Publicly he didn't. He issued zero statements when all those videos were coming out. It wasn't till after he started getting blowback that he toned things down.
Yes, thanks, another had pointed that out and it is the type of thing I've been waiting for for years now. Next they just need to put that soundbar looking thing in a simple box with no speakers so I can put it on the AVR shelf.
That is why they are going about this all wrong. For these systems, the bulk of the batteries should be in the trailer, not in the tractor. While the trailer is on the loading dock getting filled, it is plugged in and charging its large battery bank..............
That crossed my mind but there are two key problems. 1) that means more batteries required overall, and that is the most expensive part to begin with, 2) You want the trailers to be able to be transferred quickly to a another tractor, which may not be an EV tractor. Therefore they'd have to unload the batteries just to make the transfer, or needlessly transport them and have them unavailable for some period of time.
BTW, this line was used by Obama administration as well, when they were talking about Russian involvement in last year's elections.
How it makes sense, I cannot figure out.
I recall that. If one wants the gov to 'put up or shut up' regarding evidence for Kapersky, they should want the same regarding evidence regarding Trump and Russia, but the media seems to be fine with insinuations, a lot more to assume that way.
I don't get that "thinness" requirement people put on TVs. Sure, no one wants the thing violently protruding several inches from the wall... but anything less than 2 inches should be way more than reasonable.
The TV isn't a Phone. When a colleague comes boasting how thin his new TV is I can't help but think "oh God, why is this important AT ALL?"
aesthetics. A thin TV flush mounted on a wall looks a lot nicer than a thick one protruding outward or spaced away. A thin bezel is generally nicer looking as well. TV's are often right in the main living space, and people want those spaces to look nice, just like their furniture and decor.
Yes, that's pretty much it! I guess they must have heard my occasional mention of desire for this type of product for the last 5 years. Now they can just not do the soundbar thing and instead put that stuff in a no speaker shelf module, and they've hit the target.
No matter what you do, you're running at least one cable (ideally in your wall for a nice clean look).
It would be nice if that was omnibus cable that did everything, but there's also something to be said for using multiple standard cables... you can put up standard wall plates and connect to a new screen if you replace the existing one, for instance.
I'd like to see a standard for recessed wall plates that can handle all the likely connectors and the required cable slack so you can have a truly flush-mounted screen. And a matching standard for the screens to have the most common connectors in the same position every time.
If you only have the LCD portion in the display, there is nor reason or benefit to having multiple cables between it the the driver module. The driver module can have all the standard I/O connections you desire, and much more easily accessible. The ribbon cable (and there maybe be some signal/noise challenges with that I admit), with a flat connector would allow flush wall mounting (obviously you'd needs a hole in the wall behind it for cable to come through)
Argh. It's not the speakers in most current televisions causing thickness issues in the display housing. There's a reason sound bars are a Thing now... it's because TV speakers are small, tinny and next to useless.
Yes, they are smaller and useless, but they are also still part of the limiting factors in how thin tvs are. Its easy to see if you just go to any TV store and look at the profiles.
A product I would like to see is super thin TV panel with essentially the LCD only in the display module, with a thin ribbon cable to connect to a driver module/box which has the tuner, power supply, etc, sitting in my AV shelf next to my AVR. That would allow a flat wall mount directly against the wall with a very thin profile. Keeping speakers and other 'tronics' in the display housing just makes it thicker and requires more cooling space and ventilation, plus the extra standoff distance due to the standard mount.
OR, if not that, I never use TV console speakers so at least sell a TV without those space wasters.
Maybe that would be a niche product, but I'd like to see it. I'm a bit surprised some high end designer product isn't available like that.
In Tesla's case, one could argue Musk was encouraging them to take risks based on his early descriptions of its capabilities.
Every owner that wants to enable the autopilot functionality is required to attend an orientation in which the limitations of the system are explained in some detail, so there is literally no valid argument in that direction.
Oh, there is. There were plenty of videos out there that showed T drivers doing amazing no hands driving. Did Musk make ANY attempt to warn folks that such driving was not responsible, or did he happily enjoy the PR attention that came along with it? So those classes you talk about clearly were not sufficient.
