|
Konstantin posted:Juicero, the massively over engineered juicer with the overpriced, pre-juiced packs, is shutting down and issuing refunds. I have to wonder how many thousands of hours and millions of dollars were wasted inventing, building, and distributing this useless product that is now completely nonfunctional. lol "god someone please buy our useless tech so my VCs dont break my legs"
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
not all bonds are equal, and tesla may be able to issue new bonds that would be rated higher than their existing bonds are now because they're secured or the like. anyone who owns an unsecured tesla bond is probably hosed. edit: the likelihood that tesla will not pay your invoice that must be paid within 30 days is also probably relatively high compared to the prospect of them paying back a series of large bonds that will come due as well: even if they're both unsecured debt as long as your invoice will be paid well before the maturity of the bonds it's probably a better bet evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:10 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Aside from the psychotic rent the traffic in the tech hubs is horrendous and it turns out not everybody wants to live in Seattle, LA, San Francisco, or New York City. Granted they've probably also noticed you can hire programmers cheaper if they're in places where the cost of living isn't insane. The current tech hub situation is just not sustainable. everyone wants to they just can't afford to
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:rules that companies can just hold governments hostage. i have been mulling over a federal tax that basically functions as a state minimum tax: we decide that every state should have a certain level of income tax (for simplicity's sake, say a flat 8%, but you'd obviously structure it in a progressive way). so what we do is we just pass a new 8% federal income tax, but have a dollar-for-dollar credit against that tax for state and local income taxes up to 8%. structure similar corporate taxes as well, similar deductability. if a state wants to try to cut taxes below the minimum - offer rich people 0% income tax to get them to come to their state - then the federal government just collects it instead, and suddenly a massive race to the bottom issue is eliminated. it would be politically dicey and also interact oddly with attempts to restore the SALT deduction that republicans eliminated but i think it would be massively good social policy.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:A tech hub is not NYC. buttfuck nowhere, nebraska, in a four-person town there are no jobs except the one guy who got $50 from his dad as startup capital for his app coding business, is the biggest tech hub in
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Insurance is easy. Commercial auto policy for a rental vehicle. Now will you make enough money to justify the additional costs of that policy? no no no you just don't tell your insurer, then when they find out you suddenly don't have insurance for the very bad thing that happened but they still have all your premiums!
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
everyone would like a tax cut for them personally in a vacuum just not necessarily what you have to give up in government services or government debt or whatever the tradeoff is to get one
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Subways are great but there's no sensible way for them to be built properly prior to their needing to exist because you're only going to invest in them once your population has a density to merit it and now you're having to eminent domain and raze everything for miles under a high pop area because urban planning sensibly doesn't require we build cities like Midgaar in FF7. Subways are super cheap to build if the area isn't urbanized because you can do cut and cover methods which are real cheap. It's just that I don't know how many situations we have these days where a city is known to be expanding in a direction making it worth it.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Also at least in New York City (bad example, because our subways now cost like 10x whatever any other major city's subways cost to dig because of, well, massive corruption) most of the cost isn't the tunnel, it's the stations. Cutting a tunnel is pretty easy. Building a big underground station, less so. New NYC subway stations cost a billion dollars, each, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
ahahahaha if tesla's board doesn't have enough D&O insurance their inevitable bankruptcy is going to be quite a shitshow
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Musk had people following him wherever he went, and he had to move his family to a hotel because of death threats. the way this is going to wind up is that tesla's lenders wind up owning tesla and its former stockholders wind up owning spacex and everything else musk personally owns
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Elon thinks he knows things about cars, that's why he's bike shedding Tesla into ruin - that's where he spends his 120 hour weeks. He know he isn't an actual rocket scientist, so he just hires smart people to actually do the stuff SpaceX does. Case in point, SpaceX routinely misses dates he announces, but they deliver crazy poo poo out of a science fiction movie (tail-landing rockets). For Tesla he produces production estimates that are so wrong the SEC is involved and produces only some of the promised produced; what product is produced might trap you in a lithium-fueled inferno. If he was spending 120 hour weeks, month after month, at SpaceX they'd have dropped a booster on a city by now. Elon needs to have all these lunatic promises about Tesla because they're the only thing keeping the company afloat. The company is hilariously in debt, has no ability to issue new debt, and burns cash like its going out of style. Its only hope to keep cash coming in the door is (a) keep up stock prices so they can issue equity and (b) collect pre-order deposits, which are basically unsecured interest-free loans. Mostly (b). The company's only hope is to survive long enough they work out all the kinks in their production lines and can actually earn the profits they're projecting, so that they can start paying down debt. To survive that long, they need new cash. So he has to keep up the crazy poo poo like announcing vaporware to collect more pre-order deposits in the hope that he can get enough cash to survive long enough. Musk's crazy ability to spin is why a company that everyone knows is doomed has such a high stock price which is how they keep the plates spinning. Of course, it's brazen securities fraud at this point and the whole house of cards is going to collapse. It's also why he feels like he's working crazy hours because he's probably stressed out about it day and night because when it collapses he's going to be destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
