TR Forums

Glorious wrote:

Dude, Uber lost nearly 2 billion dollars last year. They lost a 1 billion just in 1Q2019.

...and this was without the overhead of purchasing/leasing/maintaining their own fleet of vehicles!

"Buy" is now tied with "cheese". My work here is done.

JBI wrote:

...and this was without the overhead of purchasing/leasing/maintaining their own fleet of vehicles!

...with non-unionized "independent contractor" drivers who are very vocal about how they're getting unfairly shafted by Uber. (The SEC filing for their recent IPO LITERALLY SAYS: "we expect driver dissatisfaction will generally increase")

Public transit involves employees, and almost always unions, and when they've very vocal about how they're getting shafted they get to foment against the elected municipal government that employs them.

But sure, right after we raze all "legacy city planning" we'll start liquidating "legacy city governance" next.

Glorious wrote:

Let me get this straight, public transportation which is at absolute best is barely break-even because it's really intended as a public good, needs to adopt the Uber model in order to lower costs.

Dude, Uber lost nearly 2 billion dollars last year. They lost a 1 billion just in 1Q2019.

These companies could double prices and still be attractive in the City for many people, but I think they're trying to establish their presence and bleed the competition out right now to corner the market. It's ridiculous how much more convenient they are compared to driving in the busier population centers of the nation.

They're also dabbling in bike and scooter rentals lately, that's also a popular option in some busy corners, especially near campuses and beaches etc.

As for cities adopting the uber model, this is already happening in some cities as more future looking planners test the waters, they're replacing

"A Texas city just replaced its entire bus system with a rideshare service"

https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/innova ... re-service

"How Cities are Integrating Rideshare and Public Transportation"

https://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/ ... tation-978

Some of these big city ideas may seem foreign and pointless to small town folk, judging the outside world by what little happens on their street. But in reality allot of activity is happening in this area that's going to drastically alter the transportation landscape, it may not make sense in less populated areas today, but who knows what elements eventually trickle down into rural life, for example the switch from the horse carriage.

There's allot of efficiency and power to be gained from connectivity, knowing how many people in a given location are going to what destinations at what times, and feeding that into a central system that manages the traffic flow, kinda turns a city into a living thing, and the riders into pulses moving across its nervous system. It's quite exciting for those around silicon valley that follow or even live through that evolving system.

wierdo wrote:

There's allot of efficiency and power to be gained from connectivity, knowing how many people in a given location are going to what destinations at what times, and feeding that into a central system that manages the traffic flow, kinda turns a city into a living thing, and the riders into pulses moving across its nervous system. It's quite exciting for those around silicon valley that follow or even live through that evolving system.

I'll bet you think Sally is an instruction manual, not a cautionary tale.

Why are you in such a hurry to ditch the personal freedom of one's own car for the collectivist fantasy of centrally-controlled transportation?

Why ditch? Possibly because it COULD be better? Lots of ifs there and I don't personally want transport to be privatized.

I've tried to ignore it, but "a lot" is two words.

wierdo wrote:

These companies could double prices and still be attractive in the City for many people, but I think they're trying to establish their presence and bleed the competition out right now to corner the market. It's ridiculous how much more convenient they are compared to driving in the busier population centers of the nation.

Uber is a ten year old company. It is valued at something like 75 billion dollars. It has over 100 million users. It commands 70% of its market (Lyft has the 30% and is valued at 18 billion) .

What's ridiculous is this assertion that they are either establishing their presence or "bleeding out" their competition. They have none, it's a duopoly, and its ubiquitous.

wierdo wrote:

As for cities adopting the uber model, this is already happening in some cities as more future looking planners test the waters, they're replacing

Arlington, TX literally doesn't have a public transit system. So what was being replaced, exactly?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... t-informed

https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/e ... 85349.html

wierdo wrote:

Some of these big city ideas may seem foreign to small town folk, but allot of activity is happening in this area that's going to drastically alter the transportation landscape, it may not make sense in less populated areas today, but who knows what elements eventually trickle down into rural life, for example the switch from the horse carriage.

Yeah, no, I grew up in Philadelphia dude. I went to SCHOOL on public transit.