If a driver can detect 95% of hazards, and the car can detect 70% of hazards, then there is improved security, because they both would have to miss a hazard. But switching completely from the driver in charge to the car in charge decreases security.
Kinda reminds me of some people I encountered in IT back in the 90's. "Hey, I don't need to backup anymore, I have RAID now"
Agree. That last part, the human factor element, is the hard part. As people feel safer they naturally take greater risks. We all do it, some more than others. Its those 'some' that do it more that we have to worry about.
I guess you missed the part where this is aimed at regional hauling, not long haul? For an example: Costco's Pacific Northwest distribution center is just outside of Seattle, WA. One of their busiest stores is in Portland, OR. That is under a 150mi trip. The truck would charge while being loaded/unloaded. This sort of truck would be PERFECT for these types of routes.
The key here is turnaround time. If, due to charging, I take an extra hour turnaround time. And if I have 50 turnarounds in my warehouse per day, then I lose 50 hours of transport time, which in a day is equivalent to, say, 5 trucks. So if I have to buy 5 more trucks and drivers to offset loss in transport time, and those trucks cost a lot more to begin with, then it might not work out as well financially.
They did. Tesla Model S battery can be replaced in 1 minute 35 seconds. They demonstrated it on stage back in 2013.
No, they did not. They did a smoke and mirrors routine and never actually demonstrated the swap at all. Nobody saw any evidence that a swap indeed occurred during that show.
Even if they did, its one thing to have a quick swap when the car is already on the lift and multiple workers, who practiced like a pit stop, are standing with tools in hand when they say 'go'. But in the real world, where you have to pull into the garage, lift the car, sign the paperwork, wait on Jim and Phil, two guys not four, to finish the other car, then you've already significantly increase the swap time before any tool touches the car.
But, with that said, swaps still could be done fairly quickly IF drivers wanted that and I don't think they do, at least not these initial T owners who are proud of that battery at the heart of the car. I wouldn't. A key cost issue with swaps is the fact that you need x number of extra batteries on hand to swap with, which means more batteries per car and more $$$ per car as batteries are the most expense element by far.
There are trade-offs in designing battery mount systems to allow quick swapping as well. I imagine safety is a key concern, as the batteries are quite heavy so require very substantial mounts that must be part of the protective design of the entire car. Its easier and lower cost to not worry about those features. Plus, I'm not sure many car owners would want to swap their brand new battery for some used one (Not the they would have to), as it is one of the most expensive elements in their purchase. Fleet owners might see it different.
For trucks, they could theoretically put batteries in trailers and swap with the load. But then you must absorb the cost of paying for more batteries as you typically have more trailers than tractors.
I loaded trucks to get myself through college. Quite a while ago but little has changed. Trucks roll up to the warehouse, we unload in about 20 - 30 minutes and load back up in 30 - 45 minutes. The driver was on his way usually within an hour and a half. The drivers don't like to wait, so it sucked when three would show up at once. In other cases they drop off one trailer and pick up another already loaded and are gone with very little wait time (which is more common at many distribution centers, just not so much at mine), those were the smaller percentage of trailers that would stay for longer periods as we accumulated enough items for that destination.. So turnaround times are very important, and waiting on a charge might be an issue for many typical distribution centers.
No, he was instructed not to do what he did. And he did it anyway. Seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, two things are very clear;
1) The driver was irresponsible and legally at fault
2) Tesla autopilot was not good enough to stop the car from plowing into the truck on its own.
So I assume they'd have to describe it by the hex code or 3x 8-bit integer RGB code (same thing) so just change 231 to 230 on red for example and tada, now it's not their color. Like it's legally proveably not their color even though visually it'd be virtually indistinguishable. They were idiots for even trying.
Maybe so, but I can understand it. I walked into and ALDI the other day and saw several knock-off cereals whose boxes were made to mimic the brand name in as much detail as possible. It was so blatant it turned me off, and I can be a cheap bastrd. If you want to sell a Cheerios knockoff fine, but not need to try to make the box look exactly the same from 10 feet.
