So, Musk's plan to 'revolutionize' the auto industry with his advanced production techniques isn't going as planned. Maybe other car manufactures actually did learn something through all those years of production.
If you ask me the only benefit to actually mining ANY crypto currency is only to ensure the sale of power. We are not really seeing any net benefit beside wasting a lot of money of hardware and a lot of money on power consumption. But hey it's new and obviously it will be enough to take down the large banks that have been around since the days of napoleon....
Hmmm. So CC is really a clever creation of BIG POWER! And we are only now catching on....
Heck, an average framing crew can dry in a 1000 SF simple house in a few days.
The question I have is what is the cost? And once the structure is in place, how much harder might it be to run the electrical and plumbing, and do the finish work vs a wood frames structure.
And what is the environmental impact of concrete and foam construction? Wood framing is a carbon capture node. Grow more trees, cut them down and hold that carbon in our structures.
"which was supposed to compare before AP vs after AP but 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any 'before AP' miles."
That's not really a problem if you know something beyond stats 100. Auto steer plus auto braking... starting to sound like auto pilot hey?
Yes, its is a very significant problem when using the one statistic to draw any conclusions. I guess you didn't even look at the study or the method, and you are just saying stuff in ignorance.
There is a LOT of reasons the comparison is complete BS. IHS uses 'driver deaths' per registered vehicle years as the baseline because they know if a passenger dies it doesn't make a car more dangerous. Using IHS method, I can't see how Tesla AP would possibly come out near the top.
1. Safety. Despite the alarmism in TFA, you are safer using Autopilot than driving yourself.
Why do people keep claiming this as some kind of fact when they don't have any data to back it up? We've been through the flaws of using the "40%" study, which was supposed to compare before AP vs after AP but 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any 'before AP' miles. Not to mention other control features were never accounted for such as Auto Steer.
Tesla with AP may be a lot safer, but we don't have the data to make that declaration. So please stop abusing statistics.
What we can say, at a minimum, is that there's little evidence that Autopilot makes Tesla drivers less safe.
No, data as to relative safety doesn't appear to be available.
It does 'seem' like when there is a Tesla highway death, the investigation shows AP was being used. So there might be a statistic that shows more Tesla highway deaths happen with AP on, but of course most drivers probably use it most of the time they are on highways, so the number of non-AP highway deaths might not be statistically significant yet.
The necessary data is not easy to obtain unfortunately. So everyone is assuming.
The 40 percent statistic is so abused its not even funny. The study was never to show how much safer AP is, it was to try to determine if it was flawed.. 2/3 of the cars in the study never even had any pre AP miles and they don't even account for other functions already in place such as Auto Steer.
The Tesla safety record compared to high end sedans driving on highways in good conditions (where AP is supposed to be limited to), not rain, snow, fog, etc, is not better from any data that is available.
They're not giving money to renewable projects, they're buying from renewable projects, like any other customer. They're not taking energy from their neighbours, they're paying customers of renewable power plants (that were built just for them). They're not even claiming that all their energy use is renewable sources (because that's hard to prove and meaningless anyway) - they're simply claiming that now they're buying enough renewable energy to cover all their needs.
That level of investment helps build needed scale for the sector, and means that Google services are all carbon-neutral. Not sure what your beef is with that.
My point was its all an accounting game. They are buying 'energy' that is from the same sources as everyone around them. They just pay more to claim they are buying 'renewable' energy.
My only beef is the stupidity of the claim for PR purposes when we know the only difference is what they are paying.
If they claim they purchase more than they consume, then either they are taking all of that energy, preventing others from claiming it, or they are letting others use it for free, or others are paying for it on top of Google. In any case, its an accounting game where others on the same grid using energy from the same sources can't claim they are purchasing renewable energy.
If they want to give money to renewable projects, they should just do that and claim that. Stop trying to be cute with the accounting BS.
The energy they get from the grid is from the same mix of sources as all of their neighbors. They just pay more to make a claim to be supplied by renewables.
If they are getting supplied only by renewable energy, per that same accounting game, they are taking renewable energy away from their neighbors.
>So you're saying that Tesla has been lying to the SEC for years?
There are various accounting methods to state cost. That should be considered when comparing between two companies. They may or may not include certain overhead or capital costs. They would naturally have to claim them elsewhere.
I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed.
Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant.
https://www.popularmechanics.c...
