Comes down to quality of components. It always has, though the 48V architecture will close the difference from what Tesla's OEM supplies and what the after market can offer.
-
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
If this store owner is served by Duke Energy, it’s likely that these chargers and the electrical work was heavily subsidized by Duke. Duke electric charger program
Meanwhile GM is up 9% today on “strong earnings outlook for 2024” 
according to business insider.
according to business insider.
Krugerrand
Meow
All my TV comes from a local plex server, the TV itself just serves as a very high quality OLED dumb display
Nice, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that most people do not have a setup like yours.
My 2023 LG G3 OLED tries to connect more than 20.000 times in a month to servers on the internet that collect data.
But enough, let’s keep things on investing in this thread.
Just wanted to make people aware that TV producing companies sell your data.
Last edited:
lafrisbee
Active Member
I'm getting a big azz TV delivered today Bravia XR90 85 incher. SO of course I youtubed everything about it before I bought it. One of the "Things to do immediately" was to go to the menu and turn off the information stream back to the Mothership.Nice, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that most people do not have a setup like yours.
My 2023 LG G3 OLED tries to connect more than 20.000 times in a month to servers on the internet that collect data.
But enough, let’s keep things on investing in this thread.
Just wanted to make people aware that TV producing companies sell your data.
My final answer...
Machine #1 = AI Server / Dojo.
Machine #2 = Optimus + Other Integrated Automation
Machine #3 = Unboxed Vehicle
Humans train Optimus but is easily replaced by Humans as backup in Gen 3. Low risk. (Automated Burger joint is my example.)
The Factory is not just Equipment, it's also a Process... or Method. If you change the Process (Optimus vs Humans) it's a different Factory due to Factory Production Costs. It's just like any automation that cuts costs, only Optimus will be really really hard to copy. It's a big moat with a transition plan to get there.
$10, anyone.
Machine #1 = AI Server / Dojo.
Machine #2 = Optimus + Other Integrated Automation
Machine #3 = Unboxed Vehicle
Humans train Optimus but is easily replaced by Humans as backup in Gen 3. Low risk. (Automated Burger joint is my example.)
The Factory is not just Equipment, it's also a Process... or Method. If you change the Process (Optimus vs Humans) it's a different Factory due to Factory Production Costs. It's just like any automation that cuts costs, only Optimus will be really really hard to copy. It's a big moat with a transition plan to get there.
$10, anyone.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Loose change.
Is it just me, or do others find it optimal to buy shares at prices that leave the least leftover in the available cash for the account?
For example, this year's ROTH limit is $8K, so I loaded the account with just that. Now, I've set a limit buy at $190.47 which will buy 42 shares with very little left over from that 8K. If the SP doesn't dip down that far, the next increment up is 41 shares at $195.12. I'm very tempted to set the buy for that amount, but buying 42 shares is always kinda kewl.
It bugs me when there is loose change left over in the cash account and it is not invested. I'd rather it be a few dollars rather than almost enough to buy another share, when I can't put anything more into the ROTH for another year.
Okay, that's all I got for now. Back to the regularly scheduled bickering.
Is it just me, or do others find it optimal to buy shares at prices that leave the least leftover in the available cash for the account?
For example, this year's ROTH limit is $8K, so I loaded the account with just that. Now, I've set a limit buy at $190.47 which will buy 42 shares with very little left over from that 8K. If the SP doesn't dip down that far, the next increment up is 41 shares at $195.12. I'm very tempted to set the buy for that amount, but buying 42 shares is always kinda kewl.
It bugs me when there is loose change left over in the cash account and it is not invested. I'd rather it be a few dollars rather than almost enough to buy another share, when I can't put anything more into the ROTH for another year.
Okay, that's all I got for now. Back to the regularly scheduled bickering.
Unboxed unlocks efficiency. The ability to assemble subcomponents independently is the next step in optimization.
