7 ms·

> Musk's incentive pay has a 10 million full self-driving subscription. Step 1: > discontinu[e] the basic lane keep + adaptive speed cruise control Step 2: R

> Musk's incentive pay has a 10 million full self-driving subscription. Step 1: > discontinu[e] the basic lane keep + adaptive speed cruise control Step 2: Redefine "Full Self-Driving" to be those things. Charge 50 cents per month subscription or whatever. Step 3: Get 10 million subscribers. Step 4: 100 billion dollar payout! (Number pulled out of my butt)

TacoCommander 9mo ago
Parallel steps: Step 1: SpaceX IPO Step 2: Trillion dollar payout Step 3: Nothing matters any more
- Nevermark 9mo ago
  SpaceX is rockets, now global satellite internet, ... To credibly harness off-world resources at any scale, there are going to need to be automated refueling depots and many kinds of robotic automation for resource extraction. With the Asteroid Belt looking amazing for quantity and accessibility of resources. That would also completely remove the lid on how many $ trillions of market cap SpaceX could accrue. So I find it ironic that Tesla is moving away from cars as product, and still talking up humanoid robots, which as yet are not a product, and as research don't seem to have an edge on anyone. ALSO: Data centers on the moon make more sense than data centers in orbit. Obviously where latency isn't king, but compute is. Simple cooling sinks, dense (low local latency) expansion, dense (efficient) maintenance, etc.
  - worik 9mo ago
    > With the Asteroid Belt looking amazing for quantity and accessibility of resources. Watch out universe, here we come! What could possibly go wrong, mining asteroids? An awful lot, when we start messing with orbital dynamics in the asteroid belt. But Space X can externalise those risks. It will probably be centuries before disturbed orbits start to threaten Earth... So who cares? Me.
    - boogrpants 9mo ago
      [dead]
    - ianburrell 9mo ago
      I always wonder what resources from asteroid belt do we need on Earth. We have plenty of iron and aluminum for building things. Lithium and rare earths aren't available in asteroids. Gold isn't worth grinding up whole asteroid. Asteroid resources would be useful for building in space, but that is getting a step ahead.
      - mrguyorama 9mo ago
        Asteroid mining in our current economy is about pointing at the market price of an extremely low supply element that isn't that high demand in the first place and forgetting to talk about what a supply glut does to price. Everyone is laboring under this subtle belief that space industry will be just like scifi speculated, but scifi stories always treated space like the ocean, with lots of interplanetary trade and easy travel and no consideration of energy (because it makes for good storytelling) but the actual energy budgeting and consideration of gravity wells is the exact opposite of ocean transport. Global trade works at all because buoyancy and fluid physics make ocean vessels stupidly efficient at transport. Moving any matter through space is stupidly inefficient. The tyranny of the rocket equation constrains everything.
    - slumberlust 9mo ago
      The expanse and A City on Mars covers the risk pretty well.
  - woah 9mo ago
    > Simple cooling sinks What? You're in a huge vacuum thermos
  - godelski 9mo ago
    > Simple cooling sinks, dense I think you need to go back to physics class. You seem to not even understand the very basics of heat transfer. You need more than "cold". I'll give you a hint, the problem is the same problem as "in space no one can hear you scream." I'll also mention that the moon isn't very cold, except on the dark side. In the moon's day the temperature is 120C and at night -130C. The same side of the moon always faces us and the moon isn't always full. I'll let you figure out the rest.
    - NetMageSCW 9mo ago
      Well, there are the permanently dark crater bottoms that might contain water ice and are definitely very cold. Turn the water ice into thermal transfer fluid and drill (The Boring Company) cooling loops underneath and the try to heat sink into the very cold ground. I’m sure you could run the Data Center for months before you exceed the radiative heat dispersal available to the ground.
      - godelski 9mo ago
