# Elon Musk: Tesla is making its own chips, they'll be the best in the world (Musk lies)



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

So every other self driving car will have Intel or Nvidia inside, but don't worry, Tesla has "Jim."

Translation: No major chip maker wants to associate themselves with a con man.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon...ng-ai-chips-for-its-self-driving-cars-2017-12


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Dude, seriously, you need to stop with the Musk bashing.

He lands rockets upright on autonomous barges. He co-founded PayPal.

So many firsts, or bests, it's ridiculous to bash him.

I agree, he's over promising on SDCs and is an eternal optimist, but that dude delivers (eventually).


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, seriously, you need to stop with the Musk bashing.
> 
> He lands rockets upright on autonomous barges. He co-founded PayPal.
> 
> ...


Musk has been living off his Paypal success for almost two decades. The only other success you're able to point to is Spacex, and the jury is still out on that. Yes he lands rockets on barges, but that in and of itself is not a marketable product.

Only the first stage is reusable, the second stage is still expendable. It's not clear reusing the first stage is economically viable, depends on how long it takes to refurbish it. Thus far it takes 4 months, Musk says he hopes to get it down to less than a day. Are you seeing a pattern here? The Space Shuttle was a reuseable spacecraft but turned out to be a boondoggle due to long turnaround times.

Tesla is a cluster fudge of epic proportions for investors. Tesla loses tons of money on every car it produces with virtually no competition. It's about to receive massive competition from GM, VW, BMW and many others, including Fisker.

His solar roof is an economic farce. SolarCity is bankrupt and the Hyperloop is obsolete before they even dig the first tunnel.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Musk has been living off his Paypal success for almost two decades. The only other success you're able to point to is Spacex, and the jury is still out on that. Yes he lands rockets on barges, but that in and of itself is not a marketable product.
> 
> Only the first stage is reusable, the second stage is still expendable. It's not clear reusing the first stage is economically viable, depends on how long it takes to refurbish it. Thus far it takes 4 months, Musk says he hopes to get it down to less than a day. Are you seeing a pattern here? The Space Shuttle was a reuseable spacecraft but turned out to be a boondoggle due to long turnaround times.
> 
> ...


False. He lands AND reuses those rockets, just as he said he would while the corporations laughed.

Both, a first for humankind.

And he gets paid well for having done so.

If that alone isn't the litmus test for a great mind and amazing accomplishment, I have no idea what you expect.

You are the critic of one of the greatest innovators of our time. Is it that you don't understand what he has done or you do and oppose it?

He invested ALL of his PayPal money in his dreams, and has accomplished things you will never dream of even being the tiniest part of. He will justifiably go down in history books as a great thinker if he never accomplishes another thing.

It's like you don't understand the difference between a great person behind a leap in innovation vs the profiteer that uses it. Get it straight.

He does things that people say are impossible, over breakfast.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> False. He lands AND reuses those rockets, just as he said he would while the corporations laughed.
> 
> Both, a first for humankind.
> 
> ...


Spacex is the same fraudulent business model as Tesla. 50 percent government subsidies, 50 percent hype.

https://spectator.org/spacexs-careful-image-management-hides-an-ugly-truth/


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Spacex is the same fraudulent business model as Tesla. 50 percent government subsidies, 50 percent hype.
> 
> https://spectator.org/spacexs-careful-image-management-hides-an-ugly-truth/


I'm just surprised you don't get it.

Elon Musk is taking advantage of subsidies he was offered to build massive new industries in the US. The same subsidies many companies use. The result has been 23,000 jobs with at least 9,000 more coming soon. Nevada alone expects $100 billion in benefits in the next 20 years.

The vast majority of SpaceX money comes from contracts, not subsidies. And because he's able to reuse rockets, he's driving down the cost of space travel. We will spend way less using SpaceX over what we've been spending.


----------



## UberIsverycaring (Dec 5, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> I'm just surprised you don't get it.
> 
> Elon Musk is taking advantage of subsidies he was offered to build massive new industries in the US. The same subsidies many companies use. The result has been 23,000 jobs with at least 9,000 more coming soon. Nevada alone expects $100 billion in benefits in the next 20 years.
> 
> The vast majority of SpaceX money comes from contracts, not subsidies. And because he's able to reuse rockets, he's driving down the cost of space travel. We will spend way less using SpaceX over what we've been spending.


What happened to "self driving" car. Have we moved to self launching rockets.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> I'm just surprised you don't get it.
> 
> Elon Musk is taking advantage of subsidies he was offered to build massive new industries in the US. The same subsidies many companies use. The result has been 23,000 jobs with at least 9,000 more coming soon. Nevada alone expects $100 billion in benefits in the next 20 years.
> 
> The vast majority of SpaceX money comes from contracts, not subsidies. And because he's able to reuse rockets, he's driving down the cost of space travel. We will spend way less using SpaceX over what we've been spending.