Picture the current general assembly line: a full painted chassis rolls down the line in its full volume taking up a car sized chunk of space at each station. The conveyor only moves as fast as the slowest process. Each process has a defined section of line and reducing process time means increasing the number of that station (or people doing that task simultaneously).
Mismatch between the time tasks take is inefficiency. Excess capacity at a station is inefficiency. A new less efficient worker can slow the entire line.
Now, concider a station on the line. Worker takes a part from a box, fasteners from another, and attaches the part. How long did it take to make the part? How long did it take to make the fasteners? We don't know, and in terms of final assembly, we don't care. As long as there are parts ready to go, the line can progress at the speed it takes to assemble.
Doors are sort of like this. After painting and removal, they are assembled on separate lines. However, in typical manufacturing, the chassis needs to get the same doors for paint matching, so the GA line is bound to the door line.
What if any door can go with any car? Well then, you can prebuild as many doors as you want off line and buffer them for assembly. Instead of only going at the rate they exit the paint shop, you can assemble as quickly as possible. With asynchonous specialized lines for each subcomponent, you don't need the constant material movement and can group multiple assemblies together for multiple workers to build.
Rather than one person on each of the four doors, you can have four people building the same type of door; buffer, then build the next type. That shifts production speed from what the slowest worker can do to the combined output of all.
Example times to complete a task for four workers: 35, 40, 45, 50 . Separately, a car can only be built every 50 seconds. Combined, a car can be built every 41.8 seconds (a door every 10.4 seconds times 4 doors). Plus, any delays or problems don't impact the main general assembly line thanks to the buffer. Need to go faster? If you add an even slower worker, you speed things up! A 60 seconds per door fifth worker reduces the time to 35.6 seconds per set of 4 doors. That's a 15% improvement!
Tesla is doing this already with interior on pack construction. Unboxed carries it further by making each chassis quadrant a subcomponent that can be parallelized in minimum floor space.
Then, the only limit on production rate is the speed of the final assembly steps. Just eleven major body sections and the glass. This process reduction allows the line the room to duplicate steps as needed to achieve the desired rate. (Yes, paint shop is a restriction, but that can be scaled).
Subcomponent assembly also lends itself to multiple process/ efficiency optimizations, but that's a ramble for a different time.
Picture the current general assembly line: a full painted chassis rolls down the line in its full volume taking up a car sized chunk of space at each station. The conveyor only moves as fast as the slowest process. Each process has a defined section of line and reducing process time means increasing the number of that station (or people doing that task simultaneously).
Mismatch between the time tasks take is inefficiency. Excess capacity at a station is inefficiency. A new less efficient worker can slow the entire line.
Now, concider a station on the line. Worker takes a part from a box, fasteners from another, and attaches the part. How long did it take to make the part? How long did it take to make the fasteners? We don't know, and in terms of final assembly, we don't care. As long as there are parts ready to go, the line can progress at the speed it takes to assemble.
Doors are sort of like this. After painting and removal, they are assembled on separate lines. However, in typical manufacturing, the chassis needs to get the same doors for paint matching, so the GA line is bound to the door line.
What if any door can go with any car? Well then, you can prebuild as many doors as you want off line and buffer them for assembly. Instead of only going at the rate they exit the paint shop, you can assemble as quickly as possible. With asynchonous specialized lines for each subcomponent, you don't need the constant material movement and can group multiple assemblies together for multiple workers to build.
Rather than one person on each of the four doors, you can have four people building the same type of door; buffer, then build the next type. That shifts production speed from what the slowest worker can do to the combined output of all.
Example times to complete a task for four workers: 35, 40, 45, 50 . Separately, a car can only be built every 50 seconds. Combined, a car can be built every 41.8 seconds (a door every 10.4 seconds times 4 doors). Plus, any delays or problems don't impact the main general assembly line thanks to the buffer. Need to go faster? If you add an even slower worker, you speed things up! A 60 seconds per door fifth worker reduces the time to 35.6 seconds per set of 4 doors. That's a 15% improvement!