You really need to knock this embarrassing schtick off.

wierdo wrote:

There's allot of efficiency and power to be gained from connectivity, knowing how many people in a given location are going to what destinations at what times, and feeding that into a central system that manages the traffic flow, kinda turns a city into a living thing, and the riders into pulses moving across its nervous system. It's quite exciting for those around silicon valley that follow or even live through that evolving system.

You're selling snake-oil. The DFW area is already an unusual situation, and Arlington is an outlier beyond even that.

You are touting how a single municipality, already infamous for decades of utterly refusing to fund or support public transit altogether, caved to pressure and partnered with some Uber wannabe with literally just a dozen vans.

You know, so they could pretend they were actually doing something about it.

Captain Ned wrote:

Why are you in such a hurry to ditch the personal freedom of one's own car for the collectivist fantasy of centrally-controlled transportation?

People will always be afraid of the next new technology, this is not a new thing. Hell, they were afraid of cars. But progress happens regardless and society evolves and grows more efficient in tackling bigger and bigger challenges.

Now if I'm imagining your vision of a dystopian age where cars are all self-driven, moving bumper to bumper at highway speeds, something scary like that... why do you think people will stop driving cars just because our system of transportation becomes more effective? People still ride horses today.

If you like legacy cars in 20 years then I imagine they'll have many tracks, away from regular traffic, where you can enjoy your hobby without endangering others.

Our current system causes five million accidents a year, leading to two million injuries and thirty thousand fatalities. If the new system results in less traffic congestion and safer roads, why is that something to be afraid of?

You can still maintain today's illusion of freedom in many ways, I'm sure our oligarchy will still be here for us, bread and circus on hand, come retirement.

SSK wrote:

Why ditch? Possibly because it COULD be better? Lots of ifs there and I don't personally want transport to be privatized.

Well, what do you think wierdo is talking about?

One of my points is that public transportation is meant to be a public good. It's supposed to provide people in an area affordable mobility, irrespective of their overall economic situation.

It's not supposed to be private, with stockholders. It's supposed to be public, with stakeholders, and that's how virtually all of the various transit authorities are constituted.

SEPTA, in Philadelphia, has a board of various politicians and regional representatives and it is expressly intended to benefit the residents of the area.

It's not just that wierdo is touting arguably exploitative for-profit companies like Uber as a superior model, but that he is specifically pointing to municipalities (Arlington) that contracted with for-profit startups as a gambit against the embarrassment of their complete failure to provide that public good.

We could pretend that maybe he means that regular non-profit transit authorities should somehow strip all the "profit" out of uber (not that, you know, it actually has any...), but that's belied by how he deliberately chosen an example where a city decided to just contract (and who knows what, if anything, they paid) with a for-profit startup!

wierdo wrote:

People will always be afraid of the next new technology, this is not a new thing. Hell, they were afraid of cars. But progress happens regardless and society evolves and grows more efficient in tackling bigger and bigger challenges.

No, I'm afraid of dishonest people like you who talk about "EV" in one breath and then switch to "self-driving" in the next one.

That's huckster stuff.

Here are three utterly different things:

1. Electric vehicles.
2. Self-driving
3. Different mass-transit ridership concepts.

You bounce between them as if you are suggesting some sort of uniformity, but in actuality they have literally no overlap.

This is flim-flam stuff.

Glorious wrote:

SEPTA, in Philadelphia, has a board of various politicians and regional representatives and it is expressly intended to benefit the residents of the area.

If you know SEPTA, you'll appreciate this oldie:
Q: What's big and orange and sleeps three?
A: A PENDOT truck

Glorious wrote:

wierdo wrote:

People will always be afraid of the next new technology, this is not a new thing. Hell, they were afraid of cars. But progress happens regardless and society evolves and grows more efficient in tackling bigger and bigger challenges.

No, I'm afraid of dishonest people like you who talk about "EV" in one breath and then switch to "self-driving" in the next one.

I really don't care what a technophobe trusts or distrusts, your approval is not important, and your fears are your problem not mine. Yes I'm a tech geek and proud of it.

I'm just here to share my excitement with other fellow techies that enjoy this kind of progress in the field. CPUs and Video cards was getting boring until this year with all the Ryzen and Navi news, so EVs and self driving developments helped fill that gap, simple as that.