I pretty much agree with you on the ROI thing. That's why Musk was brilliant to sell a high end vehicle where ROI wasn't a fatal concern for the customer. I'd also love to have an EV, it would be a blast to drive, but the ROI is fatal to my buying decision as well, as are my travel needs. Not only that, but I'd have to clean out my garage to park it by a charger and that's a showstopper right there.
Of course, Musk's issue is that a Tesla is way too expensive BECAUSE of all this wiz-bang cool stuff he keep stuffing in them, and THAT is why Tesla will continue to struggle as a company until this kind of madness stops.
That is a valid point, but the other side is that the cars are going to be very expensive regardless simply because of the batteries, and that wiz-bang stuff is helpful in getting the target market to part with their $$$$ by further distinguishing the product.
Yes, particularly when human safety is at the heart of the matter. OF course, sometimes there is enough evidence to move forward if one feels the concerns are addressed, when doing so there should be some validation.
Aside from that, I think Musk is guilty of misrepresenting safety numbers. He repeatedly stated cars on autopilot were safer than cars without, even stated a number, but used apples and oranges data to do that comparison, with no normalization of the non-Tesla data to make in comparable. I think he's smart enough to know exactly what he was doing, and was happy to intentionally mislead the public. Probably because he believed the system truly was safer even though there was not sufficient data to make that claim.
.. this feels like lawyers trying to put the screws on Telsa for not shipping a product that prevents people ending themselves through idiocy.
Why should Tesla be treated different than any other company that must prevent idiots from killing or injuring themselves with their products? In Tesla's case, one could argue Musk was encouraging them to take risks based on his early descriptions of its capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Publicly he didn't. He issued zero statements when all those videos were coming out. It wasn't till after he started getting blowback that he toned things down.
Yes, thanks, another had pointed that out and it is the type of thing I've been waiting for for years now. Next they just need to put that soundbar looking thing in a simple box with no speakers so I can put it on the AVR shelf.
That is why they are going about this all wrong. For these systems, the bulk of the batteries should be in the trailer, not in the tractor. While the trailer is on the loading dock getting filled, it is plugged in and charging its large battery bank..............
That crossed my mind but there are two key problems. 1) that means more batteries required overall, and that is the most expensive part to begin with, 2) You want the trailers to be able to be transferred quickly to a another tractor, which may not be an EV tractor. Therefore they'd have to unload the batteries just to make the transfer, or needlessly transport them and have them unavailable for some period of time.
BTW, this line was used by Obama administration as well, when they were talking about Russian involvement in last year's elections.
How it makes sense, I cannot figure out.
I recall that. If one wants the gov to 'put up or shut up' regarding evidence for Kapersky, they should want the same regarding evidence regarding Trump and Russia, but the media seems to be fine with insinuations, a lot more to assume that way.
I don't get that "thinness" requirement people put on TVs. Sure, no one wants the thing violently protruding several inches from the wall... but anything less than 2 inches should be way more than reasonable.
The TV isn't a Phone. When a colleague comes boasting how thin his new TV is I can't help but think "oh God, why is this important AT ALL?"
aesthetics. A thin TV flush mounted on a wall looks a lot nicer than a thick one protruding outward or spaced away. A thin bezel is generally nicer looking as well. TV's are often right in the main living space, and people want those spaces to look nice, just like their furniture and decor.
LG makes exactly what you're looking for: https://www.theverge.com/ces/2...
Yes, that's pretty much it! I guess they must have heard my occasional mention of desire for this type of product for the last 5 years. Now they can just not do the soundbar thing and instead put that stuff in a no speaker shelf module, and they've hit the target.
Thanks for the link.
No matter what you do, you're running at least one cable (ideally in your wall for a nice clean look).
It would be nice if that was omnibus cable that did everything, but there's also something to be said for using multiple standard cables... you can put up standard wall plates and connect to a new screen if you replace the existing one, for instance.