Tesla is doing this already with interior on pack construction. Unboxed carries it further by making each chassis quadrant a subcomponent that can be parallelized in minimum floor space.
Then, the only limit on production rate is the speed of the final assembly steps. Just eleven major body sections and the glass. This process reduction allows the line the room to duplicate steps as needed to achieve the desired rate. (Yes, paint shop is a restriction, but that can be scaled).
Subcomponent assembly also lends itself to multiple process/ efficiency optimizations, but that's a ramble for a different time.
lafrisbee
Active Member
hahahahaha . What? Did I hear that right?
"Off Road Adventure Vehicle" is what Elon now calls the Cyber(nota)truck in China.
It is reasoned that he is doing so because... he knows a name is just a name, and is just a marketing tool. Sorta like S3XY?
And he wants to position the truck in the mind of his Chinese buyers as, get this, The Cybernotatruck.
hahahahaha. Now that's funny. He calls this "Cyberturd" a truck when he is shilling it to 'mericans. And then as an "Off-road Adventure Vehicle" to the Chinese.
Tesla goes so far as to separate themselves from the "Cybertruck" name on purpose.
Why? Because he's more than willing to give the Turd a name that will sell it, and recognize that a name isn't in any way shape or form signifying what the vehicle actually is, but just a tool to position it in the market. Which is EXACTLY what I have stated for years. They called it a truck in the USA because they wanted "truck buyers" to consider it and feel more comfortable buying it because after all it clearly says "cyberTurd" right there in the name.
Elon never saw this turd as a truck. He spent zero effort making it a truck. He put all the effort in to making it a big azz van with crappy storage. Vans aren't S3XY though. "Van" doesn't reel in buyers. "Truck." Now TRUCK IS SEXY!
Keep on believing, fanboys. You've let your financial position in the company cloud your ability to see the truth. Be honest. Be honest with yourselves. Quit blathering. Elon never set out to make a real truck. I think what he is being forced to do in China as to the name is closer to the truth. Though the Cyber(nota)truck is not a truck. Don't believe me? call up any Tesla salesman in China and ask them.
Cyber(nota)truck is not a truck except when it suits the sales strategy.
Hmmm, seems like "Cyberbeast" is a step away from Cyberturd too?
"Off Road Adventure Vehicle" is what Elon now calls the Cyber(nota)truck in China.
It is reasoned that he is doing so because... he knows a name is just a name, and is just a marketing tool. Sorta like S3XY?
And he wants to position the truck in the mind of his Chinese buyers as, get this, The Cybernotatruck.
hahahahaha. Now that's funny. He calls this "Cyberturd" a truck when he is shilling it to 'mericans. And then as an "Off-road Adventure Vehicle" to the Chinese.
Tesla goes so far as to separate themselves from the "Cybertruck" name on purpose.
Why? Because he's more than willing to give the Turd a name that will sell it, and recognize that a name isn't in any way shape or form signifying what the vehicle actually is, but just a tool to position it in the market. Which is EXACTLY what I have stated for years. They called it a truck in the USA because they wanted "truck buyers" to consider it and feel more comfortable buying it because after all it clearly says "cyberTurd" right there in the name.
Elon never saw this turd as a truck. He spent zero effort making it a truck. He put all the effort in to making it a big azz van with crappy storage. Vans aren't S3XY though. "Van" doesn't reel in buyers. "Truck." Now TRUCK IS SEXY!
Keep on believing, fanboys. You've let your financial position in the company cloud your ability to see the truth. Be honest. Be honest with yourselves. Quit blathering. Elon never set out to make a real truck. I think what he is being forced to do in China as to the name is closer to the truth. Though the Cyber(nota)truck is not a truck. Don't believe me? call up any Tesla salesman in China and ask them.
Cyber(nota)truck is not a truck except when it suits the sales strategy.
Hmmm, seems like "Cyberbeast" is a step away from Cyberturd too?
