vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I think it is the debate here. The functional use case is that it takes seconds to plug in. Even if you added all the time I've spent ""on-the-go"" charging, which is very little, then the amount of time I've spent charging has been less than the amount of time I would have spent filling up on gas over the course of several years. Also, like I said in the comment, this is not just ""MY"" use case. You can ask other drivers about it, the vast majority will say they prefer charging now that they have experienced it. Look at Volts - most of their miles are done on electricity, and there are a lot of Volt drivers who use the term ""gas anxiety"" because they don't want to fill up with gas so they do everything they can not to let the engine turn on at all. And for another car example, Tesla installed a battery swapper which made the filling-up experience more ""gas-like,"" in that it took &lt;5 minutes and cost about $50. Nobody used it. They instead plugged in at the free supercharger nearby, got out to stretch their legs, went to eat lunch, and came back to their cars and drove off. Heck, I've heard plenty of Tesla owners lament that their car charged *too quickly*, which meant they had to get up in the middle of lunch to go unplug it. Very few people will regularly ""need"" to charge en-route in something like a Bolt, Model 3 or Model S. Those very few people who routinely drive 300 miles in a day one-way, or roundtrip with very little stop at their destination with which they could charge, are a niche customer who does not need to be catered to at this moment in time. However, and I get this all the time, everyone on reddit thinks they're part of that niche. On a website full of people who talk about spending all their day on reddit, somehow these people get the time to spend driving 400 miles a day. Not saying you're doing that right now, but lots of people do it here.
"While I agree with the overarching narrative regarding the car industry, self driving cars, and how people will use transportation in the future, I deeply disagree with his timeframe and reject that his clearly large city centric thinking will effect all parts of the country and all parts of the world. There is no way this happens as quickly as he says it will for the following reasons: On his claim that electric cars will be all anyone will buy: 1. We lack the road or electrical grid infrastructure to support tens of millions of electric vehicles throughout the US, this will take far more than just 5-10 years, especially in the more rural parts of the country. 2. We lack the production capacity to create the batteries for 17 million of yearly sales of automobiles for the few years between 2021-2025 when everyone is presumably just buying only electric self driving cars. 3. The used market for combustion engine cars will ""tank"" so strongly that it will actually create demand for people to buy combustion cars, as the costs will now outweigh the savings of buying a new car with lower running costs, thus pushing his timeline out into the future by several years. 4. Cars, even electric cars, are much more complicated, durable, expensive, and prone to damage and accidents than most software and disposable consumer electronics he cites in his examples. Of course Nokia went from 50% of the market to 5% over one product cycle! People completely replaced their phones every 2-3 years back then! Wireless carriers built a system where even if your phone worked, you had little to no reason not to lock in another contract and get the next best phone. Of course people would dump their Nokia bricks for an iPhone, it was the next best thing. Cars have a much longer life cycle, and inefficient older models will be around for decades in some cases because they will be a sunk cost for those who bought them. On his claim that no one will own a car anymore and everyone will ride share: 1. How does one decide to take a road trip somewhere? What about people who travel for a living or as an integral part of doing their job? 2. I personally think a ride sharing transportation network represents a limiting of freedom.
Well, it certainly has the first-mover advantage. I imagine Tesla has become pretty efficient in its production of electric cars and they are continuously driving down costs. As production expands, Tesla is gaining economies of scale, allowing it to produce electric vehicles for much cheaper than any other company might do with its patents. I think it would be difficult for new entrants to achieve the same quality and cost that Tesla does, even if they are using Tesla's patents.   Furthermore, Tesla and electric vehicles have become synonymous. If someone is going to buy an electric car, the first thing they are going to think of is Tesla. Owning a Tesla has become (and will likely continue to be) a bit of a status symbol, and because of that, I think they will probably always have the dominant position in the electric vehicle industry, and will likely be able to charge premium prices that competitors might not be able to justify. Similar to the way that despite the ubiquity of smartphones, Apple has a dominant position and an ability to charge premium prices. (Largely because Apple kind of drove the smartphone revolution)   Tesla wants the electric car market to grow as quickly as possible. The more money automobile manufacturers pour into electric cars, the less they will spend on cheaper, fossil-fuel vehicles. Secondly, as more companies start producing electric vehicles, more people will end up owning one, hence more infrastructure will be built to support those people, making owning an electric car a lot easier, hence increasing the value of a Tesla. Making electric cars accessible to the mainstream public is Tesla's ultimate goal, because they know they will likely always have the lion's share of that industry.
