How far to the right does the curve have to move before you start to admit that it may not be in the same place you think it is?
I'm not criticizing their numbers here. I'm criticizing their apparent lack of any ability to know what ballpark the numbers will be in a couple of months from now, and to get it wrong every single time. That's expected when you first start your first project, but Tesla's been making cars for almost a decade now, you'd think they'd occasionally come close to predicting their own capabilities.
Considering every software release that Tesla has made since the initial AP rollout has actually REMOVED features from those cars, I somehow don't think those cars are likely to suddenly reverse course and get to what was promised.
The issue isn't that Tesla said "some car in the future will do X", they said "This exact car that you are buying today will do X" but then it turns out that that car will NEVER do X.
That's actually pretty much my point about Tesla's arrogance and over-promising. They thought Mobileye was holding them back, yet they can't even do what Mobileye was already capable of. Seems the problem wasn't on the Mobileye end after all.
That also doesn't explain why the AP1 cars can't do what was claimed, those cars have Mobileye chips, the same ones that Musk thought could do everything he promised.
Tesla is basically trying to compress +100 years of automobile development, infrastructure, manufacturing, and marketing within the span of about a few years, all while trying to rewrite the book.
That would explain why the numbers are low, but it doesn't explain why they claimed they'd be high.
Tesla's been doing this long enough that they should be able to predict these things, and yet they miss their targets almost every single time. How long before it goes from "they're new and trying to do a lot" to "they're lying about their capabilities", because at this point it's pretty hard for me to see the difference.
fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me every single quarter since inception, shame on...?
They've missed on every timeline they've ever announced, they've missed every production target they've ever set. If it hasn't killed them yet, why would this time be any different?
Even the "builds what he says he is going to build" part is somewhat suspect. Sure he gets the broad strokes about right, but he lies through his teeth about the details.
If you go back and look at the reveal for the original Autopilot suite, and then look at what that same suite of hardware actually does, you'll see that it doesn't actually do ANY of the things he stood on stage and claimed it would. He missed on 100% of his claims on that one, and his interviews in the media made even bolder claims than he did on stage. I'm not saying the feature as delivered is not amazing. I'm just saying it's not what he claimed it would be (which also leads to the question, why lie about it? you had something better than anyone else makes even 2 years later, why claim it to be even more than it really is?). The same is true of the horsepower ratings he claimed for the P85D (why claim motor HP when the battery can't supply enough power to use it?), and the battery capacities that they claimed for all 85kWh cars (hint, they're only 81kWh BEFORE limiting them to 77kWh to protect from the charge level getting too low)
And now he claims "full self driving" in the current hardware? Why on earth would ANYONE believe that, especially when the current generation of hardware still can't even do what the original version could do, and very clearly doesn't have the hardware to do what is claimed?
Tesla is an incredibly shady company, one of the slimiest I've ever dealt with in fact, but they're also the only ones making a car that can do what the Model S can do. Honestly, as long as they have zero competition, they can get away with an awful lot and the stock price will be fine. But as soon as someone else decides to actually compete in the space, I think that Tesla will either have to change, or will be in real trouble, and I'm betting it will be the latter, not the former, they're far too arrogant to actually compete.
At the time of the first iPod there was the Nomad which was a far superior unit, there was also the Archos jukebox 6000. Both had bigger hard drives than the iPod, button controls that made sense, and simply drag and drop your music on to it using any file manager on any computer with no special software needed. The original iPod in comparison was an unintuitive mess that needed proprietary software that was even harder to operate than the ridiculous software on the device itself. My favourite MP3 player of those years though was my RCA Lyra PDP-2860 a couple of years later against an iPod that had barely changed (except to make the UI even harder to figure out with that "click wheel") I had video playing capability while the iPod still did not, as well as drag and drop file copy ability, and simple, intuitive controls (the opposite of the mess that was the iPod UI at the time)
The parts and instructions are freely available and easy to obtain legally. but don't worry, we'll try to catch you and punish you after you've killed a few dozen people....
Getting ANY form of sensible gun control passed in the USA would be basically impossible. But even if you did, it wouldn't solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem is, why on earth do Americans think they need so many guns???? It's the culture. There are so many guns already in circulation, that even if you banned all gun ownership overnight, nothing would change. How do you change that culture though?
Evidence doesn't work. We have hundreds and hundreds of studies that show that Americans are more likely to be shot than citizens of any other first world country. We have tons of studies that show that the most likely person to be killed by any gun is a family member of that gun's owner. We have research showing that if you are confronted with an armed assailant you are far more likely to be hurt or killed if you have a gun than if you do not. And yet Americans still want more and more guns.
