General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[Intl Professor]

Correct.


I'm quite sure it won't. Nobody's got the first clue how to start solving the problem.

This is going to be solved in a much simpler way: the cords are gonna be more rigid. They don't have to be perfectly rigid, they just have to be a lot less wobbly than they are now.

This is like the solution for the automated bolting: threading the bolts was too hard until they used bolts with tapered ends, and *then* the robots could handle it (information from a previous article).

Admittedly, most things are not obvious to me. But isn't using fuzzy logic used to ensure subway or elevated trains stop with the doors lined up where marked on the spot at least a stab at the problem? Admittedly, getting touch sensors sensitive enough and widely spaced and coordinated is much more difficult, but we are "seeing" advances in pictorial recognition at a really fast pace.

Admittedly, my experience with mass transit in recent years is informed by systems in Bangkok, built by the French. Some of its infrastructure is way behind. Many "farhang" marvel at boulevards filled with cars and assume they are all parked, until after an interminable time the light changes and there is some very slow movement.

 

[Ovulation]

Right, so this is wishful-thinking bullshit, like all of transhumanism is.

Don't get triggered by the word transhumanism, Fuller is an almost pathological contrarian, he likes to play with controversial ideologies and transhumanism certainly is one.

The precautionary principle, introduced to politics by Lionel Jospin, is actually *correct*.

Don't get me started, the (over) precautionary principle that EU regulation is based on stifles innovation and turns the whole EU in an open-air museum, anyway I found an interesting video of Fuller where he explains his position

There is a fundamental distinction between population growth, which has to be nearly stabilized -- even Einstein pointed out that no quantity in the real world can continue exponentially growing forever, and he bemoaned people's inability to comprehend that -- and *quality of life*, which can rise indefinitely. Technology allows us to have higher quality of life without growing like a cancer. *If it's used carefully*. If it's not, we all end up with lead poisoning.

I know, the growing sea roses in the pond, funny enough, the best way to dismantle the population bomb is to increase the standard of living. Every society that gets to a certain point of affluence sees the birth rates drop... even Iran. So it's not just in the obvious way that economic growth is the answer to population growth.

 

[22522]

What does it say about me that all of the stuff in this chapter seems obvious to me?

The order on the first list was helpful.

 

[Intl Professor]

What does it say about me that all of the stuff in this chapter seems obvious to me?

Neroden, it is possible you are as smart as Musk, but he doesn't exercise that talent on so many different areas as you do. I haven't seen a situation where I could see how quickly you change your mind, my standard for definition. I'm also impressed you know so much more about some things where I know a lot and have decades of experience, yet you are so young!

Get over it. You're freaky smart. Just continue to impress with what you know on substantive issues. You're scary smart. We're lucky you are a kind and moral person. Just see what freaky smart TV savvy is doing to ruin the country in the hands of some unmentionable but powerful people. Ruin on many levels.

Edit: Sheesh. I know what you intended and your comment was not egotistical. I just don't see why anyone should be worried about being smart. That was my high school. This nerd joined others in the middle of the black section, not for integration, but because that was where all the unpopular people were supposed to sit. MIT fixed that for me where I was always treated as a man. Incidentally, at MIT in the fifties almost all of the few black students seemed to be from foreign countries. You could tell by their dress. White dress shirt, black pants. But now I'm drooling on.

 

[Buddyroe]

What does it say about me that all of the stuff in this chapter seems obvious to me?

It tells me you like to read a lot more than me.

 

[adiggs]

...

I know, the growing sea roses in the pond, funny enough, the best way to dismantle the population bomb is to increase the standard of living. Every society that gets to a certain point of affluence sees the birth rates drop... even Iran. So it's not just in the obvious way that economic growth is the answer to population growth.

Whenever i see world population show up as a conversation topic, I like to point people to this video:
Don’t Panic – The Facts About Population

It's an hour, and if you're like me, you'll go back and watch it over and over. I commend it for the information, I commend it because Hans is a master story teller, I commend it because he's a statistician and brings numbers and facts to life in a brilliant way.

Many positive bits of information here - the key bit is that world population growth has already flatlined. Because the more recent generations are bigger than earlier ones, we will see world population grow to ~11B naturally on a flat birth rate, but then we'll stop. You get to watch the video for the details

 

[MXWing]

Yes, while Elon Musk produces results GM went bankrupt under Bob Lutz, whose continuously pessimistic judgment regarding Tesla no one needs.

Incredulous how that guy can show his face.

I would have asked him how his MTLQQ holdings were doing.

 

[avoigt]

Actually, in Elon’s interview with MKBHD, he discussed one of the items they failed to automate - having a robot connect two different cords together. He also discussed the failure of flufferbot as well in the past. In general, it seems that robots are not able to handle objects that deform or require fine motor control. I think this will be alleviated by AI advances in the next few years. My own personal suspicion is that Tesla will eventually become a major robotics company, as the two major elements required for advanced robots, batteries and AI, will become Tesla’s strengths. So Alien dreadnought free of humans will likely not occur until 2023.