The Accountant
Active Member
Not just Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), R&D and SG&A per vehicle also dropped in 2023.
I did some rough math and calculated that R&D and SG&A per vehicle, dropped about $300 per vehicle in 2023.
This does not impact Gross Profit but does help Operating Profit.
For 2024, a drop in these cost per vehicle may be more difficult due to the slower anticipated sales growth (vs 2023).
I expect to see a tightening of the belt in 2024 for SG&A to drive savings . . . not the toilet paper rationing program but some effort.
Would not be surprised to see an Elon internal email stating "we're spending to much money on x,y,z".
I did some rough math and calculated that R&D and SG&A per vehicle, dropped about $300 per vehicle in 2023.
This does not impact Gross Profit but does help Operating Profit.
For 2024, a drop in these cost per vehicle may be more difficult due to the slower anticipated sales growth (vs 2023).
I expect to see a tightening of the belt in 2024 for SG&A to drive savings . . . not the toilet paper rationing program but some effort.
Would not be surprised to see an Elon internal email stating "we're spending to much money on x,y,z".
R&D stayed at 4% of revenue and SG&A stayed at 5% of revenue.
R&D spend is loosely linked to vehicle production. Do you expect it will see decreases in 2024 due to Cybertruck entering production along with the 4680 lines, and increases due to NN investment and unboxed process development? Is Nvidia compute CapEx, but not Dojo? Is the power bill for NN training R&D or SG&A.
The Accountant
Active Member
I believe Nvidia and Dojo are both capex with depreciation going to R&D. Power bill for NN training should be R&D imo.
I expect R&D to have an open checkbook to drive a number of initiatives but SG&A can often have non-value added costs creep in.
In addition to having someone find a few pennies by eliminating a bolt from a car, someone will be looking to save a few pennies by changing the toilet paper from Charmin to the Costco brand.
Last edited:
The Accountant
Active Member
OK - the person in control is ready to let Tesla run !!
(This is very off topic, so only this reply, and if anyone wants to discuss more we can carve out a thread in a another more appropriate area...)
There is much truth to this, and it's not just your smart TV's. I have a separate VLAN for my IOT devices and a set of custom firewall rules and host my own DNS server with ad blocking and IP blackhole filtering. You'd be amazed at the number of connections that are made by even simple "smart" devices like a switch or robot vacuum and to where.
Now, for many devices, they need some connectivity to work. And for services like online media, they are going to have the data associated with your logged-on habits regardless of endpoint device. So, recognizing this I make the conscious decision that I may be OK with them knowing I watch Yellowstone. My concern is much more about potential privacy invasion, either by the vendor or a bad actor... IOT devices aren't exactly known for robust security implementation and firmware updates.
And in addition to the network separation I tend to roll my own for many things like media players , and consider open source firmware (like Tasmota) for others. And I tend to avoid voluntarily placing additional bugs/listening/surveillance devices in my house for the convivence of the black hats.
[
Dude.. step away from the keyboard...
This probably means they covered their short
Or even send those paper 'recall' notices on cheaper paper. /
One thing I know I know very little about: electronics, and one thing I think I do: acoustics -
In my tyro’s ignorance, wherein it seems to me First Principles tells us that the necessity of a heat sink means a circuit has been poorly designed. Why do amplifiers always demonstrate this entropy?
And now, to step on the favorite corns of many, likely to incur the downthumb wrath of just about all other than possibly those who by vocation or avocation - maybe @gene and a handful of others - deeply understand the topic….it is hard to imagine a vessel inherently more ridiculous for fine acoustics than an automobile. Badly shaped (cocoons whose inner cavities’ shapes any self-respecting butterfly would reject), poorly constructed (the reflective and absorptive materials are all in stupefyingly wrong places and shapes), and ghastly external interferences (ever-changing tire, road surface, other vehicles, wind & more) all conspire to make any who believe they have fidelity of sound in their cars the object of….pity.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