the space shuttle was a miserable failure when measured against what it was supposed to deliver. but the basic premise is correct, nobody was funding advanced rocketry designs and being able to do something that costs millions of dollars minimum doesn't mean poo poo if nobody's paying to do it
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I meant rockets that land upright. if these rockets are used to send things/people to the moon or mars they're still landing upright on earth after launching the payload to be sent to the moon or mars the rockets themselves do not go to the moon or mars the goal is to reduce the amount of waste in the part where you escape the earth's gravity well
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:No, this is incorrect. The reason SpaceX puts so much focus on landable rockets is because the crew that lands on Mars needs to be able to get back using the same vehicle. This is why conventional payload landing methods such as parachutes won't work. this is like designing the watch they'll use on mars and arguing it's a key advance in getting to mars, it does basically nil to make it easier. your problem is getting enough poo poo out of earth's gravity well in a cost-effective manner. assembling and fueling a rocket on mars is not made meaningfully easier by having the rocket land vertically. also, of course, the problems involved in needing to be precisely correct on an unimaginably long voyage. also the reason that parachutes don't work is because mars has no meaningful atmosphere so something that relies on atmospheric drag doesn't work, not because it's vitally important the rocket land in an upright position
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:No, again, this is incorrect. A rocket that can land upright on Mars is a rocket that can be re-used to get the crew back once they complete their mission. As you say:  you are exhibiting a stunning degree of simply not getting the basic physics problems involved here. here is your basic problem: the only known way to escape a gravity well is throwing poo poo out the back, pushing you forward. what's the problem with that? you have to lift the fuel you're using to get into orbit, so lifting heavier things gets exponentially harder and harder and harder. landing a fully fueled rocket on mars that can fire itself back to earth? that requires launching an entire fully fueled rocket into orbit. that is a ludicrously expensive endevor. let's do the math: a falcon heavy weighs 1,420,788 kg and can launch 16,800 kg to mars (https://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy). i don't know if that includes fuel or not but I'm going to assume it does. so that means you need eighty five falcon heavy launches to get one falcon heavy on mars. of course, you need to assemble the payloads of each of those eighty five falcon heavy launches in orbit. plus, you burn fuel landing, so we're gonna need a bunch more falcon heavy launches. but let's just do the 85: each of those cost $90 million to launch, so you've got a cost of merely $7,701 billion just in launch costs alone (using reusable launches,). zero has been spent so far on building the stuff, which given it needs to work right the first time is super loving expensive. also, i budgeted literally no launch space for the crew, food, stuff on mars, etc. given all this, the idea that the falcon heavy you have launched into space will land on mars in an upright position being a key element to solve is loving moronic. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Aug 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
i should note, before someone goes "$7.7b is cheap at the price!", that's just the cost of lift for the bare minimum of weight leaving the earth, and i have budgeted exactly zero dollars for the creation of our self-assembling interplanetary falcon heavy, which given the cost and time needed to create much simpler poo poo, is going to be loving enormously expensive in comparison. and a tiny, tiny, tiny aspect of that will be how we land it on mars.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:for what purpose is space industry and manufacturing? when we have the capacity to do this, what will we build and for what use? to side-step the cost of lofting stuff from earth into orbit obviously if you think there's nothing interesting to be gained via lofting stuff from earth into orbit beyond satellites then it's pointless but that's a different question than the one he was talking about
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yeah but what are we going to do with the stuff in orbit? yeah but you're asking leading questions at the wrong point. doing neat stuff in space is a cost/benefit analysis. what he's explaining in that post is what you actually need to be able to accomplish to get something like a trip to mars done: you need to build this entire orbital infrastructure from scratch. you don't just need to make a falcon heavy fully able to land. from there, once you actually realize the scale of what's involved, you can then ask yourself "given that this will require a decades-long program of building up orbital infrastructure that costs hundreds of billions, minimum, what can we do if we do that that becomes worth it for us" and you need that because there's lots of answers you can give to "what can you do with orbital manufacturing capabilities" that sound very interesting: but not at the cost and time you're looking at to make them. so you need to actually work out what you'd need in order to get from point A to point B before asking pointed questions about "and what is the use of getting to point B"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Uh, it’s not an article. Do you not know what Quora is? yes, that was exactly what we were discussing, if vertical landing on mars is a necessary and useful step towards colonizing mars. it is not. reusable rockets are useful for cutting the cost of launching things from earth into orbit. they are not, in any sense, meaningfully useful things for the getting to mars and back part in any respect but the launching things into orbit part. that spacex has cut the cost of launching things into space is great, considering it has a direct use: launching satellites and the other stuff we launch into orbit already more cheaply. but claiming it's some key step in a mars mission is nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Kommienzuspadt posted:Lmao where are you going to find those on mars? the ice at the north pole, you break it apart via electrolysis
