Elon Musk and the AI Team introduce The Tesla Bot at AI day, talk about FSD and their DOJO AI supercomputer

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Right now it costs 10s of millions of dollars per seat to get to the ISS, IDGAF what he says he can do, he is not launching anything into Space for anything remotely close to 6 figures, ever. Fun fact, six figures doesn't even cover the fuel cost of an empty rocket by a factorial.

You are making the same flawed argument that ThunderF00t made.  SpaceX is -charging- NASA 10's of millions per seat...also again it's talking about the prototype...in theory Starship's fuel cost would make it a lot cheaper.  As a note Falcon 9 in 2015 had $200k worth of fuel (falcon heavy would have $600k).  Until April, NASA was requiring the flights to be on new rockets [and again the bidding process, SpaceX was the cheapest]

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

This is the biggest load of nonsense and I see it repeated over and over. If you go to the shop to buy X and X costs you $1 then the cost of X is $1. He said he has lowered the cost to LEO, the cost to LEO has increased with Dragon and no amount of spin will change that.

I would like to point out you were the one that incorrectly says that Tesla doesn't make a profit...so you clearly just parroting what you keep hearing (without looking at any sources).  So let's take a look in 2017 the commercial cost launch $150 million for about 63 tons [my source link is dead for this though, but there are tweets from Musk in 2018 referring to the fact the commercial cost is $150 million...even the gov't contract was set at $160 million, and a later contract at $99 million].  ULA's solution is $350 mill for 29 tons.  So yea, that's at least 5x cheaper for commercial endeavors.  Don't kid yourself, you have to compare it to what is currently being done now.

 

37 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Tesla are only making any money because of hyper inflated stock, their current market cap is totally unwarranted and totally unrealistic and sooner or later the bubble will burst, the market will self correct and anyone holding Tesla is in for a very bad day.

That is false.  You don't seem to understand finances.  Is Tesla stock over-inflated...sure, but a stock being over inflated doesn't mean that they are making money...look at Nikola, they are losing money (no sales, no product, criminally charged founder) and they are over hyped...all being over bought means is that Tesla can do things like raising capital (so they can pay off debts, or increase capital expenditures like on a billion dollar press).

So let me say this again.  Tesla is making a profit.  Without the government credits they still would be making a profit.  To state otherwise is false.

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Except he didn't and if you watched his follow up he explained the discrepancy.

His follow up was stupid, because he ignored the real criticisms and decided to go for the low hanging fruit to say.  This is the same person who says that using "15 second clips" isn't copyright infringement.  If you must know though, the nasa person who said that based it on 12 flights at $1.6 billion carrying 5,000lbs [the capsule is actually able to 13,000lbs, so he used half full numbers]...and the guy also used 500m/50000lb (but an estimate of current launch cost could have been 3 times higher) [and that ignores the fact the full weight isn't always used, and ignores that payload to ISS was limited to 35k lbs].  So yea, don't trust ThunderF00t.

 

More on topic though, whether or not it's marketing...it is overall good I think to have this kind of thing hit market because it does create interest in technology

[Master Disaster]

20 minutes ago, willies leg said:

 

Call it what you want, it ain't speculation at this point. Coca Cola in particular is dead money, the rest you mentioned aren't all that great either. Don't quit your day job.

You missed the point by a country mile, those examples were to demonstrate other mega corporations P/E compared to Tesla. The literal richest company on earth has a P/E ratio of ~60, Tesla is almost 400.

 

And I'm calling it exactly what Investopedia says it is.

 

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are making the same flawed argument that ThunderF00t made.  SpaceX is -charging- NASA 10's of millions per seat...also again it's talking about the prototype...in theory Starship's fuel cost would make it a lot cheaper.  As a note Falcon 9 in 2015 had $200k worth of fuel (falcon heavy would have $600k).  Until April, NASA was requiring the flights to be on new rockets [and again the bidding process, SpaceX was the cheapest]

Sorry but I only read up the point where you said "in theory", there is literally no point reading beyond that since you just made my point for me.