How do you fix such a messed up mindset in an entire country's population?
And the funny part is that any rational person would say that this incident IS terrorism. But unless it happens to come out that the shooter was Muslim we're going to somehow pretend it wasn't?
Maybe you should start wondering why your country is the least safe first world country in existence then, and try to resolve that issue. Because there isn't any other first world country where so many people get shot.
The MP3 player I had at the time was superior to the iPod in every single way. It just wasn't marketed as well. It was far easier to use, easier to move music on to and off of, and had a larger capacity. the current iOS devices follow the same trend, fewer features, and harder to use than their competitors, but with better marketing.
Marketing is the only thing Apple has going for it. It's good for them that they're REALLY good at it. And not "building a product that there's a market for" but "telling people what they want and keeping telling them that until they start to believe it" luckily over 80% of the population isn't swayed by that BS and still picks devices with more features and easier usability.
They might make a distro, it may even be the most popular around. But I'd be shocked if it was one of the "best" by any sane measurement. Their history with software in general isn't that good. (though in general MS hardware is kinda nice)
Considering how dead simple it is to hook most Android phones to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, I'm really surprised that we haven't seen more of a push in that direction. The phones are more than powerful enough for most applications, and if you use them with a large screen, keyboard, and mouse, what really makes them different from a desktop?
I often feel that the only real reason we don't see more of it is that the phone manufacturers also manufacture either full laptop systems, or parts for them, and don't want to cannibalize their own market share. (It would also hurt all the "cloud" providers who rely on making it easy to move your data between multiple devices if you only have one device and a few docks instead of 2-3 separate devices)
Slashdot Mirror
How far to the right does the curve have to move before you start to admit that it may not be in the same place you think it is?
I'm not criticizing their numbers here. I'm criticizing their apparent lack of any ability to know what ballpark the numbers will be in a couple of months from now, and to get it wrong every single time. That's expected when you first start your first project, but Tesla's been making cars for almost a decade now, you'd think they'd occasionally come close to predicting their own capabilities.
Considering every software release that Tesla has made since the initial AP rollout has actually REMOVED features from those cars, I somehow don't think those cars are likely to suddenly reverse course and get to what was promised.
The issue isn't that Tesla said "some car in the future will do X", they said "This exact car that you are buying today will do X" but then it turns out that that car will NEVER do X.
Tesla lied to make sales. It's as simple as that.
That's actually pretty much my point about Tesla's arrogance and over-promising. They thought Mobileye was holding them back, yet they can't even do what Mobileye was already capable of. Seems the problem wasn't on the Mobileye end after all.
That also doesn't explain why the AP1 cars can't do what was claimed, those cars have Mobileye chips, the same ones that Musk thought could do everything he promised.
When was the last time a hacker broke in to a system and copied only part of a database? If they took anything, you assume they took everything.
Tesla is basically trying to compress +100 years of automobile development, infrastructure, manufacturing, and marketing within the span of about a few years, all while trying to rewrite the book.
That would explain why the numbers are low, but it doesn't explain why they claimed they'd be high.
Tesla's been doing this long enough that they should be able to predict these things, and yet they miss their targets almost every single time. How long before it goes from "they're new and trying to do a lot" to "they're lying about their capabilities", because at this point it's pretty hard for me to see the difference.
fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me every single quarter since inception, shame on...?
They've missed on every timeline they've ever announced, they've missed every production target they've ever set. If it hasn't killed them yet, why would this time be any different?
Even the "builds what he says he is going to build" part is somewhat suspect. Sure he gets the broad strokes about right, but he lies through his teeth about the details.
If you go back and look at the reveal for the original Autopilot suite, and then look at what that same suite of hardware actually does, you'll see that it doesn't actually do ANY of the things he stood on stage and claimed it would. He missed on 100% of his claims on that one, and his interviews in the media made even bolder claims than he did on stage. I'm not saying the feature as delivered is not amazing. I'm just saying it's not what he claimed it would be (which also leads to the question, why lie about it? you had something better than anyone else makes even 2 years later, why claim it to be even more than it really is?). The same is true of the horsepower ratings he claimed for the P85D (why claim motor HP when the battery can't supply enough power to use it?), and the battery capacities that they claimed for all 85kWh cars (hint, they're only 81kWh BEFORE limiting them to 77kWh to protect from the charge level getting too low)
And now he claims "full self driving" in the current hardware? Why on earth would ANYONE believe that, especially when the current generation of hardware still can't even do what the original version could do, and very clearly doesn't have the hardware to do what is claimed?
