Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Frangiblepani t1_iyh6slu wrote

Still waiting on: Tesla Semi, Cybertruck, Hyperloop, Tesla Phone, Neuralink, Tesla robot.

Delivered: Tesla shot glasses.

A titan of industry. Knows more about manufacturing than anyone else on Earth.

17

occupyOneillrings t1_iyhknwl wrote

Tesla semi delivery event is today.

3

redingerforcongress t1_iyhncvu wrote

Fulfilling contractional obligations shouldn't even be an "event". It shouldn't come a year later than promised.

I'd imagine if the trucks aren't delivered today, Musk is going to jail for fraud.

Other electric semi companies have delivered dozens of trucks without issue or fuss; what's holding up Tesla?

2

occupyOneillrings t1_iyhtzot wrote

I think it was a limited cell supply if I remember correctly, that is starting to lift somewhat or is not the limiting factor anymore.

−1

redingerforcongress t1_iyhu6fa wrote

So, they took their customer's money and lied to them after they made demands from their suppliers. The didn't update those promises even when the supplier told them "wouldn't be possible".

Seems like robbing from Peter to pay Paul honestly

2

occupyOneillrings t1_iyiesi4 wrote

I don't understand what you are saying. "after they made demands from their suppliers." this part in particular.

Are you saying Tesla broke some contracts with respect to Semi deliveries or something like that?

1

Frangiblepani t1_iyitksw wrote

Good. For being 3 years late and being beaten to market by other EV semis, it needs to be at least as good as Musk said back at the first reveal - "cheaper than rail" etc.

I don't want Musk to fail. It would be amazing if everything he said was true, but he needs to stop lying all the time.

2

ExHax t1_iyh8cz9 wrote

Also Tesla Roadster "2020"

1

MarwyntheMasterful t1_iyhpazr wrote

So he’s basically google.

0

Frangiblepani t1_iyisgh0 wrote

Possibly. I don't know much about what Google makes (or promises but doesn't make) outside of a search engine.

1

MarwyntheMasterful t1_iyiuql5 wrote

I’d say Google Glass and Google Stadia are their 2 most well known failures. Or two of the more recent anyway.

But they made the failure that was Google Video, and then just bought YouTube because it was clearly superior to them.

They’ve tried to create a couple of social media sites, with little success.

Nexus Q never actually went to market.

Knol was an attempt to replace Wikipedia.

I think Google Fiber is still going but I feel like they underdelivered. More area should be covered by now. Some of that could be competition and legal battles, not on Google.

Mostly poorly executed, over-priced, or just generally unwanted ideas.

And as far as Elon delivered, you can add Star-Link and the flamethrowers.

I’d never even heard of Tesla phone, but after looking it up, I don’t think that will ever get widely adopted and is mostly a waste of time compared to EVs, internet, neural implants, and Mars.

2

Pastakingfifth t1_iyt0kf4 wrote

How is your futurology tech company coming along? I'd say he's doing better than most.

−1

Frangiblepani t1_iyub709 wrote

It took 2 days, and only one weird nerd leapt to his defence. Musk must be really losing his mojo.

2

MarwyntheMasterful t1_iyhq3ro wrote

I doubt it’s being tested on humans in 6 months. But I also bet that ppl volunteer to get “the first ones” when that time comes.

If they ever get it right, could really help a lot of ppl.

7

_franciis t1_iyh5wp5 wrote

Yeah every timeline he sets out comes to pass /s

Definitely not hype.

6

tanrgith t1_iyhgxp4 wrote

Is that 15 of 23 test subjects dying actually something that's been verified by anyone other than a single small activist group, who's lead by a guy that's been accused of cherry picking data?

