That's what I was thinking. It appears to be money invested in reducing costs, increasing capacity.
It may have the effect of making it difficult for younger companies to compete, but, if you are a small company trying to compete with a large company, you have already failed if you plan to offer a small cost reduction to your potential customers.
The driver still needs to pay the costs of running the vehicle, which will not have reduced in 5 years, so the impact on real incomes is far more than a halving.
lower EPS. It doesn't mean the purchase is a bad decision,
No, lower EPS means exactly that the purchase was a bad decision.
The only alternative explanation is that management was hiding an inevitable drop in EPS, which would have happened with or without the acquisition and now that drop has become public knowledge.
You assume the welds were missing from somewhere that could be access without cutting metal. I suspect this is not true, otherwise the cars would have been re-worked.
You really think that they scrap $10M (guessing, but in the ballpark) worth of cars without considering the possibility of rework?
5G deployment is in the interest of the public. It is a silly thing to tax. It is even sillier to add pointless bureaucratic delay.
None of that matters, because it's local property and the Constitution doesn't give the FCC or any other Federal agency the right to set limits like this. Essentially, it's taking property without compensation.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I should also mention that, with the Model 3, there is no official battery size specification. People have inferred that the battery in the long range model is somewhere between 73 kWh and 80kWh, but no one knows the exact number.
How does that fit into your issues with unlocking battery capacity?
Firstly, Tesla knows that some customers will upgrade.
Secondly, there is a cost saving from having fewer options to manufacture.
Let me blow your mind: every Model 3 has all the hardware required for the Enhanced Autopilot, but it is only enabled for those owners that paid for it.
Can you imagine if a real automotive manufacturer pulled this shit? Imagine if Ford, for example, offered to sell you an F150 with a 32 gallon gas tank, but had built-in software in the Engine Control Computer Module that would cut off the fuel pump and shut down the ignition system whenever it detects only 6 gallons of fuel, or less in the tank, in the hopes that you'll get good and sick and tired of the reduced range, call them up, and pay them some more money so they will remotely change the software so that you're able to drive until the fuel is literally completely exhausted?
You have your analogy back to front. Tesla offered both a 60kWh and 75KWh models. Some people chose 60kWh models and that is the usable battery capacity.
It would be if Ford offered a 26 gallon tank at a discount and they delivered a vehicle with a 32 gallon tank and a software shutoff when you had 6 gallons left in the tank. You were able to use all of the 26 gallon capacity that you paid for. What's your beef?
1. It's not clear that the larger battery has an efficiency cost. The extra size comes with extra mass, but it should also come with better regeneration.
2. You bought the car with a certain specification (in terms of range and efficiency). The car meets that specification. What's your beef?
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking. It appears to be money invested in reducing costs, increasing capacity.
It may have the effect of making it difficult for younger companies to compete, but, if you are a small company trying to compete with a large company, you have already failed if you plan to offer a small cost reduction to your potential customers.
It's also measuring revenue, not profit.
The driver still needs to pay the costs of running the vehicle, which will not have reduced in 5 years, so the impact on real incomes is far more than a halving.
No, lower EPS means exactly that the purchase was a bad decision.
The only alternative explanation is that management was hiding an inevitable drop in EPS, which would have happened with or without the acquisition and now that drop has become public knowledge.
Yet, the SiriusXM (free trial) in my car would cut out going under a bridge over the freeway.
You assume the welds were missing from somewhere that could be access without cutting metal. I suspect this is not true, otherwise the cars would have been re-worked.
You really think that they scrap $10M (guessing, but in the ballpark) worth of cars without considering the possibility of rework?
Please try reading TFA. Or even just the summary.
Almost all of these cars were in transit. Only 9 were actually sold.
I see you are rather thin-skinned.
I dared to contradict you and you make me one of your foes. Well, all I can say is good-riddance. It's no loss to me that I won't see your few posts.
The remarkable acceleration in new uid numbers while the number of replies to articles suggests otherwise.
Why? If they were searching for and found child porn, why hasn't the man responsible been charged?
None of that matters, because it's local property and the Constitution doesn't give the FCC or any other Federal agency the right to set limits like this. Essentially, it's taking property without compensation.
/. is full of shills.
The only thing limiting the shills is that /.'s readership is declining, so the value in paying shills to post here is also declining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, I think there is a more appropriate auction style for concert tickets -- the "Dutch" auction style.
FTFY.
For once, perhaps Betteridge was wrong?
You don't own it. You use it though the generosity (?) of Google. They could shut it down at any time.
You are assuming he hasn't already maxed out his credit cards.
Slavery still exists in the USA today:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
I should also mention that, with the Model 3, there is no official battery size specification. People have inferred that the battery in the long range model is somewhere between 73 kWh and 80kWh, but no one knows the exact number.
How does that fit into your issues with unlocking battery capacity?
Manufacturers do this all the time.
Firstly, Tesla knows that some customers will upgrade.
Secondly, there is a cost saving from having fewer options to manufacture.
Let me blow your mind: every Model 3 has all the hardware required for the Enhanced Autopilot, but it is only enabled for those owners that paid for it.
You have your analogy back to front. Tesla offered both a 60kWh and 75KWh models. Some people chose 60kWh models and that is the usable battery capacity.
It would be if Ford offered a 26 gallon tank at a discount and they delivered a vehicle with a 32 gallon tank and a software shutoff when you had 6 gallons left in the tank. You were able to use all of the 26 gallon capacity that you paid for. What's your beef?
1. It's not clear that the larger battery has an efficiency cost. The extra size comes with extra mass, but it should also come with better regeneration.
2. You bought the car with a certain specification (in terms of range and efficiency). The car meets that specification. What's your beef?
You can set the maximum charge state and ensure that you don't run it down to less than 10%.
And before that, IBM used to do it with their card tabulating machines. An upgrade often meant that a technician came in and moved a belt.
Read TFA. Had he downloaded the movies and kept the downloads, he would have been able to watch them.
What he could no longer do was obtain a new copy from the cloud storage.
Effectively, he had a license to use his downloaded copies forever.