Full speed ahead into the future!

"Tesla Model 3 Vs Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio: Future Vs Present"
https://insideevs.com/news/355818/video ... lfa-romeo/

"Electric buses are close to inevitable"
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/proterr ... nevitable/

wierdo wrote:

I really don't care what a technophobe trusts or distrusts, your approval is not important, and your living in fear is your problem not mine. Yes I'm a tech geek and proud of it.

I'm a prolific poster on technological enthusiast site who works in automation and has more computers in his house than he has direct relatives.

I've worked with industrial robots and production lines, have you?

wierdo wrote:

I'm just here to share my excitement with other fellow techies that enjoy this kind of progress in the field. CPUs and Video cards was getting boring until this year with all the Ryzen and Navi news, so EVs and self driving developments helped fill that gap, simple as that.

Again, you are promoting three disparate things as if they have some sort of uniformity. Whenever anyone discusses facts or limitations for any individual element, you just shift to discussing another one, as if it's just another aspect of the same thing.

It isn't.

The three things have no inherent relationship.

EDIT: And, much more troubling, they are increasingly used the same way you use them: to shore criticism of each other instead of actually advancing each individual thing itself.

If you truthfully cared about those three things, you'd be a little more concerned about that troubling and growing tendency...

wierdo wrote:

Full speed ahead into the future!

There's a difference between "the future" and "free-form fantasy". I'm not scared of technology and I don't oppose "progress". I'm also not ignorant because I disagree with you and demonstrate that your numbers and examples are flimsy falsehoods, but thanks for endlessly saying otherwise.

I'm just tired, very tired, of people pretending that make-believe is science & technology, and espousing "tomorrowland" fairytales as if we haven't learned anything since before my parents were born.

wierdo wrote:

I really don't care what a technophobe trusts or distrusts, your approval is not important, and your fears are your problem not mine. Yes I'm a tech geek and proud of it.

I'm proud to be a tech geek, but within reason. My personal issue with the whole Tesla cult is that... well... their cult-like behavior. They don't discuss problems or how to solve them. Pointing out any problem that should be solved is met with deflection. They would rather ignore problems, rather than solve them. There's a lot of latent issues at play here. There's consumerism (especially the philosophy of defining oneself by the items that they buy). There's futurism. There's a bit of investing involved. Etc. etc. But Elon Musk, and he is very good at this, has combined his message to take advantage of all of these philosophies and draw people into his cult.

Healthy groups, when confronted with a problem, will work to solve the problem. Mr. Musk's cult ignores it instead. That's all I'm trying to point out.

Anyway, maybe it would help if I shared more of my personal cult story too? When I was younger, I would go door-to-door, selling the best $700 knives in the market (arguably, the only $700 knives on the market). It was ultimately a multi-level marketing scheme. I worked very hard to sell as many knives as I could, believing that I was improving myself and my sales abilities. In reality, I was destroying my social network one-person at a time, but it took me a few months before I discovered that. Selling knives by leveraging your social network is a bad idea, you gotta keep personal-and-business life separate.

Now, I know you aren't making money from Tesla, so its a different story in your case. But its not like Vector Marketing sales-reps are in it for the money (I mean... its a MLM scheme. Very few people actually do this with a profit. I understood this and worked hard anyway). The typical sales-rep is in it to sell the best damn knife in the world. You're sold on the idea that its the best knife, and that you should do everything in your power to improve the lives of your friends by selling them this knife.

See a similarity? Tesla wants you to believe that you are saving the world by evangelizing their gospel: the Gospel of electric vehicles (and ever since the recent tech talk a few weeks ago: of self-driving cars as well). Just as I was improving the world by selling knives, Elon Musk pulls people in to sell Teslas on their behalf.

Its hard to explain. You have to experience "leaving" a cult to really understand. That's the experience I'm trying to give you weirdo, mostly because I see myself in a similar position you were in. There's no need to work so hard to sell Tesla to everyone in your social circle. Fortunately, once you "wake up" from a cult, you hold onto that experience for the rest of your life, and are able to defend yourself against future attacks against your psychology.