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

I would like to point out you were the one that incorrectly says that Tesla doesn't make a profit...so you clearly just parroting what you keep hearing (without looking at any sources).  So let's take a look in 2017 the commercial cost launch $150 million for about 63 tons [my source link is dead for this though, but there are tweets from Musk in 2018 referring to the fact the commercial cost is $150 million...even the gov't contract was set at $160 million, and a later contract at $99 million].  ULA's solution is $350 mill for 29 tons.  So yea, that's at least 5x cheaper for commercial endeavors.  Don't kid yourself, you have to compare it to what is currently being done now.

I never said SX isn't cheaper than current options, only that Elon said 10x cheaper which is incorrect.

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

That is false.  You don't seem to understand finances.  Is Tesla stock over-inflated...sure, but a stock being over inflated doesn't mean that they are making money...look at Nikola, they are losing money (no sales, no product, criminally charged founder) and they are over hyped...all being over bought means is that Tesla can do things like raising capital (so they can pay off debts, or increase capital expenditures like on a billion dollar press).

Remember, Elon is propping up SpaceX with Tesla money.

 

I'd love to know how much of Musks money is liquid, I'm guessing its not very much

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So let me say this again.  Tesla is making a profit.  Without the government credits they still would be making a profit.  To state otherwise is false.

Meh, semantics TBH. They might be profitable on paper but that means nothing when its CEO is syphoning it all off to play Emporer of Mars.

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

His follow up was stupid, because he ignored the real criticisms and decided to go for the low hanging fruit to say.  This is the same person who says that using "15 second clips" isn't copyright infringement.  If you must know though, the nasa person who said that based it on 12 flights at $1.6 billion carrying 5,000lbs [the capsule is actually able to 13,000lbs, so he used half full numbers]...and the guy also used 500m/50000lb (but an estimate of current launch cost could have been 3 times higher) [and that ignores the fact the full weight isn't always used, and ignores that payload to ISS was limited to 35k lbs].  So yea, don't trust ThunderF00t.

I trust my own opinion, sometimes I agree with TF, other times I don't. In the case of Musk he's bang on the money.

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

More on topic though, whether or not it's marketing...it is overall good I think to have this kind of thing hit market because it does create interest in technology

Its great when you have genuine people looking to push things forward, Musk just isn't that guy

[wanderingfool2]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

there is literally no point reading beyond that since you just made my point for me.

Guess what, the part that you decided not to read were real world numbers that prove you wrong.

 

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I never said SX isn't cheaper than current options, only that Elon said 10x cheaper which is incorrect.

Given that it's 5x cheaper than their closes competitor and the flights can be shown to be even cheaper (to the point that it is 10x cheaper than their competitor it is roughly correct).

 

7 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Remember, Elon is propping up SpaceX with Tesla money.

 

I'd love to know how much of Musks money is liquid, I'm guessing its not very much

Again factually false.  SpaceX isn't being propped up by Tesla funds (Elon's wealth)...based on everything, it seems as though $100 million was initially invested...a lot less than the government contracts [If it was investments propping up the flights, then they would have to be burning billions...26 flights in 2020...even the closest competitor would have charged $9.1 billion].

 

13 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Meh, semantics TBH. They might be profitable on paper but that means nothing when its CEO is syphoning it all off to play Emporer of Mars.

Again you are just spouting out your beliefs without looking at anything.  If you are talking about his stocks, here go ahead and see https://sec.report/CIK/0001494730 He himself even said that the Tesla stock is way to high [which given he holds so many shares is detrimental if he was doing siphoning].  You can't just brush it off as semantics.  Profit is well defined, and it's not like we are arguing about what it is meant by profit.

 

19 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Its great when you have genuine people looking to push things forward, Musk just isn't that guy

Popularized EV's, popularized space again, created space flights that are leaps and bounds cheaper than competitors

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Err what? No, it was him that started the entire thing and I don't need a time machine to tell you a 200 mile vacuum is not happening in his life, my life, your life or anyone born in the next 50 years life.