Ah, yes. The report that makes some very strange assumptions, such as the following:  * People drive less than 100 miles per week (5,170 miles per year, or just over 14 miles a day).  * People are moving at all times while driving and at a constant speed. * The factories making the batteries are entirely powered by fossil fuels.  * Your non-electric vehicle had zero emissions during its own production. * You don't have a lead-acid battery in your non-electric vehicle. * Your non-electric vehicle took no emissions to reach the lot where you bought it.  With a narrow-enough constraint, a person can make anything appear true. However, once those constraints are themselves examined, the silliness of it becomes quite clear.
I suspect this is done at least in part in response to [this review by Edmunds](http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/wrap-up.html) and a [similar one by Consumer Reports](http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/08/consumer-reports-tesla-model-s-has-more-than-its-share-of-problems/index.htm) where they describe the number of problems Tesla had over 1 year of ownership.  Esp in the Edmunds review, if you scroll down part way down the article, you'll see the number of powertrain part replacements that were done; it's quite substantial.
Well not 100% the sooner production is stopped the better (which is what China is doing) it's WORSE for the environment to replace still running gasoline cars with EVs due to the carbon footprint of production. Stop production ASAP, run gas cars until they die natural deaths, and ban them when almost no one has a running one.
I thought the same thing, but someone recently made me aware that, even using coal, the generation and subsequent use of electricity in a tesla has a smaller carbon footprint per mile than a traditional gasoline car. Blew my mind!
I'm waiting to get a tesla. My reason is that I hate getting and paying for gas. I use a lot of it for my commute. Would I like to save the world? Yes. But I want an electric car for no other reason than to stop pulling into a gas station.
This puts them in a sort of paralysis and they can't do anything about it. *Someone* is going to take bites out of their market share, and it's either going to be them or it's going to be Tesla. &gt; In the real world there is specialization. Some companies design cars, others design batteries. Have you seriously never heard of vertical integration? My previous paragraph talks about the perils of the sort of specialization you're talking about. Because automakers have spun off all their expertise, they are not nimble enough to compete in a changing market. Vertical integration is not the answer to everything, but it is a very good way to make your company nimble and keep costs down if you can do it. That's what Tesla is aiming for. It's not a new concept...and the fact that you've never heard of it ""confirms my view that you don't understand the issues."" &gt; THE ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES wouldn't do it. But you think Musk knows more about batteries than the actual battery companies. Tesla has particular expertise about automotive batteries, yes. They do their own battery research and have their own IP and patents (which they've opened) related to it. And they have a partner, Panasonic, who is the leader in batteries. Did you know that? Did you know that Panasonic is partnering in the battery factory? Because it sounds like you didn't, which ""confirms my view that you don't understand the issues."" Panasonic is partnering in their battery factory, and will be responsible for much of the production. And Panasonic has been making quite a tidy profit on their battery manufacturing for several years thanks to Tesla. &gt;the ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES declined to spend massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars Literally in the same exact call that this article is about, on the same day, Panasonic and Tesla announced that Panasonic is spending massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars.
While I think that electric cars are the future I also think it will not be Telsa making the money. Once all the big players with their massive production capacity are fully in the market, I think Tesla will be blown away.   Edit: Typo 2nd edit: I am short Tesla
&gt;I want to start a company but it looks like the the market is way over crowded with useless products or could I still make it work if the product is actually useful?  The market for a product or service does not depend on the number of existing products or services currently being sold. There are over a billion cars in the world today. Should that have deterred Tesla from introducing a novel type of car?   &gt;I really I don't want to rely on on marketing and advertising? Just product value and usefulness  The most useful product in the world will sell zero units if no one knows about it.
