It sure is. And if the 2016 election and fallout of the 2020 election on 1/6 didn't tell you about the power of collective stupidity in regards to following con men, then you should exit this thread.

Grunching.

Its beyond the processing power of joe blow to understand that robot driving does not have to have perfect safety, it just has to have better safety than manual.

Waymo, Cruise Gets Permit for Robotaxi and Self-Driving Ventures in SF, Receiving Payments for Rides

Cruise and Waymo both get a go signal from San Francisco to roll around their robotaxis without the requirement of safety personnel that would intervene during emergencies. That is right, there would be full autonomy for the vehicles of the companies to operate in a fully driverless state, rolling around with only its technology to rely on. ...

Without eventual utility it is a ponzi scheme.

That is what many of these coin launches are, just new form of the old ponzi scheme with the coin serving as the proxy or placeholder.

No utility means the sole value is someone else willing to step in and buy out your position at a higher price and the day that person does not appear, it rapidly drops towards zero.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53349313
'Bold claim'
'IHS Markit analyst Tim Urquhart said level five autonomous driving was the "holy grail" of the industry.

"It's a typically bold claim by Mr Musk," he said.

"Even if Tesla can reliably roll out the technology in a production environment, the regulatory environment in all the major markets is way behind allowing completely autonomous vehicles on the road."

Apple-backed firm aims for one million robotaxis
GM's Cruise unveils its first driverless vehicle
Delivery van with no 'human controls' tested in US
Some Tesla users were already misusing the current technology, Mr Urquhart said.

"I've always slightly questioned the naming of the Tesla system," he said.

"The fact that it's called Autopilot, when it's only a level-
two system, is I think problematic."'



"There are no basic requirements with level five - it has to be absolutely bulletproof, fool-proof, tested in real world environments to the nth degree."

Cliffs:
- 'Elon Musk suggests Autopilot not to blame for fatal crash'
- this is bs, the wives reported their husbands were going to test the autopilot.

www.bbc.com/news/technology-56799749.amp

Elon, busted:
'Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on a Feb. 11 episode of the Joe Rogan Experience podcast: "I think Autopilot's getting good enough that you won't need to drive most of the time unless you really want to."'


'Nonetheless, many Tesla fans and influencers share videos on social media that show people driving hands free for prolonged periods, asleep at the wheel or with nobody in the driver's seat.

For example, actor Jamie Foxx shared a video on his YouTube channel where he pretended to be asleep at the wheel of a Tesla Model 3, operating it hands free with his eyes closed. In January this year, as The Drive reported, a teen and his mom made a video in which he pretended to sleep at the wheel of a Tesla and then climbs into the back seat for a snooze.

In Germany, a Munich court actually banned Tesla from using phrases equivalent to Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capability in its advertising, because they found this language misled consumers and overstated the capabilities of the cars.'

http://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/04/18/n...as-report.html

Looks like other companies are actually delivering on Musk’s absurd promises.

Was anyone ever scared that his cell phone battery could blow up? I was. I even was scared that if I use an e -cigarette, it would blow up. There were some news circling. Now think a battery 1000× more powerful. Probably 100.000× more powerful:

Cliffs: teslas has a problem with burning batteries and so does the fire departments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/bu...texas.amp.html

“It took four hours to put out a fire that normally would have taken a matter of minutes,” Constable Herman said, adding that it took more than 30,000 gallons of water to extinguish the fire."

Yes that article is the type of BS Elon is very guilty of.

Elon Musk says full self-driving Tesla tech 'very close'


Tesla is way behind Cruise and Waymo and a bunch of others and this examination puts them last, with a 5% chance of winning, amongst major contestants.

And that is because Tesla does not have the focus on this space others do. It is more of a side hustle for Tesla.

There are two elements that really drive Self Driving Car technology.

1 - Visualization technology that allows the vehicle to identify and avoid and react to obstacles. Sensors that do not require advanced AI to give input to react. Tesla has taken a very stripped down version of this approach.

2 - AI Awareness or gamification where the AI is making assessment based on the inputs it is getting similar to how a human can make assessments of the world around us. This requires, many believe, for computers to fully realize Quantum Supremacy, so that the AI mind can truly compete with the human mind.