I'd like to see a standard for recessed wall plates that can handle all the likely connectors and the required cable slack so you can have a truly flush-mounted screen. And a matching standard for the screens to have the most common connectors in the same position every time.
If you only have the LCD portion in the display, there is nor reason or benefit to having multiple cables between it the the driver module. The driver module can have all the standard I/O connections you desire, and much more easily accessible. The ribbon cable (and there maybe be some signal/noise challenges with that I admit), with a flat connector would allow flush wall mounting (obviously you'd needs a hole in the wall behind it for cable to come through)
Argh. It's not the speakers in most current televisions causing thickness issues in the display housing. There's a reason sound bars are a Thing now... it's because TV speakers are small, tinny and next to useless.
Yes, they are smaller and useless, but they are also still part of the limiting factors in how thin tvs are. Its easy to see if you just go to any TV store and look at the profiles.
A product I would like to see is super thin TV panel with essentially the LCD only in the display module, with a thin ribbon cable to connect to a driver module/box which has the tuner, power supply, etc, sitting in my AV shelf next to my AVR. That would allow a flat wall mount directly against the wall with a very thin profile. Keeping speakers and other 'tronics' in the display housing just makes it thicker and requires more cooling space and ventilation, plus the extra standoff distance due to the standard mount.
OR, if not that, I never use TV console speakers so at least sell a TV without those space wasters.
Maybe that would be a niche product, but I'd like to see it. I'm a bit surprised some high end designer product isn't available like that.
^I did not know that. Thanks. That goes back to one of my other comments about cost savings by not designing for fast swap.
In Tesla's case, one could argue Musk was encouraging them to take risks based on his early descriptions of its capabilities.
Every owner that wants to enable the autopilot functionality is required to attend an orientation in which the limitations of the system are explained in some detail, so there is literally no valid argument in that direction.
Oh, there is. There were plenty of videos out there that showed T drivers doing amazing no hands driving. Did Musk make ANY attempt to warn folks that such driving was not responsible, or did he happily enjoy the PR attention that came along with it? So those classes you talk about clearly were not sufficient.
I think the "on it's own" it really the thing.
If a driver can detect 95% of hazards, and the car can detect 70% of hazards, then there is improved security, because they both would have to miss a hazard. But switching completely from the driver in charge to the car in charge decreases security.
Kinda reminds me of some people I encountered in IT back in the 90's. "Hey, I don't need to backup anymore, I have RAID now"
Agree. That last part, the human factor element, is the hard part. As people feel safer they naturally take greater risks. We all do it, some more than others. Its those 'some' that do it more that we have to worry about.
I guess you missed the part where this is aimed at regional hauling, not long haul? For an example: Costco's Pacific Northwest distribution center is just outside of Seattle, WA. One of their busiest stores is in Portland, OR. That is under a 150mi trip. The truck would charge while being loaded/unloaded. This sort of truck would be PERFECT for these types of routes.
The key here is turnaround time. If, due to charging, I take an extra hour turnaround time. And if I have 50 turnarounds in my warehouse per day, then I lose 50 hours of transport time, which in a day is equivalent to, say, 5 trucks. So if I have to buy 5 more trucks and drivers to offset loss in transport time, and those trucks cost a lot more to begin with, then it might not work out as well financially.
They did. Tesla Model S battery can be replaced in 1 minute 35 seconds. They demonstrated it on stage back in 2013.
No, they did not. They did a smoke and mirrors routine and never actually demonstrated the swap at all. Nobody saw any evidence that a swap indeed occurred during that show.
Even if they did, its one thing to have a quick swap when the car is already on the lift and multiple workers, who practiced like a pit stop, are standing with tools in hand when they say 'go'. But in the real world, where you have to pull into the garage, lift the car, sign the paperwork, wait on Jim and Phil, two guys not four, to finish the other car, then you've already significantly increase the swap time before any tool touches the car.
But, with that said, swaps still could be done fairly quickly IF drivers wanted that and I don't think they do, at least not these initial T owners who are proud of that battery at the heart of the car. I wouldn't. A key cost issue with swaps is the fact that you need x number of extra batteries on hand to swap with, which means more batteries per car and more $$$ per car as batteries are the most expense element by far.
