen between objects which are perfectly elastic? We have had very low-speed collisions when trying to dock with a space station, for example, which have damaged either the station or the ship docking. ANY collision in space is potentially deadly. You're saying that a collision at 0.2c is going to be more damaging than one at 0.05c? Wow, that's amazing. Here's a thought: any collision of a spacecraft with any other object at any useful speed is going to result in the destruction of the ship. It doesn't matter if the difference in velocity is 1000 m/s or 0.2c, the ship is still fucked. My point is that we don't have a single record of a spacecraft being destroyed by a micro-meteoroid in space. More spacecraft have been destroyed by Chinese anti-satellite missiles than from natural space debris. This is further shown to be true by the success rate of the long-distance spacecraft. If space was so crowded then the success rate of a long-distance (outer planets or beyond) spacecraft would approach zero the farther it goes, but for some reason they're all still flying. And, no, Dr. Hawking, it's not because everything is orbiting in the same direction. That's just stupid.
We have had 9 different spacecraft pass through the Jupiter system. Since this is obviously a beginning science lesson in this thread, I'll point out that Jupiter is the single largest gravity sink in the solar system other than the sun. All of those little pieces of dust and rock flying around the solar system do end up finding a permanent home, and for many of them that home is Jupiter. It is a relatively crowded system, complete with rings of dust and over 100 moons, not to mention the millions or billions of pieces of dust orbiting just waiting to fall in. We've had 9 spacecraft pass through that system, and none have been destroyed. Hell, 2 of those spacecraft even stuck around to orbit Jupiter. We've had 4 spacecraft visit Saturn, including an orbiter. Saturn is this bigass planet beyond Jupiter and it also has rings of dust, but they're a whole hell of a lot bigger than Jupiter's. Guess how many of those 4 spacecraft have been destroyed when passing through the Saturn system. Go ahead, guess. I'll leave that one as an exercise to the reader.
In case you're still not following, here's the point of replying to your original post: even the current speeds at which o
I'm just trying to hold you to task when you're calling someone else out for "talking out their ass" and "waving their hands" while you use phrases like these:
"More than a few"
"I dont have the exact count"
"its not zero"
"I am confident"
Moreover, I doubt this claim:
I am confident that the actual number of probes which we have mysteriously lost contact with is at least a dozen.
You're using the word "mysteriously", which is obviously open to interpretation if you're trying to fit the data to match your claim, but I don't think that there are even 2 spacecraft where we lost contact and have absolutely no idea why. I went down the list posted by R3d M3rcury a couple times and each spacecraft where contact was lost had a suspected cause, even if it couldn't be proven.
It seems like you're trying to imply that any spacecraft leaving the solar system quickly would be subject to collisions, but I don't see data which particularly shows that to be a threat. The vast majority of spacecraft failures happened in the early years of the space exploration era, especially on relatively short trips to the moon, Venus, or Mars. Spacecraft sent to any of the outer planets or those that left the solar system have a 100% success rate, none of them have been "mysteriously lost". That doesn't sound like space is chock full of stuff waiting to impact a spacecraft. It's actually a very empty place, even though even very small things can be fatal.
Call me when they have a working, fully functional one.
Why, so we can get another awesome opinion?
Speaking of talking out your ass, exactly how many probes have mysteriously been lost?
Maybe because the middle of the ocean or the top of Mt. Everest are not inside the US. I'm not a geographer or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's true. When they are trying to refer to the US, why would they point at Mt. Everest? I realize that Americans like to think that this is our planet, but I think the Nepalese and Tibetans would take offense at that.
But they do have a location, they have the country. They provide that data, and they provide the lat/long for the country. Obviously a country is not a single point, and a lat/long is a single point, so maybe that's not the best representation of a country but the position is in fact inside the country. It's not fraud, it's end users not understanding the data that they're using.
I've heard that the range of an 8 year battery is degraded enough that most people won't be able to use the car except for short in town commutes. To that point, I've seen estimates of as little as 50% capacity at the 8 year mark on Tesla discussion boards.
8 years ago the very first Tesla Roadster was coming out, so any 8 year old Tesla battery is the very earliest generation. The Model S, for example, is only 4 years old and uses better batteries than the Roadster. Even the later Model S battery packs are better technology than the earlier Model S packs. It's fair to say that the Model 3 batteries will be better technology than the Roadster batteries from 2008.
This is from the page on the Model S:
The battery is guaranteed for eight years or 125,000 miles (200,000 km in metric countries) for the base model with the 60 kWh battery pack. The 85 kWh battery pack is guaranteed for eight years and unlimited miles. A poll among drivers indicate that accumulated battery loss steadies around 5% after 30,000 miles (50,000 km), decreasing further about 1% per additional 30,000 miles.
So, "almost a brick" wouldn't be a correct assessment.
The best way to get information on the internet is not to ask a question (you just get crickets). It is to make a statement. Then people will move heaven and earth and spend lots of time researching to contradict what you said.
I suppose. I just spent 2 minutes looking at Wikipedia to find out those dates and other info, which would have been easy enough to do for yourself, but whatever.