Tesla is an incredibly shady company, one of the slimiest I've ever dealt with in fact, but they're also the only ones making a car that can do what the Model S can do. Honestly, as long as they have zero competition, they can get away with an awful lot and the stock price will be fine. But as soon as someone else decides to actually compete in the space, I think that Tesla will either have to change, or will be in real trouble, and I'm betting it will be the latter, not the former, they're far too arrogant to actually compete.
They haven't met a timeline yet, why start now?
For that matter, they haven't met a feature set promise either, but that's apparently ok too.
At the time of the first iPod there was the Nomad which was a far superior unit, there was also the Archos jukebox 6000. Both had bigger hard drives than the iPod, button controls that made sense, and simply drag and drop your music on to it using any file manager on any computer with no special software needed.
The original iPod in comparison was an unintuitive mess that needed proprietary software that was even harder to operate than the ridiculous software on the device itself.
My favourite MP3 player of those years though was my RCA Lyra PDP-2860 a couple of years later against an iPod that had barely changed (except to make the UI even harder to figure out with that "click wheel") I had video playing capability while the iPod still did not, as well as drag and drop file copy ability, and simple, intuitive controls (the opposite of the mess that was the iPod UI at the time)
I don't know that reducing gun ownership at this point would make things better, though. I think it would just lead to more killings by cops.
If there were fewer guns around, you think MORE people would be killed by police????
I don't think I've ever heard a cop say he would have shot the suspect if only they hadn't been armed...
Gotta love that type of "gun control"
The parts and instructions are freely available and easy to obtain legally. but don't worry, we'll try to catch you and punish you after you've killed a few dozen people....
No wonder you guys are so screwed....
Overnight, no.
Long term? absolutely.
And even illegal guns are less common in countries where there are fewer legal guns.
And this here is the real problem.
Getting ANY form of sensible gun control passed in the USA would be basically impossible. But even if you did, it wouldn't solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem is, why on earth do Americans think they need so many guns???? It's the culture. There are so many guns already in circulation, that even if you banned all gun ownership overnight, nothing would change. How do you change that culture though?
Evidence doesn't work. We have hundreds and hundreds of studies that show that Americans are more likely to be shot than citizens of any other first world country. We have tons of studies that show that the most likely person to be killed by any gun is a family member of that gun's owner. We have research showing that if you are confronted with an armed assailant you are far more likely to be hurt or killed if you have a gun than if you do not. And yet Americans still want more and more guns.
How do you fix such a messed up mindset in an entire country's population?
A mass shooting in France made news around the world because it's completely unheard of.
So many mass shootings happen in the USA that most of them barely make the local news.
I think the rest of the world might be on to something here.
And both of those are far less likely to get you killed than a loaded one, even if an armed robber breaks in to your home.
The most commonly killed person by firearms in the USA is a family member of the owner of said firearm.
And the funny part is that any rational person would say that this incident IS terrorism. But unless it happens to come out that the shooter was Muslim we're going to somehow pretend it wasn't?
Maybe you should start wondering why your country is the least safe first world country in existence then, and try to resolve that issue. Because there isn't any other first world country where so many people get shot.
It's worked in every other civilized country....
Maybe they need external vendors to train them then?
The MP3 player I had at the time was superior to the iPod in every single way. It just wasn't marketed as well. It was far easier to use, easier to move music on to and off of, and had a larger capacity.
the current iOS devices follow the same trend, fewer features, and harder to use than their competitors, but with better marketing.
Marketing is the only thing Apple has going for it. It's good for them that they're REALLY good at it. And not "building a product that there's a market for" but "telling people what they want and keeping telling them that until they start to believe it" luckily over 80% of the population isn't swayed by that BS and still picks devices with more features and easier usability.
Why send a file once when you can send it twice instead?
They might make a distro, it may even be the most popular around. But I'd be shocked if it was one of the "best" by any sane measurement. Their history with software in general isn't that good. (though in general MS hardware is kinda nice)
I though they stopped working on it a decade or more ago. You can't tell me that windows 10 was on purpose was it???
Considering how dead simple it is to hook most Android phones to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, I'm really surprised that we haven't seen more of a push in that direction. The phones are more than powerful enough for most applications, and if you use them with a large screen, keyboard, and mouse, what really makes them different from a desktop?
I often feel that the only real reason we don't see more of it is that the phone manufacturers also manufacture either full laptop systems, or parts for them, and don't want to cannibalize their own market share. (It would also hurt all the "cloud" providers who rely on making it easy to move your data between multiple devices if you only have one device and a few docks instead of 2-3 separate devices)
So it's faster at doing nothing, instead of slower at doing everything...
Fast isn't useful if it can't do what you need it to do.