 

Trivial to do, we've been demonstrating the tech to do it for decades. Weather you can get the funding and planning permission, different question. All the big questions are on whatever vehicle would have to run in it and design modifications for specific purposes.

 

For the purposes of seal quality, keeping somthing out is no different difficulty wise than keeping it in. All the matters is the pressure difference.All those 1000's of mile long natural gas pipelines around the world are significantly more difficulty to build than the Hyperloop would be.

 

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Getting things into orbit and getting things to Mars are not even remotely similar. At this moment Musk has never demonstrated anything beyond ISS payload delivery and any other claims he is making are nothing but pure speculation on his part.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

 

Starship. Everyone with any serious knowledge of spaceflight agrees it could make a one way shot to mars with crew pretty much as soon as it's human crew certified. it would be stupidly risky and a terrible idea. But if he really wanted to, he could do it.

 

Also NASA has selected it as their moon lander, so don't go coming quoting some internet "i did my research" youtube video about how starship won't work. 

 

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Right now it costs 10s of millions of dollars per seat to get to the ISS, IDGAF what he says he can do, he is not launching anything into Space for anything remotely close to 6 figures, ever. Fun fact, six figures doesn't even cover the fuel cost of an empty rocket by a factorial.

 

You can look up the actual launch costs if you want. Also when space enthusiasts talk about cost to orbit they're talking cost per kg, not cost per person. The two are rarely closely connected for various reasons. Mainly that you rarely want to launch a large number of people to orbit. Economies of scale basically. there was a broad proposal for a potential shuttle design variation that would have lifted 150 people to orbit. Even at actual shuttle launch costs thats a bit under 12 million per person.

 

But of course no one needs 150 people in one shot right now.

 

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Except he didn't and if you watched his follow up he explained the discrepancy. The simple fact is, he didn't change the one number because it didn't affect the outcome at all. When you're talking about 10 million more or 30 million more it really doesn't matter, neither is a win for the musk rats.

 

I did engineering at college, i also had to take a small basic level economics course as part of that. And i'm telling you right now, anyone claiming that is talking out of their backside and manipulating numbers to suit their conclusion. A reusable design will allways be cheaper in the long run, it's a basic fact.

 

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

This is the biggest load of nonsense and I see it repeated over and over.

 

Nope this is business. The aim of any business is to lower it's operating costs as much as possibble whilst charging the customer as much as possibble.

 

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Boston Dynamics have been in business for nearly 20 years, they've never turned a profit and are only still around because of one very passionate person.

 

In those 20 years they have created a robot dog that's operational and a humanoid that isn't close.

 

20 years for actual robotic engineers to create nothing that is marketable outside of niche applications and Musk, the guy who cannot get FSD working in a tunnel he literally bored himself reckons he can do it in a year? If you believe that then...

 

And? You do know how tech advances work right? generally one group sweat blood and tears over a long time to make somthing happen, and then people come along and improve significantly on it in a very short time period.

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Elon's biggest talent is being able to surround himself with those engineers

Lmao, anyone can hire experienced engineers and pump money their way to make something (in this case, something he didn't even have the original idea for) - provided they happen to have that money. Musk is the one in 10 million who got lucky and garnered investor interest. Once that's done, stuff like this basically inflates itself in a feedback loop; it seems valuable so more people invest in it and make it more valuable.

 

While it's important to recognize the talent of people who work for these companies it's also important to note that there are plenty of good engineers. Musk did not just find all the best ones in the whole world and put them in a room to make electric cars. Nor did he personally handle the entire hiring process... or even most of it. That's not what a CEO does. He was also terrible enough as a CEO that he was basically forced to step down.

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A good example would be looking at the similarities between Tesla and Nikola...both making claims, but Tesla actually has the talent to back things up.

Or rather, they have the money. Also, while I haven't really looked into it, Nikola just seems like a pure scam trying to leech off the more known Tesla's popularity.

 

It's also a pretty large leap to assume that any difference between two companies with somewhat similar goals is due exclusively to the owner.

[wanderingfool2]

44 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Nikola just seems like a pure scam trying to leech off the more known Tesla's popularity

Oh, trust me they are much worse than a scam.  The point being though, that they can't attract good engineers if their life depended on it.