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I think you need to educate yourself on this topic EW. Start by reading SpaceX’s own website on this topic: i feel like we're talking past each other my main point is the problem you think spacex is solving - landing a rocket on mars vertically - isn't at all an interesting problem or any sort of barrier to a two-way trip to mars. you're solving a trivial problem that doesn't even come close to the actual points of complexity. it's like designing the car for a space elevator, and portraying that as a meaningful step forward for creating a space elevator (the actual biggest problems with a space elevator being finding a material with tensile strength about ten times anything known, and that can deal with the occasional direct lightning strike). it's just not any significant step forward. reusable rockets lowers the cost of lift from earth, which is a useful problem to solve. the problem of landing and taking off again on mars? that's basically trivial, and the mere fact of being able to land a rocket upright probably doesn't even get you anywhere meaningful on that. why not? because rockets are multi-stage, so whatever you land is going to require reassembling into a rocket ready-to-launch, then to refuel it (either from rockets you landed on mars solely dedicated to carrying fuel, or generated from local fuel production) if your idea is that the same sort of rocket you launched from earth to mars is going to be launched back. but that's a loving crazy idea, you're instead going to build some sort of ship in orbit and launch and retrieve a sort of orbiter rather than something intended to launch all the way from mars to earth. you're just not thinking about the issue in anything approaching the correct way and so the things you think are important just aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:SpaceX has so far made the first stage reusable. Their goal is to accomplish the same for the BFR’s second-stage so that the whole thing is reusable. Whether or not it will land on Mars and then relaunch remains to be seen. I think they are exploring some sort of spaceship docking mechanism in parallel. It is not significant progress. It is progress, but in the sense that it reduces lift costs from earth and makes shooting anything into space somewhat cheaper. This is what started this discussion: enraged_camel posted:No, this is incorrect. The reason SpaceX puts so much focus on landable rockets is because the crew that lands on Mars needs to be able to get back using the same vehicle. This is why conventional payload landing methods such as parachutes won't work. Landable rockets so that they land on mars are not that interesting for a mars mission. It's interesting because it means the cost of launches from earth is cheaper. Those launches are still nowhere close to cheap enough to go to mars, but it is cheap enough to undercut their competitors and get more business launching poo poo into low earth orbit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
landing a rocket vertically is one of many ways to create a reusable rocket and it certainly was not beyond imagination that someone would do so in 2013, merely if anyone would see it as worth their while to invest the amount of money needed to do so
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Feinne posted:Blockchain is a great way to get a bunch of money from idiots, you just want to carefully extract the blockchain from any product you deliver. you don't bother delivering a product, you just keep selling new vaporware
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Does Star Citizen use blockchain...??? once they need some more money and spaceship pictures aren't selling anymore, you'll hear that they've started using it
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
TheCoach posted:Why is this thread now turning itself into a pretzel in an attempt to claim SpaceX is not a successful company? spacex appears to be a successful company in the sense that it appears to have achieved cost-reduction in satellite launch that is good enough to undercut its competitors and get a good amount of market share and, if it's lucky, a semi-monopolistic position in the space launch industry. in the sense that it's making great strides towards two-way trips to mars, it's not. but as long as people aren't talking crazytalk about their technology and claiming it's something they're not then yeah, it's pretty successful* *disclaimer: i didn't look at their balance sheet to check if they're profitable, it could be that the level of debt on the company requires doing better than they are, but if that's the case that just means some equity holders are gonna get wiped out because now you've probably got a cashflow-positive business
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Confusion posted:The commercial launch market is estimated to be abut $ 9 billion a year in total. Even if you expect SpaceX to take all of that, that is still not that much. This is what is primarily limiting their valuation, there is simply not a lot potential market to be had. For reference, Apple has a quarterly revenue of $ 60 billion. yeah but getting a monopoly or close to one in a 9b/year market is nothing to sneeze at
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Literally the only intent possible was personal gain. you're forgetting the intent of 'i am high as balls lets tweet'
