Exactly - there's plenty of supply, it's just charged at an insane rate since "They have no choice - want power? Pay what we ask or start doing rolling blackouts"
It's a commercial/political/greed issue.
Do you have facts to back up your contention that there was plenty of supply, because the article talks about the engorgement wanting to start up a retired plant to ease the problem? BTW, they are talking about market spot prices spiking to that level, not consumer prices. Its not evident from your post that you distinguished between the two.
Exactly. Pricing in an instantaneous supply and demand market is naturally highly volatile. It just doesn't work very well even when there is a big swing on either side. You can have negative pricing at times, and spikes at other times. The high price numbers thrown out there sound crazy, but in reality its typically very short duration. The market structure doesn't yet account for all instantaneous demand/supply scenarios optimally.
No thanks. I didn't bring that into the discussion, you did. I'm not trying to make anyone look good or bad. I simply responded that a factual statement was made after someone didn't like it. Evidently you didn't either.
So in short, they are determining and deciding on what constitutes an enjoyable experience for their clients.
No, not at all. The customers are telling them what an enjoyable experience is, and what detracts from it, and they are responding. In this case customer complaints are input into the decision.
They are not deciding what is or isn't good for you. They are deciding what is good for them and they have every right to do so. The message they are sending is that of a family and kid friendly place.
That, and they don't want anybody confused when you ask for a Big Mac.
I don't know how one can describe an 800 mrem exposure as a 'massive' dose. It is far below the threshold where they have been able to find a statistically significant increase in rates of actual cancer, so they just estimate based on rates know for orders of magnitude greater exposures. All studies done to date have been inconclusive about the risk of CT exposure, despite having millions to study, so even if there is an increase in risk, it is so small that it makes no sense to worry about it. You should be much more worried about getting a sun tan. That would comparatively be a 'super massive' exposure to UV radiation based on your scale.
Science is always political as soon as it gets used to justify policy decisions.
Not necessarily, the science itself is not changed when it is used to make decisions. However, decisions can be made to change how the science is performed, reported, interpreted. Even the much adored Tyson isn't always straight up with the facts.
Yes, passengers are people. But if there were three in the car, and so four people dies, would that make the system four times less safe? Of course not. Its about making an accurate statistical comparison, nothing more, nothing less.
Not to mention that the numbers wouldn't look nearly as good if there were four people in the car. Anyone using these statistics at this point is an idiot, and Musk is counting on the idiocy of the press when spouting his statistics.
The US average death rate when driving on a freeway is 1.08 deaths per 100,000,000 miles. Tesla autopilot's current death rate is 0.769 per 100,000,000 miles.
Come back with deaths per mile of people driving high end, less than 10 year old vehicles, and exclude miles driven in snow, ice or other treacherous conditions and also eliminate passenger deaths. That's just for starters.
Tesla claims you still need to pay attention to the road around.
Its like having your wife in the car. She corrects you when you are doing something wrong, warns you when you get out of line, and expects you to pay attention. What a wonderful feature!
Pilot-aid would be better and might have saved an extra life.
How about drunk-aid? Which begs the question, at what point is autonomous driving good enough to allow drunks back behind the wheel, and whose to blame if there is an accident?
Actually, what they have noticed is that they can extend warranties based on the term in them, which account for depreciation. So, even if a panel needs replacement at 28 years, the warranty will only pay a small fraction of the panel's original cost, and its likely that they'll push for that warranty sum to be applied toward selling the customer a new panel. If new panels cost a lot less to make in 28 years, they'll probably come out way ahead on the replacement. So its all a big game that has little to do with actual panel performance.
Mod up. It's all about the worthlessness of warranties after such a long period.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly - there's plenty of supply, it's just charged at an insane rate since "They have no choice - want power? Pay what we ask or start doing rolling blackouts"
It's a commercial/political/greed issue.
Do you have facts to back up your contention that there was plenty of supply, because the article talks about the engorgement wanting to start up a retired plant to ease the problem? BTW, they are talking about market spot prices spiking to that level, not consumer prices. Its not evident from your post that you distinguished between the two.
Exactly. Pricing in an instantaneous supply and demand market is naturally highly volatile. It just doesn't work very well even when there is a big swing on either side. You can have negative pricing at times, and spikes at other times. The high price numbers thrown out there sound crazy, but in reality its typically very short duration. The market structure doesn't yet account for all instantaneous demand/supply scenarios optimally.