 

51 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Nor did he personally handle the entire hiring process... or even most of it. That's not what a CEO does. He was also terrible enough as a CEO that he was basically forced to step down.

CEO decisions and the press Elon has gotten make a huge difference in recruiting good talented engineers.  Not saying he goes out and hires all of them, just that he has created an environment where good talented engineers are can thrive.

[Master Disaster]

11 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

Trivial to do, we've been demonstrating the tech to do it for decades. Weather you can get the funding and planning permission, different question. All the big questions are on whatever vehicle would have to run in it and design modifications for specific purposes.

 

For the purposes of seal quality, keeping somthing out is no different difficulty wise than keeping it in. All the matters is the pressure difference.All those 1000's of mile long natural gas pipelines around the world are significantly more difficulty to build than the Hyperloop would be.

At the surface level sure, the biggest difference is that oil companies are not suggesting that we fire humans through their pipes at 600mph in the most inhospitable environment possible for humans with absolutely no plan on how to get them out safely when something inevitably goes wrong.

Quote

 

Starship. Everyone with any serious knowledge of spaceflight agrees it could make a one way shot to mars with crew pretty much as soon as it's human crew certified. it would be stupidly risky and a terrible idea. But if he really wanted to, he could do it.

 

Also NASA has selected it as their moon lander, so don't go coming quoting some internet "i did my research" youtube video about how starship won't work. 

Quote me as ever saying that. You can't? So that would be a strawman then.

 

Whether Starship will or won't work is not the topic, its whether Elon can ever live up to the wild hype and claims he has made, for example, 25% of the usable space will be taken up by an atrium for live performances, the thing will be covered in windows, will hold 100 PAX, crew will have no serious duties on board, tickets will be 6 figures and the biggest one, I qoute, "Radiation on the way to Mars is not as big of an issue as everyone makes it out to be".

 

While we're here lets talk about the fact that, in its current form Star Ship has no solar panels, radiators and Elon seems to have no idea where he is actually going to store basic supplies for 100 people to last them the rest of their lives.

Quote

 

You can look up the actual launch costs if you want. Also when space enthusiasts talk about cost to orbit they're talking cost per kg, not cost per person. The two are rarely closely connected for various reasons. Mainly that you rarely want to launch a large number of people to orbit. Economies of scale basically. there was a broad proposal for a potential shuttle design variation that would have lifted 150 people to orbit. Even at actual shuttle launch costs thats a bit under 12 million per person.

 

But of course no one needs 150 people in one shot right now.

Nope, there are 2 types of launch, cargo launches where you use cost/kg and crew launches where you use cost/seat.

 

Crew rated craft have to have additional provisions that cargo rated craft do not (abort, ejection, fire suppression, emergency provisions etc) , this significantly increase the cost of launching a person over a satellite and its all academic anyway, six figures doesn't even cover the fuel costs for a single empty launch using current rockets and Musk is saying he can increase fuel capacity (which he does need to get the extra speed to hit escape velocity) while also cutting launch costs.

Quote

I did engineering at college, i also had to take a small basic level economics course as part of that. And i'm telling you right now, anyone claiming that is talking out of their backside and manipulating numbers to suit their conclusion. A reusable design will allways be cheaper in the long run, it's a basic fact.

Unless you can show me any proof that reusing rockets works out cheaper than fire & forget I'm gonna have to press X for doubt. Fun fact: NASA literally created the space shuttle because they had already tested reusing rockets in the 70s and worked out that, after the additional design costs involved plus retrieval cost, rebuilding cost and recertifying/retesting costs it didn't work.

 

Why exactly do you think the shuttles landed like planes? Is it because reusing rockets was too hard or is it because you can have a pilot land at a runway (instead of the middle of the ocean to avoid deafening half the population of the nearest city) for no extra cost.

Quote

Nope this is business. The aim of any business is to lower it's operating costs as much as possibble whilst charging the customer as much as possibble.

