4 ms·

I just explained why it does matter. His dickishness made his otherwise interesting article agonizing to read. I did not think the author was a dick _before_ I

by tinco 13y ago

I just explained why it does matter. His dickishness made his otherwise interesting article agonizing to read. I did not think the author was a dick _before_ I read the article. Anyway, I have read the Hyperloop pdf end to end and I think it's great. I don't agree with this author at all that Elon Musk's endeavours distract from improving existing technology. Nor do I think that improving existing technology is as important as inventing new potentially disruptive technology in general. People are fans of Musk because he succeeds and delivers in the face of spineless critics like this one. Just as people were fans of Jobs as he reintroduced quality into consumer electronics succesfully.

Someone 13y ago
"I don't agree with this author at all that Elon Musk's endeavours distract from improving existing technology." Did we read the same article? I read a rant, sprinkled with lots of verifiable facts that gave strong arguments why this Hyperloop idea won't fly. For a rebuttal, I would expect claims that his sources are incorrect, that his calculations are incorrect, or that the conclusions he draws from those calculations are incorrect. Arguing that the author ranted too much is not sufficient for me. For example, what's wrong with his claim that people would get seasick in this thing? If there's nothing wrong with that claim, what's wrong with his claim that that is a show stopper? Similarly, wants wrong with his arguments about the low capacity of this design? Feel free to add some rantiness, but keep the fraction of content as least as high as this article, please. And, by the way, I do not think this article says Elon Musk does nothing good; it just claims this idea of Elon Musk is not a good one because it is highly unlikely that it is possible to fix all of its problems. For example, one can straighten the trajectory, but then, costs would balloon to be at least on par with the existing high speed rail system.
- tinco 13y ago
  We must've read different articles. I read a rant about why people like Elon Musk should never be followed and ideas like the Hyperloop should never be pursued. So that's what I respond to. His verifiable criticisms of the Hyperloop, they're probably true, good chance that people would get seasick in it, and that the capsules are too small and that corrections for this might make the project financially infeasible. Not sure how that's relevant though.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    ... you're not sure how his 'verifiable criticisms of the Hyperloop [being] probably true' is relevant? To taking his criticisms seriously?
    - tinco 13y ago
      I am not sure how valid criticisms on technicalities are relevant to the argument of whether we should pay attention when people like Elon Musk pitch us new and exciting ideas. Even if this project instead of 10 billion is more like the high speed train and would cost more like 100 billion, even if it was more expensive. Even if people could get sick in it. Wouldn't it still be an interesting idea worth investigating? Wouldn't it be possible these are hurdles we could overcome? Elon Musk seems to think they are, and Elon Musk has a PhD in overcoming hurdles..
      - philwelch 13y ago
        It looks like there are two entirely different sets of concerns here. One concern is the technical feasibility of Hyperloop; your concern is to justify your hero-worship of Elon Musk. Personally, I find it questionable that an automobile entrepreneur is choosing to publicize this concept but invest nothing into building it himself, as if to spread FUD about high speed rail. Calling Musk out for that and for not showing his work when it comes to costs and numbers is appropriate whether or not it offends your hero worship.
- kolinko 13y ago
  As for sea sickness - don't people also get sea sick at sea? Or at an airplane? Does it stop them from travelling this way? He compares hyperloop with the smoothest mode of transportation invented, and says it will fail because it doesn't meet it's standard. Why not compare it to flying planes or sailing boats? Or riding a Marshrutka in Ukraine? As for the low capacity - the critique's author says Hyperloop can handle 3 times less passengers per hour. But forgots to mention that you could buy more than 3 HL lanes for the cost of one HSR lane (if I remember correctly).
  - philwelch 13y ago