How would you answer Santos' question regarding Tesla owners reaction to having paid good money for nothing?

Elon Musk is not a man known to keep to his schedules. Any schedule of his is to be seen as the most optimistic scenario. So you have the Tesla CEO saying that he expects to have something it can field as FSD in its own cars, at best, in three years' time. Three years' time. With the 1.25 years already gone, *this is 4.25 years after Tesla started selling its FSD option.* It's also long after many two-year and three-year leases were fully consumed. And beyond the actual straight ownership experience by a good slice of its customers, too. Don't you wonder how these customers will react to having paid good money for nothing?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4131850-tesla-check-full-self-driving-snake-oil-expiration-date

The previous article says SpaceX is twice as expensive as the Space Shuttle that was developed in the seventies. It says Musk is spending his money on lobbyists not science. Pretty damning stuff.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> How would you answer Santos' question regarding Tesla owners reaction to having paid good money for nothing?
> 
> Elon Musk is not a man known to keep to his schedules. Any schedule of his is to be seen as the most optimistic scenario. So you have the Tesla CEO saying that he expects to have something it can field as FSD in its own cars, at best, in three years' time. Three years' time. With the 1.25 years already gone, *this is 4.25 years after Tesla started selling its FSD option.* It's also long after many two-year and three-year leases were fully consumed. And beyond the actual straight ownership experience by a good slice of its customers, too. Don't you wonder how these customers will react to having paid good money for nothing?
> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4131850-tesla-check-full-self-driving-snake-oil-expiration-date
> ...


This is nonsense. Tesla has absolutely NOT sold a single vehicle with self-driving features. They sell them with Driver Assist features. They sold cars with the _necessary equipment_ (according to them, I disagree) to SOMEDAY be self driving. In this very article Musk makes it clear they are not there yet and won't be for years just as he has all along the way.

You're playing the same game as jocker12 - selected hit articles, selective editing, sweep the truth under the rug.

SpaceX is not going to be more expensive than the shuttle, that's just ridiculous, and we both know you know that. Are you seriously comparing the R&D costs of something this difficult to a developed system space shuttle launch? What article?

Stop playing games.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> This is nonsense. Tesla has absolutely NOT sold a single vehicle with self-driving features. They sell them with Driver Assist features. They sold cars with the _necessary equipment_ (according to them, I disagree) to SOMEDAY be self driving. In this very article Musk makes it clear they are not there yet and won't be for years just as he has all along the way.
> 
> You're playing the same game as jocker12 - selected hit articles, selective editing, sweep the truth under the rug.
> 
> ...



Out of the more than 90,000 vehicles with Autopilot 2.0 hardware in Tesla's global fleet, the owners of about 77% of them have purchased 'Enhanced Autopilot' and ~40% have purchased 'Fully Self-Driving Capability', sources familiar with the matter told Electrek.

It means that over 35,000 Tesla vehicle owners have purchased the $3,000 'Fully Self-Driving Capability', which is simply not yet released and Tesla doesn't say when it plans to release it.
https://electrek.co/2017/10/10/tesla-autopilot-owners-bought-fully-self-driving-capability/


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UberIsverycaring said:


> What happened to "self driving" car. Have we moved to self launching rockets.


Self _landing_ reusable rockets on self driving barges.

Tomato wants to rant about Musk, which is fine, Musk has his faults, as long as he uses facts and not Jocker techniques.



tomatopaste said:


> Out of the more than 90,000 vehicles with Autopilot 2.0 hardware in Tesla's global fleet, the owners of about 77% of them have purchased 'Enhanced Autopilot' and ~40% have purchased 'Fully Self-Driving Capability', sources familiar with the matter told Electrek.
> 
> It means that over 35,000 Tesla vehicle owners have purchased the $3,000 'Fully Self-Driving Capability', which is simply not yet released and Tesla doesn't say when it plans to release it.
> https://electrek.co/2017/10/10/tesla-autopilot-owners-bought-fully-self-driving-capability/


Yes, and the car owners knew all of that going in and elected to purchase those packages with no set release date for the software. Musk was very clear as has been Tesla. So?


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Self _landing_ reusable rockets on self driving barges.
> 
> Tomato wants to rant about Musk, which is fine, Musk has his faults, as long as he uses facts and not Jocker techniques.


Just because you can do something doesn't mean it should be done. I'm sure someone could invent a re-usable milk container, but if it's twice as expensive as throwing them away, what's the point? Other than a shiny object.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> Just because you can do something doesn't mean it should be done. I'm sure someone could invent a re-usable milk container, but if it's twice as expensive as throwing them away, what's the point? Other than a shiny object.


Your assertion that reusing a first stage rocket is more expensive than throwing it away is illogical and not at all sensible.

The best estimates right now that I'm aware, from third party sources, are that Musk will be able to launch a Falcon 9 for $37M to $48M, including a 40% profit for musk. That's with 15 uses. Musk says the rocket can be used "dozens" of times which, if proven true, would drive that price down even further.