And again, not the point. If BMW say they've reduced the price of their new model then go ahead and sell it for more than the old one you'd be surprised yet Musk says he's reduced the price to LEO while charging NASA more and y'all think that's OK because it costs him less?

 

Manufacturing Price =/= Sale Price

Quote

And? You do know how tech advances work right? generally one group sweat blood and tears over a long time to make somthing happen, and then people come along and improve significantly on it in a very short time period.

Those people don't stand on stage and tell their audience they're qualified to revolutionise an entire industry they have no previous experience in because they're good with actuators.

 

Tesla Bot marks a milestone, its the point where Musk didn't even have to pay an animator to do him some CGI, instead he paid a single robot dancer and y'all still swallowed it whole.

 

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Guess what, the part that you decided not to read were real world numbers that prove you wrong.

In theory, as in, not actually real.

Quote

 

Given that it's 5x cheaper than their closes competitor and the flights can be shown to be even cheaper (to the point that it is 10x cheaper than their competitor it is roughly correct).

Got a source for this? (Not doubting you BTW)

Quote

Again factually false.  SpaceX isn't being propped up by Tesla funds (Elon's wealth)...based on everything, it seems as though $100 million was initially invested...a lot less than the government contracts [If it was investments propping up the flights, then they would have to be burning billions...26 flights in 2020...even the closest competitor would have charged $9.1 billion].

 

Again you are just spouting out your beliefs without looking at anything.  If you are talking about his stocks, here go ahead and see https://sec.report/CIK/0001494730 He himself even said that the Tesla stock is way to high [which given he holds so many shares is detrimental if he was doing siphoning].  You can't just brush it off as semantics.  Profit is well defined, and it's not like we are arguing about what it is meant by profit.

At the SolarCity trial, Elon was forced, under oath, to admit that, if any one of his major endeavours fail it would create a "house of cards that would take everything down as it fell". That's the entire reason why he tricked Tesla into buying out SC in the first place, if SC had gone under it would have taken him down so he used his shareholders from Tesla to generate the money to buy a company he knew was insolvent and essentially moved all of that debt onto Tesla instead.

 

He's currently defending a class action launched by his Tesla shareholders over the fact he paid billions of their money for a company he knew had almost no value. The only people who walked away ahead were Musk and his cronies, everyone who put money into Tesla around that time lost.

 

Again, there's a huge difference between what a company is doing on paper and what its CEO is doing with that money behind the scenes.

Quote

 

Popularized EV's, popularized space again, created space flights that are leaps and bounds cheaper than competitors

Popularised EVs? Not even close, the Roadster had a terrible reputation and so did Tesla. Unreliable, poor quality, manufacturing defects. What he did was forced the real car manufacturers to take EVs seriously and start designing their own models.

 

Popularised space? I'll give you that one though its worth pointing out, NASA had plans to go back to the moon before SpaceX existed and much of SX design was only possible because of NASA & Govt funding.

 

NASA have literally said, Crew Dragon cost them more than Soyuz.

 

Manufacturing Price =/= Sale Price

 

Until Elon passes some of these supposed saving onto the people buying from him they're not a price reduction, they're a cost reduction.

[WolframaticAlpha]

20 hours ago, leadeater said:

@Master Disaster

 

I'd rather walk than own this.

I would rather die than own this monstrosity.

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

CEO decisions and the press Elon has gotten make a huge difference in recruiting good talented engineers.  Not saying he goes out and hires all of them, just that he has created an environment where good talented engineers are can thrive.

I too could go on twitter and lie about my company's projects to hype them up... that's not much of an achievement. As for the environment where people can thrive... reports of worker abuse, union busting and forced presence during the pandemic breakout would beg to differ.

[wanderingfool2]

19 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

NASA have literally said, Crew Dragon cost them more than Soyuz.

Citation needed.

 

20 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

In theory, as in, not actually real.