It will definitely take longer to get to "full automation" depending what your definition of that is.

People just do put too much emphasize in the tiny parts of production where robotic automation does not work well. As the idea is that a robot can much faster and more precise execute repeating movements and activities it does not yet work well with soft materials or situations where elements of a static defined system start being dynamic e.g. swinging cord. Some Robots are for instance now able to handle soft material without crashing it but a cord that swings is still a big issue for them.

However the important overlooked point here is that the degree of automation is very much higher than what you see in other auto manufacturing lines resulting in lower costs. This is the current status and it only gets better from here. Cost per unit are going down even further. This is due to higher units (looks like we are at about 6k this week with the 3) because of further automation improvements with kind of static costs.

Beside that the very few other EVs that have an okay range and efficiency like the Kona or I-Pace are loosing money and therefore Honda and Jag only produce small numbers. I am still waiting for a competitor on specs and costs but can't see anybody stepping up. Do say that with regret.

Robotic automation is already today a competitive edge for Tesla and they continue tp grow the space between them and other automakers in that as well other respects.

Looking at this its a fools play to discuss an exhausted overworked CEO as well as SEC "investigations" as well as privatization uncertainties. All of those does not matter.

Once again people don't see the forest because of all the trees.

 

[avoigt]

Correct.


I'm quite sure it won't. Nobody's got the first clue how to start solving the problem.

This is going to be solved in a much simpler way: the cords are gonna be more rigid. They don't have to be perfectly rigid, they just have to be a lot less wobbly than they are now.

This is like the solution for the automated bolting: threading the bolts was too hard until they used bolts with tapered ends, and *then* the robots could handle it (information from a previous article).

If you want to solve an assembly challenge its key to keep the entire system in mind. IOW isolation the cord rigid from the function of the cord does not take in consideration the production of the cord as well as the function after implementation.

Just looking at how it should be to automat best may collide with function and production of that part and cause many problems that you did not have before. Fo that reason Tesla was smart in bringing design of a part and assembly together into one hands responsibility.

What may look on paper obvious isn't if you take the entire system in consideration.

 

[mrdoubleb]

Haven't seen this posted yet... apologies if I missed it. Interview with former Tesla employee (No 12) Dave Lyons.

TLDW: Elon has always been this driven, he has zero tolerance for bureaucracy and cuts through red tape and other stuff that would normally make one stop. He is a smart guy and wouldn't say things like funding secured if he didn't believe it is. (My interpretation of his words).

 

[RubberToe]

Maybe Elon will feel compelled to start releasing monthly production numbers starting in August. With the stock in the current "free fall" state, this would remove at least one bear talking point.

Case in point: Insideevs article about how both Model 3 production line workers were sent home before the end of their shift last Wednesday, without having met the 300 unit goal.

Tesla Model 3 Line Workers Sent Home Early: Production Targets Not Met

RT

 

[bhtooefr]

Out of Market Action:

The Teslas aren't sustainable. This notion that Tesla has green credentials is ludicrous.

Public transport (that Elon Musk is so eager to ridicule) and dense living (that California doesn't exactly excel in, resulting in horrible PT and the biggest carbon foot print on the planet) is infinitely more sustainable than everyone driving a Tesla.

Public transportation isn't sustainable. It currently requires fossil fuels, which will run out. To even entertain the notion of sustainability, we first need to kick our addiciton to oil. And globally, Tesla is the company that's doing the most to make that a reality.

So, I'm of two minds here.

For starters, public transit is not necessarily bound to oil. Many rail-based transit systems that exist today are all-electric, and there's various forms of electric buses (myself, I'd like to invest in Proterra if and when they have an IPO, as I see them as well-positioned to electrify buses, and transit authorities seem to find their products to be significantly higher quality than BYD's (I do have a small exposure to BYD through an ETF or two, though, IIRC)). And, electrified public transit is more sustainable than personal cars, even when those personal cars are Teslas. (And I see Boring Company as working against practical public transit systems, which is why I'm glad it's a separate business, and not part of Tesla.)

However.

America is a country that is incredibly allergic to mass transit and high-density living, for some societal reasons that I won't get into in this thread (as I don't want to veer it into Market Politics). Therefore, a lot of people live in suburbs and rural areas, where mass transit is not feasible. The entire Tesla package of Motors and Energy can vastly reduce the impact of that current "default" American way of life. Vastly higher efficiency from electric vehicles, and renewable energy instead of fossil fuels to charge them, as well as charging infrastructure to minimize the compromises of owning an electric vehicle, go a long way towards reducing impact.

