EVNow
Well-Known Member
This also shows why FCA would prefer to just pay Tesla. No way they can make an EV for 5.2k Euros over there normal cars. Not without investing billions and it would still take 5+ years - and still may not sell 70k per year.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Looks like news of hundreds of millions in pure profit a year are no match for wall st shenanigans now that the uptick rule expired
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
anecdotally, there's an in-town curve that autosteer couldn't handle. To be fair, most traffic crosses over the line in it, even though the road is plenty wide enough.
However, the version before 8.5 was able to reliably negotiate it, staying well on the correct side of the line. I was quite pleased. Then I got the latest update and it can no longer handle it reliably. Going the direction I normally do it crowds the line (like most human drivers) and may cross over it (hard to tell for sure just how far it goes), but yesterday in the opposite direction it went too fast and wide (towards oncoming traffic) before bailing. Despite my recovery of the situation my wife was not amused.
This is exactly the sort of problem that occurs with a probabilistic system and why I thought that Tesla was using conventional programming for the actual driving and using the neural net for it is good for (e.g., vision). In traditional programming this would be termed a regression bug, but in a probabilistic system it is a feature. I would expect even if Tesla had all the data they could not explain why the prior version handled the curve fine while the current handles it poorly or fails.
Despite my disappointment, having watched the video of Karpathy talk about autopilot I'm accepting that this is the best path forward and that, given that parts of AP hinge on probabilistic programming, it doesn't realistically gain that much determinative behavior by trying to segregate tasks. He didn't go into details, but indicated that as time went on the neural net gradually assumed more responsibility for the AP process.
So when you suggest that "...is mainly about Navigate on Autopilot on highway without conformation," while that may be true for intent or even in fact, if they update the neural net portions of AP at all it can have unintended consequences. This is going to be true for any neural net-like system, but when you have something with as complex of a task as driving (it may only have two outputs: steering and speed, but the environment and interactions are quite complex) you just can't be sure how it will behave in any given circumstance until it has been demonstrated.
Put another way, Karpathy makes a point that -- unlike traditional programming with variable loads -- using the neural net has fixed costs in terms of memory and processing power for a set accuracy target. What he didn't explicitly say is that you can't predict before hand when/where/how those misses will occur or with what impact, just the probability.
bhtooefr
Active Member
That said, there are reports that they're working on an electric platform for the next-gen 500e, so this may well be something to buy them time to meet their 2019 targets without having to offset them with an even greater EV marketshare in 2020/2021?
mutle
Member
Great post and I completely agree with your conclusion. A new narrative that is currently emerging is that S and X sales down are a problem for Tesla, because those cars (which you might remember from the good old "Tesla loses money on every car it makes" times) are what was driving Tesla's profits while Model 3 is sold at a loss.
Note that 70K Tesla EVs is a low estimate, as Q1 was already 22k+ , so I’d guess at minimum 100k for 2019.
Your calculation shows that FCA gives Tesla 5000 euro per sold car.
CyberDutchie
Active Member
I hoped we could give all these bearish analysts a big middle finger today by ending the day way in the green...
Unfortunately in our financial system, they hold the strings
When the FUD flies
time to place buys...
time to place buys...
Fig. 4(b), showing the distribution of disengagements by speed limit of roads, indicates a majority of disengagements occurred on roads with speed limits above 55mph. Also, a direct quote: "...in our dataset, Autopilot is primarily used in fast, free flowing traffic as measured by both fraction of time and distance." But not exclusively, which is important.
They also mention that the distribution of AP sessions has a long tail, with some going for over one hour. So it's not like you are guaranteed to have to intervene within, let's say, 5 mins. or so.
Other than that, I fully agree with your comments.
There's a reason why, a couple of months back, everyone was scratching their heads as to why Tesla didn't submit a report on the number of autonomous driving disengagements to the Californian authorities along with the usual suspects (Uber, Waymo, Apple, etc.), and that reason is that Tesla does not consider Autopilot in its current state to be an autonomous system, but rather a driving aid. Things may change with the introduction of NoA... or not.
The dangerous part in the AP evolution comes when the car can drive without incidents, perfectly within the lane, for hours and hours, and the driver becomes complacent and stops paying attention. I envision some form of confidence index (1-10) or indicator (red to green) that the system constantly feeds back to the driver as to how much guessing is involved in the decision-making. I also expect that, as the average confidence level of the system increases and the drivers relinquish more responsibility to the AP, there will be more (frequent) preventive alerts as certain road conditions etc. cause the confidence level to momentarily drop below a predetermined value. But it all has to be done in a balanced way so as to not become a nuisance and, therefore, fought against or ignored.
The more insane the shorts/bears get with their arguments the more confident I am in being long.
anthonyj
Stonks
Guess Friday rally was just to kill options? Slow and controlled selloff while indices are recovering
Cognitive dissonance is powerful. On top of that I think financial analysts have perverse incentives. Admitting they were wrong is difficult, but stringing their customers along is easy. While that happens they can hope that their analysis comes true and barring that blame outside forces or make it up to clients elsewhere.
Smokey4141
Banned
While I agree 100% with your statement above, I ~really~ just appreciate that you understand legitimate reasons to short companies....
There can be many reasons, of course, but sometimes, it can be just because the company has a flawed product, and it kills people...
Sadly.... :-/
Exactly correct. The value of each ZEV decreases slowly as the numbers increase.
Did you really?
Do they really?
Since the second statement is obviously false, well, I’ll let folks draw their own conclusions.
[edit: Guess I may be too wary of concern trolling. Apologies to @mulder1231 who responded below.
Though I do believe shareholders and customers have much more swing than the trained bears who evidently must perform for their dinner in lieu of doing productive work.]
Last edited:
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Also, since you are american. It is your duty as a short, to short all the German automakers. It's 1. a foreign manufacturer, 2. Diselgate.
Us longs. It is our duty to support American manufacturers. You do your part. We do ours.
Admitting that I have never been an insider selling share in large numbers periodically.
I don't know what the basis of these shares might be.
It seems to me that if my goal is a bit of diversification, I would sell periodically on some sort of schedule on a window of time.
How would I do this in consideration of taxes? If I have prearranged a window of selling, would I not want to sell at the macro market bottom in order to reduce my tax liability a bit? I am just wondering how taxes would influence my selling? Seems it this was true then this selling would compound downward pressure on the price.
Just wondering how this diversification might moderate or amplify price swings?
I don't know what the basis of these shares might be.
It seems to me that if my goal is a bit of diversification, I would sell periodically on some sort of schedule on a window of time.
How would I do this in consideration of taxes? If I have prearranged a window of selling, would I not want to sell at the macro market bottom in order to reduce my tax liability a bit? I am just wondering how taxes would influence my selling? Seems it this was true then this selling would compound downward pressure on the price.
Just wondering how this diversification might moderate or amplify price swings?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