Then I'm not sure what your problem is with my post.
1964, look up the voting records your damn self!
>
No thanks. I didn't bring that into the discussion, you did. I'm not trying to make anyone look good or bad. I simply responded that a factual statement was made after someone didn't like it. Evidently you didn't either.
No, by omitting verifiable history, which includes the present. You are playing the ideology angle
WTH? It is what it is. Please present the verifiable historical info in a complete manner then, or are YOU just idealistically generalizing?
You only made the republican look better.
By stating verifiable facts?
So in short, they are determining and deciding on what constitutes an enjoyable experience for their clients.
No, not at all. The customers are telling them what an enjoyable experience is, and what detracts from it, and they are responding. In this case customer complaints are input into the decision.
They are not deciding what is or isn't good for you. They are deciding what is good for them and they have every right to do so. The message they are sending is that of a family and kid friendly place.
That, and they don't want anybody confused when you ask for a Big Mac.
and when this kid grows up, the same robot will take his job.
I don't know how one can describe an 800 mrem exposure as a 'massive' dose. It is far below the threshold where they have been able to find a statistically significant increase in rates of actual cancer, so they just estimate based on rates know for orders of magnitude greater exposures. All studies done to date have been inconclusive about the risk of CT exposure, despite having millions to study, so even if there is an increase in risk, it is so small that it makes no sense to worry about it. You should be much more worried about getting a sun tan. That would comparatively be a 'super massive' exposure to UV radiation based on your scale.
Science is always political as soon as it gets used to justify policy decisions.
Not necessarily, the science itself is not changed when it is used to make decisions. However, decisions can be made to change how the science is performed, reported, interpreted. Even the much adored Tyson isn't always straight up with the facts.
First stop politicizing science, then give me a call.
Translation from Muskanese;
In wrecks where autopilot was not engaged, we will have the data to show it.
In wrecks where autopilot was engaged, we will not be certain and will not consider it an issue until someone proves it was on.
In instances where it appears a car in autopilot remained safe, we will take full credit.
In instances where cars in autopilot did not remain safe, it will be the driver's fault unless proven otherwise.
That's what I hear.
Don't quit your day job and become a statistician, you clearly don't understand the fundamentals of how to use them.
also eliminate passenger deaths
Why? Are passengers not people?
Yes, passengers are people. But if there were three in the car, and so four people dies, would that make the system four times less safe? Of course not. Its about making an accurate statistical comparison, nothing more, nothing less.
Not to mention that the numbers wouldn't look nearly as good if there were four people in the car. Anyone using these statistics at this point is an idiot, and Musk is counting on the idiocy of the press when spouting his statistics.
More deflection from the problems at hand and the propensity to under-perform in operations;
https://www.thestreet.com/stor...
But we all know that you really want to just watch movies at work!
The US average death rate when driving on a freeway is 1.08 deaths per 100,000,000 miles. Tesla autopilot's current death rate is 0.769 per 100,000,000 miles.
Come back with deaths per mile of people driving high end, less than 10 year old vehicles, and exclude miles driven in snow, ice or other treacherous conditions and also eliminate passenger deaths. That's just for starters.
^And if anything goes wrong, its your fault.
Tesla claims you still need to pay attention to the road around.
Its like having your wife in the car. She corrects you when you are doing something wrong, warns you when you get out of line, and expects you to pay attention. What a wonderful feature!
Calm down Elon. You're about to go cornholio.
He tends to start spouting stuff when reports come out regarding Tesla's repetitive missed delivery targets. Deflection
"Who is" to blame.... excuse me.
Pilot-aid would be better and might have saved an extra life.
How about drunk-aid? Which begs the question, at what point is autonomous driving good enough to allow drunks back behind the wheel, and whose to blame if there is an accident?
Actually, what they have noticed is that they can extend warranties based on the term in them, which account for depreciation. So, even if a panel needs replacement at 28 years, the warranty will only pay a small fraction of the panel's original cost, and its likely that they'll push for that warranty sum to be applied toward selling the customer a new panel. If new panels cost a lot less to make in 28 years, they'll probably come out way ahead on the replacement. So its all a big game that has little to do with actual panel performance.
Mod up. It's all about the worthlessness of warranties after such a long period.