5

No_Pop4019 t1_iyjhram wrote

You'll find several sources on the web. Here's one that exceeds the 15:23 number but references images of dead monkeys while neglecting to mention the ratio of monkeys to subjects. Is it 1:1 or are there 5 images of the same monkeys per every subject? A lawsuit to release the data is ongoing. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/doctors-group-claims-elon-musk-uc-davis-371-photos-failed-neuralink-brain-chip-implant-experiments-killed-monkeys/article65953874.ece

2

tanrgith t1_iyjnf2k wrote

The problem with articles like the one you linked to is that all it really does is repeat what the activist group have claimed. They're not independently verifying it or breaking any kind of new news.

The article is basically just "here's what an activist group is claiming"

It's a major issue with modern news most of the time. Normally you'll have one source claiming something, and then every news site on the internet will make their own slightly reworded version about what that one source is claiming, without actually do any kind of investigation into the validity of the claims.

Though in the case of these claims made by PCRM, most of the big news sites seem to have opted to not report on the claims. Which to me is a pretty big warning sign about the validity of the people making the claims, especially when it's from some random activist group

3

No_Pop4019 t1_iyjpr3w wrote

I completely agree and have wondered for, perhaps 20ish years, why different media outlets report on the same topic yet have a tendency to produce a completely different narrative. In the U.S., this has helped lead to the perfect division that has been in place since roughly 2007 which makes me wonder what the purpose and benefits are of a corporate run media. If media companies were private and refused funding from politically biased affiliates, we could get unblemished, factual news

Back to topic though, something to consider is this: just because an activist exposed the issue doesn't mean the events didn't occur. Moreover, the fact that a lawsuit is in progress suggests that there's possibly more to the issue than Nuralink/Elon is admitting to. Time will tell.

1

tanrgith t1_iyjr3at wrote

On the topic - I'm not trying to say that I'm 100% sure that what PCRM are claiming haven't happened. Neuralink have already admitted that some animals have died for instance

However activist groups are rarely the most objective or trustworthy sources of information. And when you have a scenario where PCRM are the only ones claiming to have seen the documents that they're basing their claims on, and the big news publication are actually holding off running their own articles titled "Elon Musk's Neuralink implants killed 15 of 23 animals and caused them to vomit themselves to death" despite the crazy amount of clicks that would get them, then I'm gonna remain skeptical

1

No_Pop4019 t1_iyk2nq8 wrote

You have a fair and reasonable conclusion. It's sad that we literally cannot rely on any resource as truth, causing us to vet through umpteen sources in hopes of understanding anything. It's neither a suitable or sustainable path for society.

1

redingerforcongress t1_iyhwdfb wrote

pretty sure there's more than 23 test subjects for monkeys.

If anyone would be cherypicking a dataset, it'd be picking the 15 survivors of the group of 23 given the holistic survival rate is closer to 2%

0

AutoModerator t1_iyh4127 wrote

This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

ajhasa t1_iyh6gug wrote

Now that he has Twitter, I can imagine that South Park episode with Alex Baldwin coming true.

1

mikeg1231234 t1_iyrjhf4 wrote

A Nero link with a radiolink would be a gamechanger! People could control things and communicate on the internet, all with thoughts.

1

Futurology-ModTeam t1_iyzflh6 wrote

Rule 12 - Support original sources - avoid blogs/websites that are primarily rehosted content.

1

ActonofMAM t1_iyhem0f wrote

My position on this sort of technology implant has always been: you first.

0

Butwinsky t1_iyh6lc5 wrote

Say what you will about Elon, but once these things are safe and effective, a lot of humans will live much better lives. The question will be the cost and equity.

−8

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyh6y4j wrote

>but once these things are safe and effective

>After the death of 15 of 23 test subjects

Don't hold your breath

2

Butwinsky t1_iyh7g07 wrote

Eh. I'm sure no one aced heart transplants or pacemakers 1st try either. I hate it for the monkeys, but if a bunch of monkeys have to die so some kid born a few years from now can see or some paraplegic can walk again? Sorry monkeys.

Animal testing leads to animal deaths. Now, whether or not the monkeys were treated with cruelty is another issue.

4

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyh7nvi wrote

The claims are about animal cruelty, don't know why you're shilling here but stop.

