I strongly believe some people are inherently good at chess but no one is inherently bad. If you're interested enough to comment this, play one 5-minute game a day on lichess. Start with the lowest setting but do it every day, maybe in the morning with coffee. You might not win a single game the first year but slowly you'll improve. When you're winning more, move up a level. Sometimes do the puzzles. Give it five years and you'll be able to beat almost anyone you meet and, better yet, you'll know the answer to your question based on your own experience.
You know what? I'll take you up on the offer. I have a complimentary chess dot com account with my revolut ultra, might as well use it. Every day a toilet break chess and see you in five years!
I think by virtue of being the kind of person who comes to Hacker News, and perhaps socializes with similar people, you are not "sufficiently" exposed to people who are simply incapable of logical thinking, or are unwilling to apply their minds in that way.
The technology is jaw-dropping, the engineering staggering, and this thread -- it's just embarrassing. I've been on HN since the beginning and I don't even recognize it anymore.
"RCS thrusters in a car" is one of a few technologies on the human tech tree with 0 ROI. If the US can't ship a $25,000 EV like Musk promised, then China won the export market. The only point of this Mr. Beast-style showmanship is to bail out Tesla with a SpaceX merger. IMO that's a waste of Tesla's time, money and energy.
Maybe you feel differently. I don't really care though.
The Wright Brothers wanted to build something cool. They didn't care it was only 12 seconds and they didn't scheme over potential ROI.
A car drives a vertical wall, launches itself off, and catches itself with thrusters. That's awesome.
If you read my remarks again, you would realize I'm embarrassed for you. I'm embarrassed for a forum that should be about curiosity and wonder, where can we go, and what can the future be -- not earnings per share.
Unfortunately, it's impossible for us to verify what parts of the demo are 'realistic'. Did they use assisting technologies (e.g. a wire rig)? Is anything repeatable, or are the components one-and-done?
The software industry has taught me how sneaky a demo can be ;). That's without considering Tesla's history of bonkers claims and sus demos (anyone else remember the bulletproof windows?).
Edit: Removed a rhetorical question about the demo. Apparently there was a live audience, so they couldn't have just made a very tiny Roadster haha.
I'd really like to understand how you think a wire rig could support the flipping in mid air and stuff; that would be some great engineering. How do you imagine that would work?
Pinned at the front and back on a rotating axis down the centreline of the car, with the "car" itself being mostly lightweight composite with zero internal components other than the necessary air tanks and a large RC car motor to get it to roll up to the jump point? For the support structure, just put some dark matte scaffolding in the background so it stays out of shot and hidden by the light show. It wouldn't be too far off from standard wirework for movie stunts, and the compressed air could still do enough work to fool the eye. It's not like people have an innate sense for what a gas thruster powered flying car should look like anyway.
I don’t think that would work here where you have to support a 170 degree y axis rotation and then a 180 degree x axis rotation with a wall on one side. I think it would work for the jumping the semi demo though!
I wouldn't say the bulletproof window demo was "sus" - that was just a Windows-crashing-during-the-demo screwup. They didn't fake the stress test on stage :)
Which may have been tailored for the demo - for example, put a very small battery pack in there, so that the weight is much lower than the weight of the actual car would be - it only needs to drive a few meters, doesn't it?
Based on the record of Musk & co straight out LYING in such events (remember Solarcity?), I am very confident in saying that a large portion of what they demonstrated they have not actually solved how to fit in a real production car.
Tesla did it to themselves. They have a long history of claiming stuff and never actually delivering. Or delivering a washed down version that never makes commercial difference.
True, but that doesn't dismiss the things that did deliver that nobody else has or could.
It's amazing how on HN, a place where hackers, dreamers, builders come together to talk can't say one positive thing from some of these actual delivered engineering feats. It's bias happening real-time.
It is incredible engineering and also a enormous waste of effort by a car company that seems to have stopped caring about releasing cars for the mass market.
This is a tech demo until it actually ships. Actual engineering requires things like cost effectiveness, reliability, and reparability that are yet to be seen.
It’s not like this is the first time that Elon has overpromised and underdelivered.
"The Second Industrial Revolution sparked a wave of new products and industrial processes, fueling an optimistic Roaring Twenties. But did excitement about technological progress contribute to an over accumulation of investment, despite a slowdown in new product development and satiated demand during the 1920s? And, was this over investment worsened by continuous process innovation? Could these factors have played a role in triggering the Great Depression? ... The answer is yes."
There is plenty of American food that isn't "inauthentic slop inundated with additives and high fructose corn syrup", it's just happening in houses and in kitchens and not in chain restaurants or pre-made in grocery stores.
Dear God, why would anyone - more than once - downvote this?
Its simply one of the best novels ever written. I hope it was downvoted by a clanker, not a real person.
http://s0c1.al is an encrypted swiss-hosted messaging app that fits that mentality.
reply