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:people were saying that musk was talented earlier in this thread, but it appears his only talent is getting his rear end handed to him in court this is part of his brilliant plan, he committed securities fraud so he'll be judgment-proof by the time that lawsuit goes to trial
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A British lawyer friend of mine tells me that the CC list on the Musk legal threat includes Mark Stephens, a famous/infamous UK libel lawyer. She thinks this is probably a hint that they're interested in pursuing a UK libel case, which is notoriously expensive and relatively --compared to US standards-- easy to win. UK libel laws are so hilariously unfriendly to the person being sued a lot of US states will not enforce a UK libel judgment (but will enforce any other kind of lawsuit judgment). Musk is hosed if that's the case.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Yes, yes, that's exactly what the context is. Absolutely and not the usual capitalist hellscape of forcing as much work as possible from your employees at the detriment of their health. the context is it's from 1999
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
yeah you guys are being morons it's a pretty basic concept he's getting at: past success is no guarantee of future success and you need to stay on top of your game. at a time that amazon wasn't any sort of behemoth and it was in the middle of the dot-com boom. the company then nearly died and mostly survived thanks to very fortuitous timing on raising more money. complain all you want about amazon now that it's a monopoly with monopolistic labor practices, but whining about a basic truism of business or really anything competitive is dumb. 199 poopinmymouth posted:You're begging the question that fear is a motivator or that the work it might produce is valuable. Neither of those assumptions are a given. Even if they were, where does one stop? I bet owning the workers outright, company scrip and or whips would also be a "value judgement-less evaluation of how to increase productivity" amazon was a dot-com boom company, it was handing out stock options like candy because at the time stock options were not a cost on your balance sheet. the "fear" he's referencing is not "i'm going to fire you" its "our company will collapse if we lose our edge and we are all out of our jobs and our stock options will be worthless"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Congrats you found the edge case scenario wherein "fear" can be construed in a minor way to be a good thing. you were wrong, you're being a whiny poo poo about it, and you should stop yes, bezos is doing lots of bad things, if you want to make that point perhaps you should discuss them or the bad things he says instead of getting really mad at people who point out that the bad example you picked is transparently bad and blaming them for it. we are doing you a favor, because when you rely on bad examples to support a correct point, you are going to convince people the other way. understanding that you are wrong here is a good thing, literally nobody will care after fifteen minutes that you were wrong on the internet once, and you will have learned something. its much better than doubling down repeatedly on an incorrect point which will not get any more correct and will make it so people remember you being wrong as much as a whole few hours later instead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
today amazon advertised "Third Wave Water Mineral Enhanced Flavor Optimizing Coffee Brewing Water" to me and ive never been so insulted in my life this is apparently a startup product wtf
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
anonumos posted:I wanted to say something about the people of Flint going without clean water so that corporations can clean their machinery but I think you've all heard it before. dont worry this third wave water didnt even have any water in it, you had to supply your own distilled water
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
you're making a number of ill-founded assumptions, but most problematically ignoring the problem space: on a highway, you've got a much narrower problem space and things you need to worry about. in the middle of a fuckin' city you've got all sorts of poo poo. hard poo poo. so the hard parts are once every few hours, great, those hard parts are much simpler to deal with because the basic underlying problem is not a hard one. on a highway you have a very constrained set of variables, a pretty well-defined problem space, and not a lot of unusual things that can happen by virtue of it being a highway. plus you've got much better sight of potential problems. how much trouble can the cars around cause? well, it's a relatively easy physics problem, and it's relatively easy to have full information about all the cars around. dealing with a car being a weirdo at 60 miles an hour is a relatively simple problem compared with a bike being a wierdo at an intersection full of other cars being weirdos and jaywalkers and very little warning of what might go wrong and things popping into and out of vision all the time. any car that can't basically do highways perfectly is going to murder people within a day inside a city
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Unless this chip maker is some farcical construction, binning is usually done to sell parts that have small localized defects. If they could sell that chip at a higher price with those features enabled, they would. Like the 2MB of unusable cache on a downfeatured chip is probably broken anyway. "Exist" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Chip makers first bin their chips to make the various segments, but will frequently then disable higher-binned chips if they need more lower-binned chips.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Bezos owns WaPo, Zuckerberg stole FB from the Winkelvii, I think we passed that bridge a long time ago. the winkelvii were lazy idiots, zuckerberg is a poo poo but so are they
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:only 75k which is not enough to be funny imo you misread it: he said his damages were over $75k, which is a requirement to sue in federal court, but he didn't say how much more than $75k
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2018 20:57
|
|