Even if Tesla ends up breaking even or taking a small loss on their cars, they will still end up in the black selling batteries. Tesla wants people to believe they're a car company, and people have fallen for it. They are not though; they're a battery company. They will be making loads selling their batteries, not only to auto makers, but though Solar city as well.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/26/15872468/tesla-gm-ford-valuation-justifying-disruption) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; It&amp;#039;s a narrative that Tesla founder Elon Musk has cultivated well as he has jumped from one underdog-disruption scenario to the next, ditching various subplots as they become more and more implausible: Electric cars! Batteries! Solar! Self-driving cars! Recently he tweeted that Tesla is about to unveil a new semi and pickups.  &gt; So is Tesla the next Honda, or the next Webvan? If one believes that Tesla is worth more than Ford or GM, one better have a decent theory of how Tesla is making current capabilities obsolete, why incumbents cannot replicate these capabilities, and whether Tesla will earn good margins in a post-Detroit world.  &gt; Tesla may demonstrate success in their EV vertical and then license their OS with self-driving capabilities - a Windows-Intel-type strategy that implies Tesla software in every automobile on the market.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6k3efu/why_tesla_is_overhyped_and_overvalued/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~154797 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Tesla**^#1 **car**^#2 **capability**^#3 **bet**^#4 **Disruption**^#5"
- There is massive demand for Teslas, as is evidenced by the extremely thin used market, the year-plus-long wait list, and all that in the face of extremely customer-unfriendly sales/distribution and almost zero marketing... That is, people are waiting up in 18-month long lines to buy cars that they can't inspect at a local dealership, have no way to test-drive, and often have never even seen in person, and they are putting down cash deposits to do so, in amounts that could buy some pretty nice sports cars for the deposit alone. Moreover, it's not like Tesla buyers are going to change their minds and get a Chevy Volt or Honda Insight instead (although they might get both). This is any startups wet-dream: - You have a product that is not only already in production, but that you have been shipping for several years-- you *know* the tooling, manufacturing, support, and delivery costs, because you have actually been *doing it* for *years.* - You not only have no issues whatsoever with regards to building a customer-base, you already have paying customers and genuine orders *already booked* through 2014, more than you can keep up with. - You have a product with massive demand and almost non-existent price-pressure. You've got orders booked over a year out at asking price with virtually zero marketing or advertising, most customers buying site-unseen purely based on concept and reputation, and your customers are paying super-premium prices with no direct competitor alternative. This is a goldmine. This is the kind of thing that business-school textbooks tell you never happens. Rational-market theory says it's impossible to have a big-ticket product offering with essentially unlimited demand and zero meaningful competition. Moreover, this is happening in an environment where the business is not only receiving direct gov't subsidies, but where borrowing costs are close to negative in real dollars. A going concern with booked orders and guaranteed revenue through 2014 should, if anything, be *borrowing from banks to buy back equity*, not selling equity to raise capital. If Tesla needs to raise capital, then something is seriously wrong with the underlying business.
The first 10-30k may have some issues. Nissan had frame / battery problems with the first 30k Leaf's.This is the reason that the first 10k T3 will be going to employees. Second 10k to loyal Model S / X owners and third 10k to buyers in CA near the factory.  I have a friend that had one of the first Model X,  it took almost a year to work out all of the issues, but everything is working now and they are happy!
But you think Musk knows more about batteries than the actual battery companies. &gt; Tesla has particular expertise about automotive batteries, yes. They do their own battery research and have their own IP and patents (which they've opened) related to it. And they have a partner, Panasonic, who is the leader in batteries. Did you know that? Did you know that Panasonic is partnering in the battery factory? Because it sounds like you didn't, which ""confirms my view that you don't understand the issues."" &gt; Panasonic is partnering in their battery factory, and will be responsible for much of the production. And Panasonic has been making quite a tidy profit on their battery manufacturing for several years thanks to Tesla. They are committing massive capital to old technology. That's a loser play, but it will help the industry as a whole and those that are going to come in with the next generation of batteries while TSLA is stuck with massive capital in lithium ion. &gt; &gt; Literally in the same exact call that this article is about, on the same day, Panasonic and Tesla announced that Panasonic is spending massive capital for a plant to supply TSLA cars. Not only have they increased production at their own plant tremendously over the course of the last few years, they will end up spending a billion dollars on the Tesla plant.So no, you really, really don't understand it. ""We haven't decided yet on the specifics of when or how much investment we will be making,"" Panasonic Chief Financial Officer Hideaki Kawai said at a news conference in Tokyo. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/panasonic-to-help-build-tesla-battery-plant-2014-07-31-84851841) It seems Panasonic is not as optimistic about the plant as you are. So the question is, why bother the big fanfare about a plant when all it is is a rough idea? To keep the sucks putting up money."
Or is there another reason they sell at this time which, has a calculated advantage to them, but which is less than idea statistically for me, the purchaser? It doesn't take a PhD to realize it's bad for business if your model revolves around renting out 1970s rustbuckets that run the risk of breaking down and leaving customers stranded in inopportune or dangerous places. Uhaul in particular has a terrible reputation for this, and it shows in the condition of their trucks-- relics of the 90s, all of them. Uber won't let you drive for them if your car is older than 7-10 years for the same reasons. Yes, as a car ages, the chance of having to make repairs increases. Rental agencies are in the business of renting vehicles, not running service centers and garages. It's more aligned with their core business model to just dispose of cars once they've squeezed the most reliable years out of them and amortize the vehicles' depreciation across the tax deductions and fleet pricing they enjoy when buying new ones. This gets them out of the service game and lets them focus on their core business-- procurement and rental. There's no calculated ""time-to-lemon"" that they're trying to skirt here; they're just trying to avoid having to make any repairs whatsoever."