The head of every marketing department would love to create a cult following for their products. Fortunately only a few of them seem to actually get it done.

dragontamer5788 wrote:

Anyway, maybe it would help if I shared more of my personal cult story too? When I was younger, I would go door-to-door, selling the best $700 knives in the market (arguably, the only $700 knives on the market). It was ultimately a multi-level marketing scheme. I worked very hard to sell as many knives as I could, believing that I was improving myself and my sales abilities. In reality, I was destroying my social network one-person at a time, but it took me a few months before I discovered that. Selling knives by leveraging your social network is a bad idea, you gotta keep personal-and-business life separate.

At the risk of going WAAAYY off topic (but heck, we're already pretty far from home relative to the OP here, so whatever...), I could maybe see a full set of high-end chef's knives costing that much. Does the average non-professional cook (or even the typical professional chef) need that? Nope. But it's not completely crazy.

Glorious wrote:

I'm a prolific poster on technological enthusiast site who works in automation and has more computers in his house than he has direct relatives.

I've worked with industrial robots and production lines, have you?

It sounds to me like you're close to retirement.

There's a difference between "the future" and "free-form fantasy". I'm not scared of technology and I don't oppose "progress". I'm also not ignorant because I disagree with you and demonstrate that your numbers and examples are flimsy falsehoods, but thanks for endlessly saying otherwise.

I can respect your view on things even if I disagree with them, and will engage and provide the data and reading material that I use to form my own counter views.

It's all good until you think your opinion, life philosophy and irrational fears should be adopted by others and hurl petty insults. Fearing the pace or direction of progress in these areas is not a good excuse, I'm going to say it like I see it.

A couple years from now you can feel free to revisit where Tesla's at, and if China's the winner in this race to future dominance then you can gloat, fair?

wierdo wrote:

Glorious wrote:

I'm a prolific poster on technological enthusiast site who works in automation and has more computers in his house than he has direct relatives.

I've worked with industrial robots and production lines, have you?

It sounds to me like you're close to retirement.

He's very good at that. IIRC in reality he's actually younger than many of the other people posting in this thread by quite a wide margin (my kids' age, more or less).

wierdo wrote:

It sounds to me like you're close to retirement.

Nope.

But it's pretty hilarious to see you doubling down on the absurd idea that the guy who earlier this week literally asked Neal Stephenson, in person, if he invented bitcoin is some sort of luddite.

wierdo wrote:

I can respect your view on things even if I disagree with them, and will engage and provide the data and reading material that I use to form my own counter views.

You don't respect my view at all, you've chronically accused me of having a phobia. Saying that the guy you're arguing with is mentally ill isn't remotely "respectful"

Nor have you engaged with anything I've read said at all, you google a non-response at best, but either way the ultimate end is you simply ignoring everything I've said and then belittling/accusing me of ignorance.

wierdo wrote:

It's all good until you think your opinion, life philosophy and irrational fears should be adopted by others and hurl petty insults. Fearing the pace or direction of progress in these areas is not a good excuse, I'm going to say it like I see it.

Yeah, this is totally what's going on here.

Right.

wierdo wrote:

A couple years from now you can feel free to revisit where Tesla's at, and if China's the winner in this race to future dominance then you can gloat, fair?

Complete non sequitor, why would I gloat? When have I ever argued that "China will win" or did anything remotely similar?

What on earth are you babbling about?

JBI wrote:

He's very good at that. IIRC in reality he's actually younger than many of the other people posting in this thread by quite a wide margin (my kids' age, more or less).

I obviously don't know exactly, but at best I think I'm only a few years older than your oldest, yeah.

Glorious wrote:

Well, what do you think wierdo is talking about?

I don't remember ever agreeing with him. I said that there could potentially be improvements for many by having a public system. I also said I didn't want a private transport. What's got you confused?

SSK wrote:

I don't remember ever agreeing with him. I said that there could potentially be improvements for many by having a public system. I also said I didn't want a private transport. What's got you confused?

I don't know what got me confused, but yeah, you're right: I'm confused.

Sorry, I kinda latched onto what you said to explain why what wierdo said is wrong.

Lost the thread, my mistake.