Step 1, is the far easier approach but arguably is less valuable over a longer period of time. Tesla is not adopting most of this as some hurt the aesthetic of the vehicle.
Attaching all sorts of sensors and radar and lasers that can detect obstacles is great and gives solid benefit.

Step 2, is the holy grail though. And until Step 2 is achieved (and it may never fully be) the promise of true AI, in all forms will not be realized. Step 2 involves AI truly achieving both the analytical sense and the Intuitive sense (or a good enough proxy for it) that we humans have.

Analytically AI blows us away. As they say AI is really good at doing big data crunching exercises that prior only top Experts could attempt. But AI is really crappy at doing the smaller more intuitive tasks that any 4 year old can be easily taught to understand and do.

Elon and Tesla are all in on number 2 being achieved by the accumulation of enough Big Data (current road data as cars drive around) being sufficient to make that break through. And while the data being gathered in every mile driven is massive, we need a massive jump in Quantum Supremacy to also happen before all that data can be used in that way. And that is something mankind may never achieve, let alone for Tesla's next year end.

To be fair, you're clearly not playing with a full deck.

Doge is up 10,000% from when he started tweeting about it.

Indeed.

And it might be others who end up delivering on the Electric Car far more than Tesla, in the end in a way that crushes the vehicle numbers Tesla needed to grow into the valuation they were given.

GM, Toyota, Etc will be able to flood the zone with vehicles and options so Tesla may remain a strong player but no where what has been forecast.

But that does not mean Elon has not been central to the shift to electric cars. He should get that credit, even if you criticize him for his hype.

And that has been my point.

I do not give him credit for the Self Driving car push however. That advancement was coming regardless of whether Tesla ever existed or not. It was a function of AI progression and looking for 'Holy Grail' applications for advanced AI.

Battery fires have always been a thing thus more battery reliance for ever increasing output = more fire risk.

Water is not the best method to put out battery fires, just as it is not good at putting out Oil fires. As battery usage grows every Fire Department needs to be equipped with the proper foam fire suppression equipment.

Statistically it is not something to fear though.

Isn't that sort of the point though ?

Technology is advancing at an insane rate and someone is going to get out front and pitch the latest advancement. Electric cars were going to happen, Musk or not.

While I agree some of the criticism is harsh I think some of the hero worship surrounding these guys is giving them a little too much credit.

Credit for being able to capitalize on the situation of course but if you're a good pitch man you can capitalize on anything. (see Trump)

This also ties into the EH thread. She was trying to get out in front and failed. So there is some skill involved. Give the man that too.

Fires are bad. Good thing there's nothing flammable gas powered internal combustion engines.

Yes, we have to give Elon credit for the work other people are doing.


The Musk cult is so odd. Very Trumpian.

Being a guy who inherited wealth and bought existing companies does not grant you credit for the stuff other people did. He's just full of **** most of the time.


He is not responsible for electric cars. All car companies are doing that. They were doing that before. They were going to do that with or without musk. He just conned a bunch of people like you into thinking he was responsible for it.

AI was going to happen but there is no reason to believe Electric Cars were.

Elon brute forced that one into being a thing. There was no big tech advancement sitting on the shelf that was just begging to be launched as a new Electric Car company and the daunting amount of capital needed to try would prevent almost anyone else from trying.

Yes i was going to say 'plus hullo gasoline' but decided not to.

Such a weird disconnected response.

I wonder if you are just incapable of following discussions at times as you come out with such bad faith or disconnected responses.

So I guess because I am not in the hate Elon camp, now you assume I must be in the cult, despite me not being a fan nor ever owning his stock?

You are very much like a Trumper in so many ways with the lack of nuance on every issue. You must be 100% one way or the other, in your limited view.

No, the proper reply is 'because Elon is not responsible and does not deserve credit for everything, DOES NOT MEAN he should not get credit for some of the things he actually was instrumental in'.

I know, I know, 'but you don't like him... so that is all that matters'.