In contrast, a Arianespace launch, removing subsidies, costs $100M. With subsidies it costs $60M.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> So every other self driving car will have Intel or Nvidia inside, but don't worry, Tesla has "Jim."
> 
> Translation: No major chip maker wants to associate themselves with a con man.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/elon...ng-ai-chips-for-its-self-driving-cars-2017-12


It takes a certain type of silica fired with certain chemicals to produce chips.
I built the Mitsubishi Polysilicon Conductor plant in Mobile Alabama in 1996 working as an Electrician.

Where does Musk propose production ?
China ?

I prefer Dauphin Island to China.

Michoud New Orleans did excellent work with the space shuttles.
Reusable craft.
Retired.


tomatopaste said:


> Just because you can do something doesn't mean it should be done. I'm sure someone could invent a re-usable milk container, but if it's twice as expensive as throwing them away, what's the point? Other than a shiny object.


Whats the long term cost of a disposables society?
The area surrounding the earth in space already looks like a floating junk yard !
In just 60 years !

N.A.S.A. website is free.
Just as N.O.A.A. is.

Have you SEEN what is in space ?
Nothing rots as in the Oceans.



RamzFanz said:


> False. He lands AND reuses those rockets, just as he said he would while the corporations laughed.
> 
> Both, a first for humankind.
> 
> ...


He needs to develop storage batteries Of capacity for Industrial levels.
Running a power plant at 85% capacity 24/7 and STORING non peak power is equal to doubling the number of plants !

I want to see capacity of electrical storage increased for decreased prices.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Your assertion that reusing a first stage rocket is more expensive than throwing it away is illogical and not at all sensible.
> 
> The best estimates right now that I'm aware, from third party sources, are that Musk will be able to launch a Falcon 9 for $37M to $48M, including a 40% profit for musk. That's with 15 uses. Musk says the rocket can be used "dozens" of times which, if proven true, would drive that price down even further.
> 
> In contrast, a Arianespace launch, removing subsidies, costs $100M. With subsidies it costs $60M.


It depends on who you believe. I believe zero coming from Elon.

SpaceX provides a limited space lift capability with a spotty record at a "bargain" price - but that comes with significant downsides and costs. SpaceX has lost two payloads worth hundreds of millions of dollars - some of which are taxpayer dollars - in just the past two years. The reason is poor design and a corporate culture of cutting corners and demanding that government accept the results. 
One of the reasons the Space Shuttle was abandoned was the expense of operating it. But SpaceX is more expensive than Space Shuttle and doesn't come close to meeting its performance records.
https://spectator.org/spacexs-careful-image-management-hides-an-ugly-truth/

With Tesla likely ending the year north of $10 billion in total debt, Musk even had to open up deposits for the new Roadster and Semi 2-3 years or more before their launches just to bring in some much needed funds.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/41...742ced7cf81c87cfa278b30618b10d5&uprof=82&dr=1

The end result of this misguided process is that the Company has now spent uneconomical sums of money on Model 3 and continues to do so with the pretense of chasing a goal which was never a possibility in the first place. However, this misguided mission has proven to be expensive. With the Company losing about half a billion a quarter, it will take billion(s) of extra investments for Model 3 to reach volume production. These incremental costs necessary to navigate the "production hell" means that the Model 3 will never be profitable.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/41...9fe9efddede711172a08a1e09a49da9&uprof=82&dr=1


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

tomatopaste said:


> It depends on who you believe. I believe zero coming from Elon.
> 
> SpaceX provides a limited space lift capability with a spotty record at a "bargain" price - but that comes with significant downsides and costs. SpaceX has lost two payloads worth hundreds of millions of dollars - some of which are taxpayer dollars - in just the past two years. The reason is poor design and a corporate culture of cutting corners and demanding that government accept the results.
> One of the reasons the Space Shuttle was abandoned was the expense of operating it. But SpaceX is more expensive than Space Shuttle and doesn't come close to meeting its performance records.
> ...


Sounds like the Uber Business Model

When product unviable

Prmote! Promote ! Promote !

Until you are out of a job.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Sounds like the Uber Business Model
> 
> When product unviable
> 
> ...


Tesla and Uber have the same business model: hype and fraud


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

RamzFanz said:


> Dude, seriously, you need to stop with the Musk bashing.
> 
> He lands rockets upright on autonomous barges. He co-founded PayPal.
> 
> ...


No kidding!!



tomatopaste said:


> It depends on who you believe. I believe zero coming from Elon.
> 
> 
> SpaceX provides a limited space lift capability with a spotty record at a "bargain" price - but that comes with significant downsides and costs. SpaceX has lost two payloads worth hundreds of millions of dollars - some of which are taxpayer dollars - in just the past two years. The reason is poor design and a corporate culture of cutting corners and demanding that government accept the results.
> ...


That explains it. You're not nearly as smart as I thought.


----------