I agree with the previous comments one thing that got brought up a while back when I was looking into purchasing a Prius was the battery replacement, someone once told me it was very expensive in the event it failed and needed to be changed, I'm not talking about the 12 volt but the big nickel metal hydride one. Another thing to factor is the gas that you will save, normally the Prius get double the gas milage of that of civic or a corolla but unless you drive a bunch of miles per day you really don't see the pay off.  Also if you can pull a CarFax on the car, the 20 dollar investment is worth it because you can find out if it was in an accident or if it's a lemon! I once bought a bmw and didn't do a CarFax and later ended up finding out that the car had more owners than a taxi had customers.  Also just like said above 200k car vs 100k doest always mean the 100k is better off, especially if the previous owner never services it well. Get the car checkout before you make the deal to buy.
I think what he was confused about is why EV is used if a company like Apple is going to have an EV much less than its market cap. His point was, if EV was the only way to measure the value of a firm, a company that hordes cash like APPL should be more valuable than its EV indicates.   I think he failed to take into account that hording cash means the company isn't reinvesting in itself like it should, and therefore, at the time of a transaction, when the cash exits the balance sheet, you get significantly less in terms of remaining value.   I can definitely see why people might get confused on EV though.
"Correct, but then you have to think of all the people that have to buy new transmissions, new engines, new suspension, etc.  Production of those also require manufacturing. I'm not saying holding on too a car is bad, but it's not a black and white ""running a car until it disintegrates is better"" situation. And why not get a Tesla and then run THAT into the ground? You don't have to buy it right away, but your next car could be a Tesla or other electric vehicle."
Honestly I'm not sure what to expect since I've never been. The other guys have told me that they spent all day, everyday there and didn't see it all.  I'd honestly like to find something within electric vehicles like ev chargers, 3D Printing, some new  type of mobile phone integration.   I have a desire to go real big when finding potential opportunities, but I'm also expecting to mostly find smaller/less scalable opportunities that will allow us to build a portfolio of businesses.
We'll see. &gt; You mean, like an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY? The ones putting up the money? They haven't put up any money. &gt; So, since your point was so reliant on ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES having expertise and specialization and so on, does that mean you're now dropping that point, because you realized your bullshit wouldn't fly, and moving on to another sort of bullshit until one of them sticks? Because if you'd like to fix your ignorance, I can help you with that. But if you wouldn't, as seems to be the case, it seems somewhat like a waste of time to continue trying to explain basic concepts to you. They haven't put up a penny. Here is what people who know about batteries are saying: http://www.thestreet.com/story/12781526/1/williams-shorting-teslas-batteries.html"
"While I'm sure Reddit will declare Tesla awesome for doing this (because you know ""Tesla!!""), it's actually pretty fucked up that all they have to do is hit a button and everyone gets 30-40 miles more range from the same hardware.  They used the same batteries cross many cars but artificially limited the range on some to grab another $9k on the sale.  Yeah I know bunches of other corporations do it, but Reddit is usually pretty pissed about that type of business model and for good reason.  We should pissed at Tesla here too.  Wtf."
read diffusion of innovation, it will do you some good. Tesla is taking an incredibly intelligent and intuitive approach to restructuring the entire automotive industry (from production to sales). your views seem very short sighted where as tesla management is looking very long term.
Tesla can't be valued, and its earning this year are completely irrelevant.  Will it ever sell 1M+ annual vehicles?  Even if one day 10M annual electric vehicles will be made, there is no guarantee that Tesla will maintain a majority share.  No guarantee that Tesla will acquire or prevent the patents that allows them the share.  I can appreciate respect for Musk though.  Betting for or against Tesla is like betting on the 2017 Kentucky Derby today based seeing a few promising newborn fawns.
&gt; Price range compared to the Model 3?  Benz: Starting at: $39,900*MSRP   vs   Tesla: while starting at only $35,000 before incentives.     &gt; gigafactorywise  Not sure on what Benz is planning. I haven't looked at how they plan on handling the manufacturing side in any detail.  &gt; The bigger question is when they will realize that they can't maintain just selling cars to the end user.  No one has a firm handle on that yet. Its all vapor still. Anyone that claims otherwise is bullshitting you. There are a LOT of complications yet unanswered.