No re-read what I said.  In theory starship will cost less to launch...then I gave real world numbers of the prices of Falcon 9 fuel (which is only about $200k in propellant)

 

46 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Got a source for this? (Not doubting you BTW)

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963109303291854848 For the $150m for SpaceX Falcon 9 heavy, and $350m for ULA Delta iv heavy...that's where I get my 5x number (it's actually about 5.17x).  That is the expendable form though.  The 10x is where it gets a bit murky because there aren't any public contracts to go by.  It was stated that it would be $95 million for reusable though...for LEO reusable you take I think about 10% (no 100% source on this one) [key being it's LEO not GTO...GTO takes a huge penalty for being re-usable].  That puts it at 7.35 times.  Compared to Titan IV (older rocket), at $432m/launch (21.68t to LEO)...that's 8.5x.  Which is why 10x is roughly correct.  If Starship is successful though, it would definitely complete that number though. [This one is theory, but it's expected to take a million to refuel, and $250 m to build but payload at 250 tons expendable...which would be over 10x]

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Unless you can show me any proof that reusing rockets works out cheaper than fire & forget I'm gonna have to press X for doubt. Fun fact: NASA literally created the space shuttle because they had already tested reusing rockets in the 70s and worked out that, after the additional design costs involved plus retrieval cost, rebuilding cost and recertifying/retesting costs it didn't work.

The simple fact that SpaceX is charging less for re-used flights, and have come out that refurb costs are <10% of rebuilding a new one.  A reason why they stopped catching the fairings is because it was costing more to catch them than it was recovering and refurb the salt water damage.  It's the same reason why they stopped the concept of returning the second stage [literally they abandoned that plan], because based on what they could do they concluded it would cost more to recover it (and refurb it) compared to loss in payload.

 

70's tech also had to perform a role (which SpaceX doesn't) because the guidance systems and technology wasn't capable of doing things in 3d space (instead the roll meant it was simplified down to 2 dimensions).  Tech changes.  The spaceshuttle had a min of 54 days (but after challenger 88 days min)...the boosters here are now 27 days as a record (but might be lower in future)

 

With that said, a reusable design is not an "always better" approach.  In this case it is though.

  

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As for the environment where people can thrive... reports of worker abuse, union busting and forced presence during the pandemic breakout would beg to differ.

Factory worker environment is different than the engineer environment (just saying) [My previous work, there was the CSR's which got treated like gods by the CEO and then the backend staff which were under-paid and treated like dirt in comparison...guess which department was thriving]  [Tesla's goal is to essentially have no factory workforce]

 

Anyways, not really going to bother responding much more, as I do think it's detracting too much from the topic

[Master Disaster]

24 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Citation needed.

 

No re-read what I said.  In theory starship will cost less to launch...then I gave real world numbers of the prices of Falcon 9 fuel (which is only about $200k in propellant)

 

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/963109303291854848 For the $150m for SpaceX Falcon 9 heavy, and $350m for ULA Delta iv heavy...that's where I get my 5x number (it's actually about 5.17x).  That is the expendable form though.  The 10x is where it gets a bit murky because there aren't any public contracts to go by.  It was stated that it would be $95 million for reusable though...for LEO reusable you take I think about 10% (no 100% source on this one) [key being it's LEO not GTO...GTO takes a huge penalty for being re-usable].  That puts it at 7.35 times.  Compared to Titan IV (older rocket), at $432m/launch (21.68t to LEO)...that's 8.5x.  Which is why 10x is roughly correct.  If Starship is successful though, it would definitely complete that number though. [This one is theory, but it's expected to take a million to refuel, and $250 m to build but payload at 250 tons expendable...which would be over 10x]

 

The simple fact that SpaceX is charging less for re-used flights, and have come out that refurb costs are <10% of rebuilding a new one.  A reason why they stopped catching the fairings is because it was costing more to catch them than it was recovering and refurb the salt water damage.  It's the same reason why they stopped the concept of returning the second stage [literally they abandoned that plan], because based on what they could do they concluded it would cost more to recover it (and refurb it) compared to loss in payload.

 

70's tech also had to perform a role (which SpaceX doesn't) because the guidance systems and technology wasn't capable of doing things in 3d space (instead the roll meant it was simplified down to 2 dimensions).  Tech changes.  The spaceshuttle had a min of 54 days (but after challenger 88 days min)...the boosters here are now 27 days as a record (but might be lower in future)

 

With that said, a reusable design is not an "always better" approach.  In this case it is though.