I want to see practical mass transit and policies to encourage density, but I see Tesla as progress towards reducing the impact of transportation, so i support Tesla's mission. My hope is that we reach a point where Tesla Motors is no longer leading us towards that goal (because something else is), but until we reach that point, I'm quite happy to invest in Tesla. And, Tesla Energy, while far from the only major solar or storage company, is still well positioned IMO (although I'm happy to diversify my solar and storage investments).

 

[Mader Levap]

While promoting mass transit is good idea, you will never get rid of cars. Proposals to do just that are as unrealistic as world-wide switch to wegetarianism.

In contrast, world-wide switch to fully electric transport (both individual and mass one) in next few decades is very possible and realistic prospect.

 

[Plotinus]

That is your (factually incorrect) opinion, which opinion is not shared by a large part of humanity.

Tesla is a high-tech company that does not include mind control and forced re-education technologies.

Anyway, this is highly off topic for the market action thread ...

Right, so neither car infrastructure nor mass transit infrastructure builds itself. It requires pooled investments from society.

Investing in public transit in densely populated areas is the most sensible and profitable public investment you can make. But by many car promoters, it's referred to as mind control and forced re-education, as if a society choosing to focus on one mode of transport over the other it is enabling freedom while if it chooses to promote the other, it's doing mind control and re-education.

And it so happens that the latter is superior from a sustainable point of view and from a holistic point of view, as the negative externalities of private car use are well known and often goes unaccounted for.

And on this background, one goes on and on about how green and sustainable Tesla is. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

 

[JRP3]

Not everyone lives in cities, nor will they ever. Concentrating humanity in dense environments creates many negative effects. Public transportation is no panacea and is completely impractical for many.

 

[Plotinus]

While Norway is the gold standard model for dense living? Look, I have seen on TV how a farmer had to ship his sheep by rope up and down to the fjord below his little farm. How many ferries are electrified yet? Not to mention tankers and aircraft ...

Lol excuse me? When have I ever talked about Norway being the gold standard? I'm saying that if you look at the developed world, it's a noticeably big potential for improvement in the US when it comes to mass transit and denser living. Tesla is an american car company. There have for many years been attempts to increase investment in mass transit in the US, it's a political struggle. Tesla is in my view a threat to the momentum of this movement, who wants to promote more investment in mass transit and a more urban city model. It doesn't help that Mr. Musk himself regularly ridicules public transportation.

Since you mention it, I'm a ferocious advocate for spending on PT in Norway and in particular in Oslo. We do spend a lot on mass transit while I believe it should be even more. I disagree with many policies of the norwegian government and this is in no way an us vs them kind of thing.

 

[avoigt]

Fighting FUD. Focus on Fundamentals ! Thx Vincent.

ValueAnalyst liked

11h11 hours ago

When @elonmusk & @Tesla team are doing everything possible to improve production of M3, short sellers r still focusing on stupid FUD.

Aug09 -5538/wk
Aug13 -5824/wk
Aug19 -5942/wk

And Q3 guidance is 50-55k M3 which is 4167-4583/wk avg.
Thanks Elon n $TSLA team! #Tesla #Model3

2 replies43 retweets141 likes

 

[Mader Levap]

And on this background, one goes on and on about how green and sustainable Tesla is. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

Do you agree that replacing ICE cars with EV cars is good thing?

The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

There is no hypocrisy in thinking that EV cars are better than ICE cars environment-wise. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that completely replacing cars with mass public transit is unrealistic and unworkable proposal.

 

[Gunnaren]

@Plotinus: Like 99.9% of all Tesla buyers I didn´t buy a Tesla as an alternative to public transportation, but to replace my old ICE car. The Model S replaced my old Subaru as our family car. I have worked more than 25 years on offshore oil platforms, and for me the transition to sustainable energy and electric cars is an inevitable next step for the human race. I guess Tesla was established to replace ICE cars with electric cars. I respect your opinion to ban personal posession of cars, but I think the large majority of the population will disagree with you on this. I obviously don´t use my car for job commuting, but I use it a lot when I go on hiking and skiing trips (almost every day in my off periods). To replace the car with public transportation would in most cases be very inconvenient.

 

[Plotinus]

Do you agree that replacing ICE cars with EV cars is good thing?

Everything else equal yes, but more from a local environment point of view than a global environment point of view.

However, Tesla cars are not among the more sustainable cars, neither among the EVs or cars in general.

However, it's also a question of which model of transport and urbanism that should be promoted and invested in. We all agree that things need to change.

If that change is an increased modal share of mass transit, that is superior to replacing VW Golfs with Model 3s.

Part of Tesla's and Musk's mission is quite clearly to fight against public transportation and such a change.

There is no hypocrisy in thinking that EV cars are better than ICE cars environment-wise. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that completely replacing cars with mass public transit is unrealistic and unworkable proposal.

No one's talked in absolutes.