That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.
The Bolt comes off a line that also produces the Sonic. They produce two Sonics for every Bolt, so the production of that line is three times Bolt production. CM has a different model.
The exact words from the communication were; "If things go as planned today, we will comfortably exceed that number over a seven-day period!”. So it sounds like they had not done it yet. What remains to be seen is if they have sustainable production at that level yet. It will be interesting to hear what they officially report.
If they hit above 2,000 per week sustainable, it will quieten the critics. But they'll need to show a steady ramp up going forward to keep them quiet.
You mean the report that was only for the purposes of determining if AP was flawed?
Ahhh yes. Discredit the result because of the title of the report. You're an idiot.
No I pointed out several reasons that data can't be used to claim relative safety of AP. You just don't care to use statistics properly when it doesn't suit you.
FYI, high end sedans have very good safety ratings in comparison to cars overall. Against high end sedans, Tesla doesn't look so good from a safety standpoint. More proof of just how much BS Musk will feed the crowd;
You mean the report that was only for the purposes of determining if AP was flawed? The report where 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any miles recorded before AP installation? The report that did not distinguish actual AP miles driven or attempt to normalize any data? The report that made no conclusions about the relative safety of AP? That report?
The study points out the following when stating that percentage;
-Approximately one-third of the subject vehicles accumulated mileage prior to Autopilot installation.
and
-The crash rates are for all miles travelled before and after Autopilot installation and are not limited to actual Autopilot use.
In other words, 2/3 of the cars in the study did not have any representative miles driven before Autosteer, and they have no data as to how much Autopilot use was a factor at all.
I have no problems believing driver assist is safer, I'd bet it is. But I hate statistical abuse. The NHTSA study was intended to find possible flaws in AP, not to determine its relative safety. The study does not conclude AP is safer.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Musk's plan to 'revolutionize' the auto industry with his advanced production techniques isn't going as planned. Maybe other car manufactures actually did learn something through all those years of production.
That's it! Blame the robots! Always blame the robots first! What has a robot ever done to you, Elon?
Its not so much the robots, its the fact that you have to watch them constantly and be ready to take over.
If you ask me the only benefit to actually mining ANY crypto currency is only to ensure the sale of power. We are not really seeing any net benefit beside wasting a lot of money of hardware and a lot of money on power consumption. But hey it's new and obviously it will be enough to take down the large banks that have been around since the days of napoleon....
Hmmm. So CC is really a clever creation of BIG POWER! And we are only now catching on....
I do wonder how many false alerts they got along the way.
Don't want to mess with my circadian rhythm, its the only rhythm I've got.
Heck, an average framing crew can dry in a 1000 SF simple house in a few days.
The question I have is what is the cost? And once the structure is in place, how much harder might it be to run the electrical and plumbing, and do the finish work vs a wood frames structure.
And what is the environmental impact of concrete and foam construction? Wood framing is a carbon capture node. Grow more trees, cut them down and hold that carbon in our structures.
"which was supposed to compare before AP vs after AP but 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any 'before AP' miles."
That's not really a problem if you know something beyond stats 100. Auto steer plus auto braking... starting to sound like auto pilot hey?
Yes, its is a very significant problem when using the one statistic to draw any conclusions. I guess you didn't even look at the study or the method, and you are just saying stuff in ignorance.
There is a LOT of reasons the comparison is complete BS. IHS uses 'driver deaths' per registered vehicle years as the baseline because they know if a passenger dies it doesn't make a car more dangerous. Using IHS method, I can't see how Tesla AP would possibly come out near the top.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/st...
1. Safety. Despite the alarmism in TFA, you are safer using Autopilot than driving yourself.
Why do people keep claiming this as some kind of fact when they don't have any data to back it up? We've been through the flaws of using the "40%" study, which was supposed to compare before AP vs after AP but 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any 'before AP' miles. Not to mention other control features were never accounted for such as Auto Steer.
Tesla with AP may be a lot safer, but we don't have the data to make that declaration. So please stop abusing statistics.
What we can say, at a minimum, is that there's little evidence that Autopilot makes Tesla drivers less safe.
No, data as to relative safety doesn't appear to be available.
It does 'seem' like when there is a Tesla highway death, the investigation shows AP was being used. So there might be a statistic that shows more Tesla highway deaths happen with AP on, but of course most drivers probably use it most of the time they are on highways, so the number of non-AP highway deaths might not be statistically significant yet.