JBI wrote:

He's very good at that.

Hey, you know, what's that about? (in the vein of "hey, just how badly can we derail this, anyway?")

Why does everyone always think I'm like 75? I'm not even half that!

The cruel irony is, if Tesla does go down in a flaming pile, it will be partly because of people like our Muskovite friend here, who contributes to the bubble around Musk which is (so far) impenetrable to constructive criticiism.

Musk is incredible at startups and business development. He's terrible at day-to-day CxO stuff. About once every quarter or two he says or does something off-the-cuff that nearly tanks one of his companies. So far SpaceX is doing alright after narrowly dodging a loss of DoD security clearance to the five-leaf clover, but Tesla Motors is burning through a huge pile of money and betting the farm on a vehicle that can't fund the company's ongoing operating costs, while The Boring Company had produced a novelty propane torch and a section of paved straw which, unsurprising to anyone, is navigable by an SAE Level 2+ prototype with dedicated right-of-way.

Realistically, SpaceX needs Musks' full-time attention, Tesla needs a properly business-minded CEO and COO to rescue a decreasing pile of money and valuable tech assets from the inevitable forces of nature, and The Boring Company needs to dig itself down about six feet or so and then stay there.

dragontamer5788 wrote:

I'm proud to be a tech geek, but within reason. My personal issue with the whole Tesla cult is that... well... their cult-like behavior. They don't discuss problems or how to solve them. Pointing out any problem that should be solved is met with deflection. They would rather ignore problems, rather than solve them. There's a lot of latent issues at play here. There's consumerism (especially the philosophy of defining oneself by the items that they buy). There's futurism. There's a bit of investing involved. Etc. etc. But Elon Musk, and he is very good at this, has combined his message to take advantage of all of these philosophies and draw people into his cult.

I think the problem is you paint all Tesla enthusiasts with a broad paintbrush. Yes there are certainly cult-like fans, same with any technology: Intel vs AMD, PC vs Mac, whatever.

But not everyone is like that unless you approach them with a set stereotype in mind, that would probably invite unnecessary conflict where one didn't exist, and polarize opinions on the matter as both sides retreat to defensive positions instead of learn and improve.

Tesla as a company does have some issues, but mainstream media's sensationalism does the public a disservice in this area, when everything is noise, you're stuck being misinformed in either direction as you can't separate the true from the false.

As far as performance and features I think it's either a matter of opinions and tastes or a question of educating the public to something new and unfamiliar, this is nothing unusual with any new product, especially when software is involved.

Tesla isn't the only interesting company out there doing this sort of thing, you can also check out Bollinger and Rivian, those are two promising new startups that I hope will find the funding to succeed in their projects, they have offerings that I find quite exciting as well.

It's more about being hostile to the lazy efforts of legacy companies that's heavy on marketing fluff and light on actual products. They just recently started coming out with something halfway decent - Bolt, new Leaf, E-Tron, etc - thanks to external pressure, and yet they invest their lobbying dollars into slowing adoption at the same time.

So yeah I'm big on these new startups shaking things up and fighting the good fight, and I think China is getting ready to mass produce these products and flood the markets with them in a few years, if companies like Tesla carry the torch or stimulate a change in legacy auto's product culture that would save them from themselves, then I can rest easy knowing our kids will still have good jobs in the field and cleaner air to breath.

wierdo wrote:

dragontamer5788 wrote:

I'm proud to be a tech geek, but within reason. My personal issue with the whole Tesla cult is that... well... their cult-like behavior. They don't discuss problems or how to solve them. Pointing out any problem that should be solved is met with deflection. They would rather ignore problems, rather than solve them. There's a lot of latent issues at play here. There's consumerism (especially the philosophy of defining oneself by the items that they buy). There's futurism. There's a bit of investing involved. Etc. etc. But Elon Musk, and he is very good at this, has combined his message to take advantage of all of these philosophies and draw people into his cult.

I think the problem is you paint all Tesla enthusiasts with a broad paintbrush.

I've had many discussions with Tesla enthusiasts. I think most of them can agree with me that profits are a miss right now, but they do understand the importance of some stats: profit margins, revenue hits, etc. etc. You're not like them, you've "drunk the kool aid" as some would say.