        You don't need to but in a dark crater to use the ground as your sink. Also you need to consider that the thermal conductivity of lunar regolith is quite low. I'm not saying it's not possible but I am saying there's a lot of technical challenges that make naïve approaches not so simple. The reason doing things in space is hard is not just the difficulty of getting things up into space. It's that all the things you take for granted just don't work. Oversimplification is a footgun. Or more accurately, in this case a foot taser (if you know why you've found one of the major challenges of doing anything on the moon and mars)
    - Nevermark 9mo ago
      > You seem to not even understand the very basics of heat transfer. Basic physics: The moon is very cold in surface shadows and below the surface. It is an enormous pre-chilled heat sink. The surface is also the support structure for any scale of radiative cooling with the same heat physics as orbit, but much better for larger and enhanced radiative engineering. For example, heat pumps can centralize waste heat energy. Higher heat density vastly increases radiative efficiency. • Permanent shadow: 40-60 ˚K, -230 to 210 ˚C • In polar shadow: 25-30 ˚K, -250 to -245 ˚C • Under 1 meter of surface, equatorial: 250 ˚K, -23 ˚C • Under 1 meter of surface, polar: 200-220 ˚K, -75 to -50 ˚C Many advantages beyond unlimited heat sink/radiative area: all compute in one place, i.e no size limit, so low inter-center latencies, no orbit safety negotiations or periodic orbit re-lifts required, able to update entire data center in a single trip, easier maintenance and stability in gravity on a surface, solar panels can be distributed over distance limiting total space debris risk, different component lifetimes don't result in wasted components, ... Only downsides are a higher Earth-Datacenter latency, lunar dust resistant design, and a need to be at a pole for all-month solar power. Nuclear power, or nuclear + solar, would allow any site. Note that shade can be created anywhere on the surface via reflective shielding, and power can be used to heat, in order to stabilize temperatures in a desired band. Buried installations can use insulation for even greater temperature control.
  - falcor84 9mo ago
    If cooling is such an important factor compared to everything else, I would assume we should see data centers in Antarctica long before we see them on the Moon.
    - Nevermark 9mo ago
      Thanks. That is a very good point. Or Greenland, to be topical.
  - habinero 9mo ago
    Elon's not doing any of that and never will lol. You're vastly underestimating the cost and complexity of doing anything in space. Sure, an asteroid theoretically has eighty quadrillion dollars of whatever, but you're going to spend ninety bajillion getting anything there and back, plus you'd ...well, crater the market even if you did. We're not hurting for heat sinks. There's the entire ocean to work with, for one.
- falcor84 9mo ago
  >Nothing matters any more Something tells me that Musk isn't the sort of person who'd ever be satisfied. It's easier for me to imagine him like Mr. House from Fallout, trying to control everything over centuries.
  - plorkyeran 9mo ago
    This is true of every billionaire who is still actively trying to get more money. If you're not satisfied at that point, there's no number where you will be.
- lamontcg 9mo ago
  I'd like to get a look at SpaceX financials. I'm pretty sure their margins are thinner than you might expect, Starlink is less profitable than you might expect (but quite necessary to fund the launch cadence of Falcon 9) and that Starship blowing up over and over has been funded entirely by the US taxpayer and that they'd be insolvent without that.
  - NetMageSCW 9mo ago
    You would be entirely wrong. For example, NASA has evaluated SpaceX financial status as part of awarding COTS and HLS contracts and determined it reasonable. Also, SpaceX isn’t getting a significant fraction of the costs of Starship development from the HLS contract.
tzs 9mo ago
Most articles I've seen said that adaptive cruise control is not being moved to subscription.
ben_w 9mo ago
Step 5: Buy Hasbro Step 6: Count sales of Transformer toy Optimus Prime units towards "Sell 1 million Optimus robots" etc.