The necessary data is not easy to obtain unfortunately. So everyone is assuming.
The 40 percent statistic is so abused its not even funny. The study was never to show how much safer AP is, it was to try to determine if it was flawed.. 2/3 of the cars in the study never even had any pre AP miles and they don't even account for other functions already in place such as Auto Steer.
The Tesla safety record compared to high end sedans driving on highways in good conditions (where AP is supposed to be limited to), not rain, snow, fog, etc, is not better from any data that is available.
http://bestride.com/news/safet...
Notice the dominance of high end sedans. Tesla has no data to show it is any safer.
A hole would be cooler than a notch.
They're not giving money to renewable projects, they're buying from renewable projects, like any other customer. They're not taking energy from their neighbours, they're paying customers of renewable power plants (that were built just for them). They're not even claiming that all their energy use is renewable sources (because that's hard to prove and meaningless anyway) - they're simply claiming that now they're buying enough renewable energy to cover all their needs.
That level of investment helps build needed scale for the sector, and means that Google services are all carbon-neutral. Not sure what your beef is with that.
My point was its all an accounting game. They are buying 'energy' that is from the same sources as everyone around them. They just pay more to claim they are buying 'renewable' energy.
My only beef is the stupidity of the claim for PR purposes when we know the only difference is what they are paying.
If they claim they purchase more than they consume, then either they are taking all of that energy, preventing others from claiming it, or they are letting others use it for free, or others are paying for it on top of Google. In any case, its an accounting game where others on the same grid using energy from the same sources can't claim they are purchasing renewable energy.
If they want to give money to renewable projects, they should just do that and claim that. Stop trying to be cute with the accounting BS.
The energy they get from the grid is from the same mix of sources as all of their neighbors. They just pay more to make a claim to be supplied by renewables.
If they are getting supplied only by renewable energy, per that same accounting game, they are taking renewable energy away from their neighbors.
>So you're saying that Tesla has been lying to the SEC for years?
There are various accounting methods to state cost. That should be considered when comparing between two companies. They may or may not include certain overhead or capital costs. They would naturally have to claim them elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.
I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed. Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant. https://www.popularmechanics.c...
That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.
The Bolt comes off a line that also produces the Sonic. They produce two Sonics for every Bolt, so the production of that line is three times Bolt production. CM has a different model.
The exact words from the communication were; "If things go as planned today, we will comfortably exceed that number over a seven-day period!”. So it sounds like they had not done it yet. What remains to be seen is if they have sustainable production at that level yet. It will be interesting to hear what they officially report.
If they hit above 2,000 per week sustainable, it will quieten the critics. But they'll need to show a steady ramp up going forward to keep them quiet.
Can Tesla AP claim its safer than any of these?
http://www.automotive-fleet.co...
Can Tesla AP show its better that these?
http://www.automotive-fleet.co...
You mean the report that was only for the purposes of determining if AP was flawed?
Ahhh yes. Discredit the result because of the title of the report. You're an idiot.
No I pointed out several reasons that data can't be used to claim relative safety of AP. You just don't care to use statistics properly when it doesn't suit you.
FYI, high end sedans have very good safety ratings in comparison to cars overall. Against high end sedans, Tesla doesn't look so good from a safety standpoint. More proof of just how much BS Musk will feed the crowd;
http://www.automotive-fleet.co...
You mean the report that was only for the purposes of determining if AP was flawed? The report where 2/3 of the cars in the study didn't have any miles recorded before AP installation? The report that did not distinguish actual AP miles driven or attempt to normalize any data? The report that made no conclusions about the relative safety of AP? That report?
Well, it was a good, thoughtful post regardless. Thanks.
The study points out the following when stating that percentage;
-Approximately one-third of the subject vehicles accumulated mileage prior to Autopilot installation.
and
-The crash rates are for all miles travelled before and after Autopilot installation and are not limited to actual Autopilot use.
In other words, 2/3 of the cars in the study did not have any representative miles driven before Autosteer, and they have no data as to how much Autopilot use was a factor at all.
I have no problems believing driver assist is safer, I'd bet it is. But I hate statistical abuse. The NHTSA study was intended to find possible flaws in AP, not to determine its relative safety. The study does not conclude AP is safer.