    He disputes the HL cost estimate too, and judges that it's probably closer to the cost of HSR all things considered. Getting sick at sea is OK because you have room to vomit in a sanitary way. Hyperloop gives no such concession.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    I don't think many people do get motion sickness on airplanes these days actually (on commercial flights I've been on, I haven't seen it at all). Most people don't travel by sailing boats. He is, quite validly, comparing it to the actual methods of travel that potential passengers will be comparing it to - smart money says people travelling between two cities in California have no knowledge of or interest in how much worse it could be if they were actually in Ukraine.
- stonemetal 13y ago
  but energy consumption for HSR in Spain is on average 73 Watt-hour (263 kJ) per passenger-km (see PDF-page 17 on a UIC paper on the subject of HSR carbon emissions), one fifth as much as Tesla claims. Tesla either engages in fraud or is channeling dodgy research about the electricity consumption of high-speed trains. Unless the proposed HSR involves moving everyone in California to Spain and using theirs he is the one who is "engaged in fraud or just being dodgy" as he likes to put it according to actual studies of the proposed system energy consumption go as high as 6.5 MJ per passenger KM. As Musk leads with in his document the proposed system is one of the worst HSRs energy and performance wise, quoting the best numbers in existence do not make a compelling counter argument. http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_assessing_hsr.shtml http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_assessing_hsr.shtml
  - makomk 13y ago
    > actual studies of the proposed system energy consumption go as high as 6.5 MJ per passenger KM Only if you assume that all the trains will be almost completely empty. I don't know about the US, but I've travelled on some odd routes at low-traffic hours in the UK and it's really fucking rare to see a train with as little as 10% occupancy because the rail companies don't run them. Come to think of it, most of that was on relatively local lines that Hyperloop's not designed to replace anyway.
    - stonemetal 13y ago
      Sure but the only way to hit Spain's numbers in California is if you have an occupancy above 90%, which seems equally unlikely.
philwelch 13y ago
It's natural to think people are dicks when they attack your personal heroes, but that doesn't make it their problem, just yours.
- kbenson 13y ago
  It's natural to think someone is a dick when they attack a person over a technical proposal. Their inability to separate personal and technical concerns alienating people from what they are saying is their problem, not mine.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    There was lots of valuable discussion about requirements the Hyperloop white paper didn't discuss or questions about why some of the numbers deviate from accepted figures used in transport design, and if you're intellectually honest you will have to respond to those, not just say "he's being mean to Elon Musk!" and ignore his substantial concerns. Though, there are also important questions he raises about Elon Musk: whether he has a conflict of interest as an automobile executive and why he is releasing white papers spreading FUD about rail projects without investing in the hyperloop project himself. The thought that Musk is a disinterested genius who does everything out of the goodness of his heart is a little naive, and the way people overreact when that's called into question says a lot.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      I think it requires just as much intellectual honesty to admit that people will make decisions about what they are reading and whether to continue, and some people may include in that criteria whether the person is making ad hominem attacks. The argument here isn't that he doesn't have any useful information, just that the many people are being put off by his presentation of that information. As for Musk's character and intentions, I think he's been forthcoming in enough interviews[1] as to his reasons for starting his multiple current ventures (Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City). I don't believe his actions have contradicted his words in this respect, so for someone to attribute intentions to him that go against those statements and be believed, the burden of proof is on them. [1]: I don't have the links on hand, but he's talked about how after Paypal he didn't *have* to do anything, being wealthy, so decided to focus on a few major areas he thought major contributions to the future of humanity could be made, to his best judgement. Those being cheap solar power, electric cars, and colonizing other planets.