Henry Ford was such a prick, too. All he did was put some parts in sequential order of assembly on a long conveyor belt. Those workers were the real heroes that kicked off the automobile revolution. **** that guy.

Everyone knows that if you just wait long enough you'll eventually have fully autonomous taxicabs spontaneously assemble from various bits of metal and sand. The workers of the world would've figured it out. Like a million monkeys creating Shakespeare.

Agreed.

But the inverse is also true. Being a guy who inherited wealth and bought existing companies should not deny you the credit for stuff you DID do.

And Elon did a lot.

Agreed. I've spoken to his 'hype'.



True.

But he is largely responsible for the electric car revolution now taking place that will almost certainly replace the combustion engine at some point.


Yes. His companies Valuation relative to theirs demanded they become serious competitors. There shareholders and Boards would have fired them had they not got in the game to win it.

Had Tesla died in its infancy before getting a high valuation there is no reason to believe anyone else would have taken this gamble to implement the full integrated model of doing what the major established car makers were not going to do and harm their existing very lucrative model. At least not in any of our lifetimes.



Not accurate.
Really not accurate.

The biggest obstacle here was the mass amounts of Capital needed to get this to a momentum point. It was not the tech.

There was no incentive for the major brands to push it as the R&D cost is massive (as we currently see) and it leads to no more care sales in total, and without the gov't rebates, it made vehicles too expensive.

this was a pure Risk Capital play where the entrepreneurs who took it on were going to Zero if failed or mega valuations if successful.

Those types of play are very much Entrepreneur dependant. the entrepreneur is literally selling 'belief' and 'hype' in the hopes of getting enough money and time to then have a real attempt to deliver a product.

Like Elon or not, he was unique in being able to SELL such massive hype to so many and that is his super power. That gave him the runway to then to begin to deliver in many of those areas through acquisition and innovations and more hype.

You may counter 'but I never bought into the hype and never gave him that money', and neither did i, but enough OTHERS did that he got his money and his chance, and he is delivering incrementally enough to stay in the game.


You cannot just say 'anyone else could have done it' simply because the pieces of the tech were there.

Unless you are saying in the inevitability of infinite time and outcomes, then sure, eventually (not likely our life time) some other person could have consolidated the hype to make it happen.

Anyway, I think you guys have a very naïve business view regardless. That you really do not understand business.

It seems you think for Elon to be considered successful he must invent everything himself, and create every company (no acquisitions) himself or you can scoff at him. that everything must be his original PHD work.

I challenge you.

Tell me who in the history of business you would call a success who did not utilize aspects of existing tech, or utilize acquisitions, etc in their path to Billions where you could not say 'if they did not do it, someone else would have'?

Do you consider Henry Ford a hype job fraud? The conveyor belt was not novel or new. HIs production methods were not new just because he brought them to scale.

Anyway I look forward to your Entrepreneur answer.

I did not see your post when I posted Henry Ford as an example.


I honestly do think that many people (especially on the left) do not understand the business process and think there is an element of magic and everything that defines success is an original PHD work or otherwise worthless.

- Bill Gates - Hype job, failure. Computers, existed. Internet existed. Software existed. Anyone could do it.

- Warren Buffet - Hype job, failure. Creates nothing. Just uses patient capital to support his investee companies to superior returns. Everyone could do it, and anyone would if Buffet was not around. Easy.

- Steve Jobs - Hype job, failure. Actually did sell a ton of hype to zealous buyers with very little substance behind it at first. Took their money and investments and used it to eventually achieve a world leading company. (This is actually the model Musk is most chasing).


And the point is not to say that advancements in these areas would not exist without them, on an infinite time scale, as that is probable given enough time.

The question is why some argue these guys do not deserve credit just because they think someone eventually would have done something similar enough.

Why such a need to denigrate and try to minimize the Entrepreneur and Leader?

Because the success of others makes them more aware of their own perceived failures and shortcomings. It's really just that simple.

"Pffft, I could've done that too if I had access to a hundred million dollars. He's not so special."

A fun fact about Henry Ford is that he was the only American singled out for praise in Mein Kampf.