0

Butwinsky t1_iyh7y76 wrote

I'm not shilling, youre in futurology mate, this is looking at where neuralink can take us. If you're good with animal cruelty with farm animals for the sake of eating a bacon cheeseburger but draw the line at testing if saving/changing medical procedures on monkeys, you're probably a self-righteous hypocrite.

6

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyh83uk wrote

Ah yeah. A shill.

−9

MarwyntheMasterful t1_iyhpwrm wrote

Everyone one of your posts I’ve seen here are of the lowest degree. Your not even trying to have a conversion. Get off you Elon hate boner and discuss the future.

Was your mom Mrs Bouche? “Elon Musk is the devil!!!” 😈

I bet that ppl volunteer to be tested on. Ppl love putting metal in their head/faces.

4

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhrb9s wrote

Oh you're so mad lol

1

MarwyntheMasterful t1_iyhrzg5 wrote

Mad? Lol. What’s to be mad about? I’m just laughing at some of your asinine responses.

This is a sub for discussing the future. I’m sure there is a sub for hating Elon for you to post in and get more positive feedback.

2

GlowGreen1835 t1_iyh7m0b wrote

I'm no Musk fan, but people have been hurt or killed for many inventions that are in widespread use today.

4

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyh81pf wrote

You're not a fan but you're making excuses for him

0

mediocreplayer_ t1_iyh8ydk wrote

You don't have to like someone to come to their defense when it makes sense. This tech is probably bound to be developed at some point. Someone's just gotta do it.

3

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyh9v1r wrote

Except you deliberately ignored the vital points to make your claim.

1

tanrgith t1_iyhhaow wrote

The source of those numbers are from an activist group. That's kinda like trusting green peace to tell the truth

If there are other, actually trustworthy, sources who have independently verified those claims, then I'll believe it

3

Scared-Conflict-653 t1_iyhtvo7 wrote

Exactly like the company that is producing, the product. They have no reason to lie.

1

redingerforcongress t1_iyhwo5z wrote

This number isn't from the activist group though, it's from the corporate public relations team trying to bump their failed program.

Heaps of dead test subjects, but they cherrypick one group that had an abnormally high survival rate [perhaps the control subjects; installation but no functionality?]

1

redingerforcongress t1_iyhwiv1 wrote

The numbers are from corporate public relations teams pushing misinformation regarding the survival rate

1

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhhubt wrote

Somehow I doubt you'll accept any evidence that counters your opinion.

0

tanrgith t1_iyhid7u wrote

Well, you're wrong on that

edit - Actually, you're right. Because my opinion is literally just "I don't really trust some small activist group lead by a guy accused of cherry picking data, so I'd want to see the claim verified by a reputable source before believing it"

7

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhixwp wrote

You won't ever accept any evidence that contradicts your hard-held beliefs.

−6

tanrgith t1_iyhj81k wrote

That's what I said, yes.

My "hard-held beliefs" in this case being "have a reputable source verify it and I'll believe it"

7

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhjrxr wrote

No, you won't.

−2

tanrgith t1_iyhsxmc wrote

You know, somehow I doubt you'll accept any evidence that counters your opinion

3

Irate_Alligate1 t1_iyhtdfd wrote

What evidence?

0

tanrgith t1_iyhtppr wrote

Damn, that either went way over your head or you're just being purposefully obtuse

2

redingerforcongress t1_iyhwh8h wrote

That's the best group too; the survival rate is closer to 2% outside this very specific group

0

prickles_and_goo t1_iyh8mwc wrote

well with 15 of 23 dying, and him wanting to move on to special needs humans next, I think we know the cost. This guy needs to be made an example of on a lot of levels.

−1

Butwinsky t1_iyh9vr2 wrote

FDA won't allow it to be tested on humans until it's proven safe. It's not as simple as moving on to humans whenever Musk wants. This has been a hurdle for this type of tech in the past.

6

prickles_and_goo t1_iyhhg8v wrote

I want to believe you so badly... but *points at everything since 2020*

I mean, they're just invalids after all /s

0