by tinco 13y ago

Someone 13y ago

"I don't agree with this author at all that Elon Musk's endeavours distract from improving existing technology." Did we read the same article? I read a rant, sprinkled with lots of verifiable facts that gave strong arguments why this Hyperloop idea won't fly. For a rebuttal, I would expect claims that his sources are incorrect, that his calculations are incorrect, or that the conclusions he draws from those calculations are incorrect. Arguing that the author ranted too much is not sufficient for me. For example, what's wrong with his claim that people would get seasick in this thing? If there's nothing wrong with that claim, what's wrong with his claim that that is a show stopper? Similarly, wants wrong with his arguments about the low capacity of this design? Feel free to add some rantiness, but keep the fraction of content as least as high as this article, please. And, by the way, I do not think this article says Elon Musk does nothing good; it just claims this idea of Elon Musk is not a good one because it is highly unlikely that it is possible to fix all of its problems. For example, one can straighten the trajectory, but then, costs would balloon to be at least on par with the existing high speed rail system.

tinco 13y ago
We must've read different articles. I read a rant about why people like Elon Musk should never be followed and ideas like the Hyperloop should never be pursued. So that's what I respond to. His verifiable criticisms of the Hyperloop, they're probably true, good chance that people would get seasick in it, and that the capsules are too small and that corrections for this might make the project financially infeasible. Not sure how that's relevant though.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  ... you're not sure how his 'verifiable criticisms of the Hyperloop [being] probably true' is relevant? To taking his criticisms seriously?
  - tinco 13y ago
    I am not sure how valid criticisms on technicalities are relevant to the argument of whether we should pay attention when people like Elon Musk pitch us new and exciting ideas. Even if this project instead of 10 billion is more like the high speed train and would cost more like 100 billion, even if it was more expensive. Even if people could get sick in it. Wouldn't it still be an interesting idea worth investigating? Wouldn't it be possible these are hurdles we could overcome? Elon Musk seems to think they are, and Elon Musk has a PhD in overcoming hurdles..
    - philwelch 13y ago
      It looks like there are two entirely different sets of concerns here. One concern is the technical feasibility of Hyperloop; your concern is to justify your hero-worship of Elon Musk. Personally, I find it questionable that an automobile entrepreneur is choosing to publicize this concept but invest nothing into building it himself, as if to spread FUD about high speed rail. Calling Musk out for that and for not showing his work when it comes to costs and numbers is appropriate whether or not it offends your hero worship.
kolinko 13y ago
As for sea sickness - don't people also get sea sick at sea? Or at an airplane? Does it stop them from travelling this way? He compares hyperloop with the smoothest mode of transportation invented, and says it will fail because it doesn't meet it's standard. Why not compare it to flying planes or sailing boats? Or riding a Marshrutka in Ukraine? As for the low capacity - the critique's author says Hyperloop can handle 3 times less passengers per hour. But forgots to mention that you could buy more than 3 HL lanes for the cost of one HSR lane (if I remember correctly).
- philwelch 13y ago
  He disputes the HL cost estimate too, and judges that it's probably closer to the cost of HSR all things considered. Getting sick at sea is OK because you have room to vomit in a sanitary way. Hyperloop gives no such concession.
- jacalata 13y ago
  I don't think many people do get motion sickness on airplanes these days actually (on commercial flights I've been on, I haven't seen it at all). Most people don't travel by sailing boats. He is, quite validly, comparing it to the actual methods of travel that potential passengers will be comparing it to - smart money says people travelling between two cities in California have no knowledge of or interest in how much worse it could be if they were actually in Ukraine.
stonemetal 13y ago
but energy consumption for HSR in Spain is on average 73 Watt-hour (263 kJ) per passenger-km (see PDF-page 17 on a UIC paper on the subject of HSR carbon emissions), one fifth as much as Tesla claims. Tesla either engages in fraud or is channeling dodgy research about the electricity consumption of high-speed trains. Unless the proposed HSR involves moving everyone in California to Spain and using theirs he is the one who is "engaged in fraud or just being dodgy" as he likes to put it according to actual studies of the proposed system energy consumption go as high as 6.5 MJ per passenger KM. As Musk leads with in his document the proposed system is one of the worst HSRs energy and performance wise, quoting the best numbers in existence do not make a compelling counter argument. http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_assessing_hsr.shtml http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_assessing_hsr.shtml
- makomk 13y ago
  > actual studies of the proposed system energy consumption go as high as 6.5 MJ per passenger KM Only if you assume that all the trains will be almost completely empty. I don't know about the US, but I've travelled on some odd routes at low-traffic hours in the UK and it's really fucking rare to see a train with as little as 10% occupancy because the rail companies don't run them. Come to think of it, most of that was on relatively local lines that Hyperloop's not designed to replace anyway.
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    Sure but the only way to hit Spain's numbers in California is if you have an occupancy above 90%, which seems equally unlikely.

philwelch 13y ago

It's natural to think people are dicks when they attack your personal heroes, but that doesn't make it their problem, just yours.

kbenson 13y ago
It's natural to think someone is a dick when they attack a person over a technical proposal. Their inability to separate personal and technical concerns alienating people from what they are saying is their problem, not mine.
- philwelch 13y ago
  There was lots of valuable discussion about requirements the Hyperloop white paper didn't discuss or questions about why some of the numbers deviate from accepted figures used in transport design, and if you're intellectually honest you will have to respond to those, not just say "he's being mean to Elon Musk!" and ignore his substantial concerns. Though, there are also important questions he raises about Elon Musk: whether he has a conflict of interest as an automobile executive and why he is releasing white papers spreading FUD about rail projects without investing in the hyperloop project himself. The thought that Musk is a disinterested genius who does everything out of the goodness of his heart is a little naive, and the way people overreact when that's called into question says a lot.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    I think it requires just as much intellectual honesty to admit that people will make decisions about what they are reading and whether to continue, and some people may include in that criteria whether the person is making ad hominem attacks. The argument here isn't that he doesn't have any useful information, just that the many people are being put off by his presentation of that information. As for Musk's character and intentions, I think he's been forthcoming in enough interviews[1] as to his reasons for starting his multiple current ventures (Tesla, SpaceX, Solar City). I don't believe his actions have contradicted his words in this respect, so for someone to attribute intentions to him that go against those statements and be believed, the burden of proof is on them. [1]: I don't have the links on hand, but he's talked about how after Paypal he didn't *have* to do anything, being wealthy, so decided to focus on a few major areas he thought major contributions to the future of humanity could be made, to his best judgement. Those being cheap solar power, electric cars, and colonizing other planets.