There are trade-offs in designing battery mount systems to allow quick swapping as well. I imagine safety is a key concern, as the batteries are quite heavy so require very substantial mounts that must be part of the protective design of the entire car. Its easier and lower cost to not worry about those features. Plus, I'm not sure many car owners would want to swap their brand new battery for some used one (Not the they would have to), as it is one of the most expensive elements in their purchase. Fleet owners might see it different.
For trucks, they could theoretically put batteries in trailers and swap with the load. But then you must absorb the cost of paying for more batteries as you typically have more trailers than tractors.
I loaded trucks to get myself through college. Quite a while ago but little has changed. Trucks roll up to the warehouse, we unload in about 20 - 30 minutes and load back up in 30 - 45 minutes. The driver was on his way usually within an hour and a half. The drivers don't like to wait, so it sucked when three would show up at once. In other cases they drop off one trailer and pick up another already loaded and are gone with very little wait time (which is more common at many distribution centers, just not so much at mine), those were the smaller percentage of trailers that would stay for longer periods as we accumulated enough items for that destination.. So turnaround times are very important, and waiting on a charge might be an issue for many typical distribution centers.
Hah. Very good point. What was I thinking.
No, he was instructed not to do what he did. And he did it anyway. Seems pretty clear to me.
Yes, two things are very clear;
1) The driver was irresponsible and legally at fault
2) Tesla autopilot was not good enough to stop the car from plowing into the truck on its own.
So I assume they'd have to describe it by the hex code or 3x 8-bit integer RGB code (same thing) so just change 231 to 230 on red for example and tada, now it's not their color. Like it's legally proveably not their color even though visually it'd be virtually indistinguishable. They were idiots for even trying.
Maybe so, but I can understand it. I walked into and ALDI the other day and saw several knock-off cereals whose boxes were made to mimic the brand name in as much detail as possible. It was so blatant it turned me off, and I can be a cheap bastrd. If you want to sell a Cheerios knockoff fine, but not need to try to make the box look exactly the same from 10 feet.
I pretty much agree with you on the ROI thing. That's why Musk was brilliant to sell a high end vehicle where ROI wasn't a fatal concern for the customer. I'd also love to have an EV, it would be a blast to drive, but the ROI is fatal to my buying decision as well, as are my travel needs. Not only that, but I'd have to clean out my garage to park it by a charger and that's a showstopper right there.
Of course, Musk's issue is that a Tesla is way too expensive BECAUSE of all this wiz-bang cool stuff he keep stuffing in them, and THAT is why Tesla will continue to struggle as a company until this kind of madness stops.
That is a valid point, but the other side is that the cars are going to be very expensive regardless simply because of the batteries, and that wiz-bang stuff is helpful in getting the target market to part with their $$$$ by further distinguishing the product.
I was being sarcastic. I guess I'd better go ahead and state that now
Yes, particularly when human safety is at the heart of the matter. OF course, sometimes there is enough evidence to move forward if one feels the concerns are addressed, when doing so there should be some validation.
Aside from that, I think Musk is guilty of misrepresenting safety numbers. He repeatedly stated cars on autopilot were safer than cars without, even stated a number, but used apples and oranges data to do that comparison, with no normalization of the non-Tesla data to make in comparable. I think he's smart enough to know exactly what he was doing, and was happy to intentionally mislead the public. Probably because he believed the system truly was safer even though there was not sufficient data to make that claim.
.. this feels like lawyers trying to put the screws on Telsa for not shipping a product that prevents people ending themselves through idiocy.
Why should Tesla be treated different than any other company that must prevent idiots from killing or injuring themselves with their products? In Tesla's case, one could argue Musk was encouraging them to take risks based on his early descriptions of its capabilities.
The software engineer will deploy it at some given milestone and then work out the bugs. The MBA will re-define and accelerate the milestone.
Five magic words make this controversy go away;
Its just like plane autopilot.
Elon, you are off the hook.