Tesla

  • Thread starter Deleted member 34491
  • Start date


Frijj said:
You have had the pleasure of either driving or being driven in a Tesla, yes?
Click to expand...
Yes. Mrs Mt friend works in San Antonio. Had a tour when we visited

moshpit said:
Absolute bollocks. You clearly havent seen the huge advancements in self driving with the new Teslas


Show me a Volvo, electric or petrol, that can do 0-60 in 2 seconds...
Click to expand...
Show me a production tesla that can do that too.
 
Last edited:
MattyM 09/109 said:
Kinda. He hired people, he had people working on the same threads as others and added a screw or two to some other peoples stuff to get around patents. He also backed some stuff that was wrong. But what he did was bring shit to market, forcing it to be improved by trial and failure.

Its always struck me as odd that Musk called his company tesla when hes's clearly more like edison, just a very very smart guy with a good capability to have an overview of lots of fields and the arrogance to drive shit forward. People are always whining about how tesla was the better inventor (death ray and magical airborne electrical transmission asside) but thats not all Edison was, and look at which one had the longer effect on the world.

The drive of progress needs utter dicks who can make mistakes and have the arrogance to keep going anyway,. or pretend its all fine. That drives us forward way more than extraordinarily smart quiet guys in labs.
Click to expand...

It drives us forward more than smart quiet guys like Norman Borlaug, Tim Berners Lee, Alexander Fleming and Charles Babbage?

Rly m8?
 
Charmless Man said:
It drives us forward more than smart quiet guys like Norman Borlaug, Tim Berners Lee, Alexander Fleming and Charles Babbage?

Rly m8?
Click to expand...

Yes. Although in at least one of those cases berners lee actually brought a product to use and wasnt just a very smart guy stuck in a lab. In every case these people's contribution were yes absolutely critical, the foundation but its people that make things useful that drive the next steps.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
Yes. Although in at least one of those cases berners lee actually brought a product to use and wasnt just a very smart guy stuck in a lab. In every case these people's contribution were yes absolutely critical, the foundation but its people that make things useful that drive the next steps.
Click to expand...
Reusable rockets and electric cars. Hardly ground breaking is it.
 
monkeytassle said:
Reusable rockets and electric cars. Hardly ground breaking is it.
Click to expand...

The charging tech and self cooling cells for those cars are genuinely astonishing and since he effectively gave away the patents for free for both are the basis of everyone elses too. Hoying something close to orbit then landing it again the right way up in a state you can service and reuse it is yeah, with todays technology just 96-97% impossible. So he decided to land them on a boat for extra fun. And develop different lift variant all at the same time.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
Yes. Although in at least one of those cases berners lee actually brought a product to use and wasnt just a very smart guy stuck in a lab. In every case these people's contribution were yes absolutely critical, the foundation but its people that make things useful that drive the next steps.
Click to expand...

So antibiotics, the computer and crops capable of feeding everyone in the world = not useful.

But an electric car with some suspect firmware development = useful.

:lol:
 
Charmless Man said:
So antibiotics, the computer and crops capable of feeding everyone in the world = not useful.

But an electric car with some suspect firmware development = useful.

:lol:
Click to expand...

No. And you know very well that you're purposely misunderstanding the point to apply a reductio ad absurdum. You've actually stated the product which is what I am saying - the drive of a product and use of something drives progress faster than dry lab knowledge of it. Obviously their is a demarcation between pure science and invention but generally something develops faster as a product than it does as a lab idea. Progress need dickheads who will take a fast charging principle and stick it in a car, that will take computer controlled gyroscopes and stick em in rockets and at that point you see massive leap forward in those areas. The computer, fantastic, great, but the driving forces of moores law werent patterson, meyer and gelsinger it was the people who put those products out there, watson, gates and even that apple twat.
 
MattyM 09/109 said:
No. And you know very well that you're purposely misunderstanding the point to apply a reductio ad absurdum. You've actually stated the product which is what I am saying - the drive of a product and use of something drives progress faster than dry lab knowledge of it. Obviously their is a demarcation between pure science and invention but generally something develops faster as a product than it does as a lab idea. Progress need dickheads who will take a fast charging principle and stick it in a car, that will take computer controlled gyroscopes and stick em in rockets and at that point you see massive leap forward in those areas. The computer, fantastic, great, but the driving forces of moores law werent patterson, meyer and gelsinger it was the people who put those products out there, watson, gates and even that apple twat.
Click to expand...

That’s not what a reductio ad absurdum fallacy is. I’m not trying to disprove anything by pointing out that it’s being true would lead to something absurd or impossible. Even if it were, it’s still a perfectly valid form of argument.

Progress needs people who pay attention to the things which won’t immediately turn a profit, which seem innocuous. Otherwise arsehats like Musk don’t have the raw meterials to work with.

If research was left to Musk it’d be a safe bet >50% of it would later be found out to be fabrication.
 

Back
Top