I've tried to point this out earlier in the thread. Usually when I talk to Tesla enthusiasts / Tesla Bulls, they respond to my previous arguments with "But Tesla will likely make 500,000 Cars in 2020". Or perhaps a similar argument. And I find that... respectable. I disagree with it, but there's nothing I can do about arguing about the future. We just gotta sit back and wait and see what happens.

You can be a Tesla enthusiast without being a cult member. Just recognize that profits are a problem. There's nothing wrong with liking the car. I mean, I don't like the car, but that's my own tastes, and has nothing to do with my argument against Tesla.

Tesla as a company does have some issues, but mainstream media's sensationalism does the public a disservice in this area, when everything is noise, you're stuck being misinformed in either direction as you can't separate the true from the false.

The arguments in this thread are my own. I composed my own excel spreadsheet, performed my own analysis, and pointed at 10k-statements on my own. I dislike opinions of others (especially CNBC with their incredibly shoddy analysis). I worked hard to create my own opinion on this subject, independent of other people's analysis.

And I think my argument style, throughout this thread, stands on its own. Your argument, in contrast, is full of links to other websites. You are relying upon others to create the arguments on your behalf. Please, recognize that what you're doing is cult-like. If you truly own the argument, if you truly want to be informed of your own volition, then try building up your own argument from scratch, without assistance.

I can help you. https://ir.tesla.com/index.php/sec-filings. The SEC Filings from Tesla's website contains a huge amount of information that you can use as a basis of your own argument. Unlike other websites, the raw, unfiltered truth, shines through in these (hard to read) documents. But that's why I tackle the documents directly. I prefer to remain unbaised from the general media.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=122089&start=180#p1407856

You can help yourself by learning to read Tesla's official finance sheets. There's a lot to learn about the company in there. Stop relying upon the hype-sphere. Actually look at the real, solid, information that exists. Otherwise, you'll be tainted by your own filter-bubble. If you want, I can pretend to be a Tesla bull for a post or two, to show you how to be a Tesla Enthusiast without actually being cult-like.

Glorious wrote:

You don't respect my view at all, you've chronically accused me of having a phobia. Saying that the guy you're arguing with is mentally ill isn't remotely "respectful"

What sane person says they're fearing somebody because of their opinion on a new car company? If you can't handle getting called out for it, then don't start throwing stones out of that glass house, old man.

wierdo wrote:

What sane person says they're fearing somebody because of their opinion on a new car company? If you can't handle getting called out for it, then don't start throwing stones out of that glass house, old man.

Ok, so you're trolling, then?

Because you've been independently told I'm not an old man, and I didn't say I was afraid of you.

EDIT: Oh, wait, I said rhetorically I was afraid of dishonest people like you who switch arguments. You know, after you falsely said I was "afraid of technology".

Is that seriously what you mean?

dragontamer5788 wrote:

I've had many discussions with Tesla enthusiasts. I think most of them can agree with me that profits are a miss right now, but they do understand the importance of some stats: profit margins, revenue hits, etc. etc. You're not like them, you've "drunk the kool aid" as some would say.

I'm not talking about a quarter's profit here, I'm talking about the company's long-term prospects. I'm saying a single quarter of profits is not an indication of problems as some subset of Wallstreet hacks spin on media.

I'm saying investing in growth is not a bad strategy. There are risks, but the execution is overall not bad, even if it spooks short term investors, it's a startup, no surprises there, and the auto market is not an easy thing for a new company to penetrate.

If Tesla's vehicles were revenue negative then that would be a problem, but they're the number one highest grossing vehicle product right now. It may not be enough to keep them in the black this quarter due to overseas shipping overhead, but you can see the last couple quarters prior looked pretty promising, right after they started figuring out their production problems.

So not it's not that this quarter was a profit or loss that's the issue, it's the insinuation that the business should change gears, I think it's too early for them to exit growth phase, they should wait until they have a factory in Europe at least.

Glorious wrote:

Because you've been independently told I'm not an old man, and I didn't say I was afraid of you.

From my end I think you are the one that's dishonest, so by extension I don't believe your age nor occupation claims. This goes both ways when you start insulting others.