TacoCommander 9mo ago

Parallel steps: Step 1: SpaceX IPO Step 2: Trillion dollar payout Step 3: Nothing matters any more

Nevermark 9mo ago
SpaceX is rockets, now global satellite internet, ... To credibly harness off-world resources at any scale, there are going to need to be automated refueling depots and many kinds of robotic automation for resource extraction. With the Asteroid Belt looking amazing for quantity and accessibility of resources. That would also completely remove the lid on how many $ trillions of market cap SpaceX could accrue. So I find it ironic that Tesla is moving away from cars as product, and still talking up humanoid robots, which as yet are not a product, and as research don't seem to have an edge on anyone. ALSO: Data centers on the moon make more sense than data centers in orbit. Obviously where latency isn't king, but compute is. Simple cooling sinks, dense (low local latency) expansion, dense (efficient) maintenance, etc.
- worik 9mo ago
  > With the Asteroid Belt looking amazing for quantity and accessibility of resources. Watch out universe, here we come! What could possibly go wrong, mining asteroids? An awful lot, when we start messing with orbital dynamics in the asteroid belt. But Space X can externalise those risks. It will probably be centuries before disturbed orbits start to threaten Earth... So who cares? Me.
  - boogrpants 9mo ago
    [dead]
  - ianburrell 9mo ago
    I always wonder what resources from asteroid belt do we need on Earth. We have plenty of iron and aluminum for building things. Lithium and rare earths aren't available in asteroids. Gold isn't worth grinding up whole asteroid. Asteroid resources would be useful for building in space, but that is getting a step ahead.
    - mrguyorama 9mo ago
      Asteroid mining in our current economy is about pointing at the market price of an extremely low supply element that isn't that high demand in the first place and forgetting to talk about what a supply glut does to price. Everyone is laboring under this subtle belief that space industry will be just like scifi speculated, but scifi stories always treated space like the ocean, with lots of interplanetary trade and easy travel and no consideration of energy (because it makes for good storytelling) but the actual energy budgeting and consideration of gravity wells is the exact opposite of ocean transport. Global trade works at all because buoyancy and fluid physics make ocean vessels stupidly efficient at transport. Moving any matter through space is stupidly inefficient. The tyranny of the rocket equation constrains everything.
  - slumberlust 9mo ago
    The expanse and A City on Mars covers the risk pretty well.
- woah 9mo ago
  > Simple cooling sinks What? You're in a huge vacuum thermos
- godelski 9mo ago
  > Simple cooling sinks, dense I think you need to go back to physics class. You seem to not even understand the very basics of heat transfer. You need more than "cold". I'll give you a hint, the problem is the same problem as "in space no one can hear you scream." I'll also mention that the moon isn't very cold, except on the dark side. In the moon's day the temperature is 120C and at night -130C. The same side of the moon always faces us and the moon isn't always full. I'll let you figure out the rest.
  - NetMageSCW 9mo ago
    Well, there are the permanently dark crater bottoms that might contain water ice and are definitely very cold. Turn the water ice into thermal transfer fluid and drill (The Boring Company) cooling loops underneath and the try to heat sink into the very cold ground. I’m sure you could run the Data Center for months before you exceed the radiative heat dispersal available to the ground.
    - godelski 9mo ago
      You don't need to but in a dark crater to use the ground as your sink. Also you need to consider that the thermal conductivity of lunar regolith is quite low. I'm not saying it's not possible but I am saying there's a lot of technical challenges that make naïve approaches not so simple. The reason doing things in space is hard is not just the difficulty of getting things up into space. It's that all the things you take for granted just don't work. Oversimplification is a footgun. Or more accurately, in this case a foot taser (if you know why you've found one of the major challenges of doing anything on the moon and mars)
  - Nevermark 9mo ago
    > You seem to not even understand the very basics of heat transfer. Basic physics: The moon is very cold in surface shadows and below the surface. It is an enormous pre-chilled heat sink. The surface is also the support structure for any scale of radiative cooling with the same heat physics as orbit, but much better for larger and enhanced radiative engineering. For example, heat pumps can centralize waste heat energy. Higher heat density vastly increases radiative efficiency. • Permanent shadow: 40-60 ˚K, -230 to 210 ˚C • In polar shadow: 25-30 ˚K, -250 to -245 ˚C • Under 1 meter of surface, equatorial: 250 ˚K, -23 ˚C • Under 1 meter of surface, polar: 200-220 ˚K, -75 to -50 ˚C Many advantages beyond unlimited heat sink/radiative area: all compute in one place, i.e no size limit, so low inter-center latencies, no orbit safety negotiations or periodic orbit re-lifts required, able to update entire data center in a single trip, easier maintenance and stability in gravity on a surface, solar panels can be distributed over distance limiting total space debris risk, different component lifetimes don't result in wasted components, ... Only downsides are a higher Earth-Datacenter latency, lunar dust resistant design, and a need to be at a pole for all-month solar power. Nuclear power, or nuclear + solar, would allow any site. Note that shade can be created anywhere on the surface via reflective shielding, and power can be used to heat, in order to stabilize temperatures in a desired band. Buried installations can use insulation for even greater temperature control.
- falcor84 9mo ago
  If cooling is such an important factor compared to everything else, I would assume we should see data centers in Antarctica long before we see them on the Moon.
  - Nevermark 9mo ago
    Thanks. That is a very good point. Or Greenland, to be topical.
- habinero 9mo ago
  Elon's not doing any of that and never will lol. You're vastly underestimating the cost and complexity of doing anything in space. Sure, an asteroid theoretically has eighty quadrillion dollars of whatever, but you're going to spend ninety bajillion getting anything there and back, plus you'd ...well, crater the market even if you did. We're not hurting for heat sinks. There's the entire ocean to work with, for one.
falcor84 9mo ago
>Nothing matters any more Something tells me that Musk isn't the sort of person who'd ever be satisfied. It's easier for me to imagine him like Mr. House from Fallout, trying to control everything over centuries.
- plorkyeran 9mo ago
  This is true of every billionaire who is still actively trying to get more money. If you're not satisfied at that point, there's no number where you will be.
lamontcg 9mo ago
I'd like to get a look at SpaceX financials. I'm pretty sure their margins are thinner than you might expect, Starlink is less profitable than you might expect (but quite necessary to fund the launch cadence of Falcon 9) and that Starship blowing up over and over has been funded entirely by the US taxpayer and that they'd be insolvent without that.
- NetMageSCW 9mo ago
  You would be entirely wrong. For example, NASA has evaluated SpaceX financial status as part of awarding COTS and HLS contracts and determined it reasonable. Also, SpaceX isn’t getting a significant fraction of the costs of Starship development from the HLS contract.

tzs 9mo ago

Most articles I've seen said that adaptive cruise control is not being moved to subscription.

ben_w 9mo ago

Step 5: Buy Hasbro Step 6: Count sales of Transformer toy Optimus Prime units towards "Sell 1 million Optimus robots" etc.