  

Factory worker environment is different than the engineer environment (just saying) [My previous work, there was the CSR's which got treated like gods by the CEO and then the backend staff which were under-paid and treated like dirt in comparison...guess which department was thriving]  [Tesla's goal is to essentially have no factory workforce]

 

Anyways, not really going to bother responding much more, as I do think it's detracting too much from the topic

I'm kind of done with this now. I have my opinion on him, you have yours and neither is more important than the other . At this point we're chasing our own tails round a roundabout.

 

Can I say though, its been nice having an adult discussion about a contentious topic that hasn't descended into ad hom and flaming so thank you for that

[Guest willies leg]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

I too could go on twitter and lie about my company's projects to hype them up... that's not much of an achievement. As for the environment where people can thrive... reports of worker abuse, union busting and forced presence during the pandemic breakout would beg to differ.

 

That's why they need robots, no more worker abuse and unions. It's a win-win for everyone.

Amazon and others will gobble them up, buying as many as they make. And it would be neat to have robots building robots, that's cool!

Elon did address during his presentation the ramifications of having robots do all the menial tasks. That's why he's so great, he's just trying to solve problems well for humanity. So many haters trying to tear him and his companies down. Yet, because of his great workers and great ideas, they keep going strong. Bravo!

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, willies leg said:

That's why they need robots, no more worker abuse and unions. It's a win-win for everyone.

Not really a win for people losing their job.

 

Not that is matters since, as I already said, specialized machinery is orders of magnitude more efficient and cost effective than generic humanoids. The idea that a humanoid robot that can completely substitute a generic human operator would be cheaper than paying that operator is absurd. If there's currently a human doing a task it's almost certainly because that task is not repetitive or well defined enough to allow for its inexpensive automation.

 

I would say it's quite naive to think the only thing stopping Tesla from substituting its workers with machines is a lack of humanoid robots on the market.

[Guest willies leg]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Not really a win for people losing their job.

 

Not that is matters since, as I already said, specialized machinery is orders of magnitude more efficient and cost effective than generic humanoids. The idea that a humanoid robot that can completely substitute a generic human operator would be cheaper than paying that operator is absurd. If there's currently a human doing a task it's almost certainly because that task is not repetitive or well defined enough to allow for its inexpensive automation.

 

I would say it's quite naive to think the only thing stopping Tesla from substituting its workers with machines is a lack of humanoid robots on the market.

 

Why do you need a job?

In the presentation Elon said we'd need a basic universal income, so that will take care of that issue for those that won't or can't work.

He's a true visionary.

I'd say Elon and team are pretty smart, based on what I've seen, I know what they've done. What have you done that qualifies you to be a visionary in that field?

 

 

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, willies leg said:

In the presentation Elon said we'd need a basic universal income, so that will take care of that issue for those that won't or can't work.

He's a true visionary.

Yeah, he's truly a visionary for mentioning someone else's idea without elaborating... Friedman thought of this before Musk was even born.

 

UBI is not a terrible idea to help those who would otherwise live in poverty (almost anything would be better than what these people get right now, which is almost nothing) but, in our current system, it's an incomplete solution. How much money would you get through it? Would it be enough to afford you and your family good education and healthcare? How would it be adjusted for inflation and cost of living differences?

 

If Musk isn't even willing to pay his employees well and provide them benefits for the work they do, do you think he'd be willing to pay more taxes so they can get that money while doing nothing?

57 minutes ago, willies leg said:

I'd say Elon and team are pretty smart, based on what I've seen, I know what they've done. What have you done that qualifies you to be a visionary in that field?

I can't, nor do I care to, measure exactly how "smart" Musk personally is. I can explain why what is attributed to him is (mostly) either not his own merit, not a very good idea or simply a lie.

 

My own personal achievements are pretty irrelevant to that effect. Also being a "visionary" doesn't really mean anything.