enslavedrobot

You wake up. The room is spinning very gently round your head. Or at least it would be if you could see it which you can't. It is pitch black.

The advance would come from building systems that can scavenge waste heat from multiple sources instead of just exchanging with outside air.

The model Y introduced the "octovalve" which regulates flow in 13 different configurations to bring the highest quality heat to the cars heat pump.

In a house this might be something like extracting heat from grey water, or even cold tap water, ports for a solar heated loop, fresh air exchange etc.

System integration enabling efficient use of heat transfer is the opportunity

The Tesla heat pump also introduced high volume low cost manufacturing processes like semisolid aluminum casting and friction stir welding. That promise to lower costs.

Another thing that is potentially achievable with a low cost integrated approach is staged heat pumps for hot water tanks.

The possibilities are endless really, at the limit these ideas lead to integrated neighborhood scale heat networks tied to rooftop solar that can replicate district heating strategies.

Lots to be done.

Dude, you were messing with the canbus network. If FSD got into an accident because of some communication failure it could potentially cost the company billions of dollars and get people killed. I would do the same thing.

I have HW3 in Canada and I use FSD everyday. It regularly drives me for my entire commute with no interventions.

The fact that FSD in Europe has been massively delayed is mostly the fault of regulators.

Sad but true.

In this case the utility executives work for public utilities. So capitalism isn't to blame. It's about the incentives of the incumbent energy providers.

It is already cheaper to build the distributed energy solution you describe but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed.

Costs of distributed energy may drop so low in the next 5-10 years that it will no longer be possible to keep things from moving to a micro grid network.

Totally agree that regulations and government interference are the reasons we don't have cheap solar panels.

Those regulations and that interference result from the fact that in a distributed world the current utility bond value drops to zero. Utilities will not build infrastructure that makes their existing infrastructure lose value.

I recently negotiated with a government owned utility on a large solar project. They were 100% against it until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid and wouldn't reduce the amount of power we currently buy from them. Zero interest in distributed solutions on their side. They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro.

I recently specced a 500kW project. Quote was $CA1.67/Watt. But I'm pretty sure they would have bumped that up a lot higher later in the process if we hadn't stopped due to permitting hurdles.

I have some experience with distributed energy generation and have met with senior utility executives many times while trying to implement some grant supported projects through my work.

It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money. They bundle the cost of grid maintenance into their per kWh charges. These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage.

This business model, which has bundled grid maintenance into usage costs means that utilities put up huge roadblocks for distributed generation. They say they love it, but they actually hate it. Utility executives have looked me in the eye and said as much.

It gets worse though, because energy infrastructure is backed by trillions in utility bonds. These "low risk" debt instruments are owned by national and private pension funds of mind boggling size. In order to bring about a distributed energy future the grid (and low pressure nat gas infrastructure) must be reorganized in a manner that is likely to make those bonds worthless. These background factors are definitely in play when you see these bait and switch enthusiastic green energy programs that turn out to be a regulatory quagmire when you dig into them. Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China.

Rooftop solar in Australia is ~60cents per Watt installed.

The viability of direct to cell connectivity at scale is unproven. This is actually the core value of SpaceX in the next 3-5 years.

The other core value generation product will be financial transactions. It is unproven whether X money will be adopted for friction free transactions across national boundaries and whether the company can compete in the financial services sector.

Link is dead.

Novo Nordisk is a century old behemoth of a pharma company. They were the first to commercialize Insulin, after promising the Canadian inventor they would use the profits "for the good if humanity".

The dilution only happens if the stock value skyrockets so this article makes no sense. If you told me you were going to make me a millionaire but in exchange I would have to give you $100k, I would not complain.

The market will tell. My cost basis for Tesla is $16.96 because instead of not renewing my driver's license I bought a bunch of shares in the company in 2018. My decision wasn't based on "believing Elon" it was based on analysis.

The argument that Tesla sucks because they haven't delivered on their promises is kinda illogical. Tesla is closer to a viable robotaxi, and grid scale energy arbitrage business than they ever have been and the share price reflects it.

With a P/E ~250+ Tesla should be an automatic short if your analysis is correct. I have $2 million long in the company. In 2035 it will be >$8 million. In 2035 Waymo will be a footnote.

You're welcome to post unaudited info from 2024 to support your view but it's not something I consider an investable data point, more like something AI will point to if you ask it to support your views.

I own a hw3 Tesla with FSD. It regularly drives me for over an hour without intervention. It is good enough that a single person cannot drive long enough to know if it's improving or not. I can imagine if you're in Europe you might not understand the difference between different ADAS offerings because FSD is not allowed to operate in the EU.

Reasonable people can disagree on Tesla's ability to execute on their plans. I consider the current 10-20% chance reflected in the stock price today to be accurate. I continually re-evaluate this probability. Major events to look out for in the near future are the removal of safety drivers in Austin, the expansion of the robotaxi service to 8 cities, the commissioning of the "unboxed" cyber cab production line, the demo of Optimus V3, FSD V14.3, and the start of the Semi truck manufacturing line. All these milestones are slated to occur in the next 12 months. They will change the risk weighting on the stock one way or the other.

The competition argument is common. The counter point is that Tesla makes their products with greater efficiency. For instance no car company outside of China except Tesla makes a profit on EV sales. If Tesla lost as much money per car as Rivian, a model Y would be under 30k.

Waymo cars are ~$200k each the new robocab will be closer to ~$20k to produce. These business advantages are why the market has some degree of faith that Tesla will out compete companies like waymo in the quest for .30cents per mile costs. Currently Waymo is well above $2per mile and has no clear path to 30cents. Getting to 30 cents is the only way to unlock the trillion dollar opportunity, otherwise you're just recreating Uber.

These are the types of considerations that make Tesla attractive to risk tolerant investors.

Tesla isn't tanking for the same reason Amazon didn't tank when they built AWS. They used a low margin business to nurture one of the greatest businesses in history. Tesla aims to do the same thing with robotaxi, energy, and eventually humanoid robots. You might not think they will succeed but enough people do that the stock price reflects about a 10-20% chance of success.

Just the robotaxi business alone could be worth hundreds of billions a year in avoided insurance costs and save the average Western family about $5k in transportation costs annually. If it works. Most people don't think it will, but most people thought Amazon wouldn't work either.

I should how so, considering the discovery I'm talking about happened in 1921.

Fun fact: Novo Nordisk's first success was selling insulin, which was discovered in Canada and licensed by the Scientists who's discovered it for free to the danish company in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good purposes".

Hopefully this patent SNAFU makes up for 1% of that monumental screw job.

The point of FSD is to take control of the car makes an error (like running a red light). I am a better driver with it on.

The unsupervised "robotaxi" uses a different NN. It doesn't behave the same way as FSD.

So you're saying that existing shareholders should vote to shelve the company's plans to expand into autonomous driving, robotics and energy storage and convert the company into a traditional car company?

I agree. Like I say you have no idea who they talked to or verified the story with. Using the words in a story to justify an opinion, but at the same time saying the story is inaccurate is not logically consistent.

No well trained journalist would ever write a story like this without verifying the information in redundant ways. If they didn't do that then they probably already know it's fake and could literally write anything they wanted to support the narrative.

A) Well trained journalists and editors are not stupid. B) If they write something false they already know it's false 99% of the time and are doing it for other reasons.

In light of A + B it makes no sense to rely on what is written in the article to support the idea that it is false or undersourced.

There could be multiple USSS officials. Also they don't have to tell you if they verified the story through other channels. In fact this is common practice in my experience (source: pillow talk).

How do you know they didn't have multiple confirmations from different anonymous sources? Generally this is the case with high quality journalism (souce: dated a journalist).

I'm very happy with the performance. I use FSD everyday. It is very very good. I only intervene when I want to. In my last generation hardware, that runs on a 144 TOPS computer, it will very occasionally (twice in the last 4 months) do something like start moving a few seconds before a red light turns green. These critical interventions happened all the time a couple of years ago, but since the introduction of V12 software have been all but eliminated.

FSD is literally improving exponentially, looking at it in Europe (where it is blocked by regulators with economic incentives to delay Tesla's progress) is like looking at a fully fueled rocket ship at ignition and complaining that it is not moving.

Go take a ride in a new Model Y with hardware 4 and V13 software in North America and you'll realize how the EU regulators are screwing over European customers.

The cars drive themselves incredibly well in US, Canada, China, and Australia The iEU is blocking deployment to protect their own automotive industry. Reading speed signs is not necessary for the system to function. In Canada my car drives the speed of traffic just fine. If you live in Europe regulatory sludge has robbed you of FSD not Tesla.

The reason is because mobileye patented (US20080137908A1) it and won't let tesla use it.

It is purely a regulatory problem. FSD is not available in Europe due to the slow pace of regulatory approval.

For instance UNECE regulation 79 prevents FSD from using its full capacity to turn the steering wheel.

It's a rat's nest of red tape.

FSD is rigorously tested before release.

The revisions and updates are safety tested on roads for months before they are released. Tesla also has models that are too big to run on existing production hardware that perform better than the release versions in test cars.

Updates are not git pulls and no engineer would ever think that they were.

Are you referring to autopilot or FSD? Phantom braking is a solved problem since the release of V12 FSD. As soon as a vision based car is safer than a human, it's flaws don't matter because it will save lives.

Supervised FSD is already safer than a human.