Tesla "Full Self Driving" not capable of autonomous driving

[Capt Spaulding]

Thinking a bit more about it, I suspect the primary motivator of many managerial types is - control. All of us want it over something. Our lives, our kids, our pets, our spouses, our cars, our employees. In many to most cases, control is an illusion. We think we have until we don't. I suspect the willingness to accept the limits of our ability to control our environments is a function of our personality and the depth to which we have learned the lessons life teaches us.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I find it ironic that the quote about "Most companies are run by old school, small "c" conservatives who, like many of my 60-80 year old contemporaries, KNOW the way things SHOULD be done." is likely being written by people that KNOW a better way to do it.

This is same thing all new again. Happens in some form every time generations are on the cusp of change.

I think I agree. My quibble is that it's like being the fastest gun in the West. You are until you're not. There will always be someone faster and there is always a "better" way waiting down the road. Those of us in (temporary) charge, like the old west gunfighter, should probably cap a bit of our smugness.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

For those who found the preceding soliloquy TL;DR

Having read the Walter Isaacson biography on Jobs, it seems like Jobs would routinely create, or the industry would create, high pressure deadlines, and he would push people to work six days a week burning the midnight oil to finish a product on time, much to vain of the workers who felt unappreciated, but it produced results, and yet, I agree that it is entirely plausible that results would have been there without Jobs tyrannical lashings. As my mom said of her former employer, "The lashings will continue until moral improves." Maybe with remote working distractions would go down, productivity would optimize, time spent commuting wouldn't be wasted, moral would improve because there would be no need to burn the midnight oil, and in the end, the product would be just as good or better.

I'm sure in time, with the technology available to potentially do virtual reality meetings, augmenting the work place further, it may be entirely unnecessary for many sectors to meet in person, even teachers and students. We will have to see what happens.

Going back to the initial point that was made: it may be the case that Tesla is missing out on great engineers who refuse to work under his style of management or who aren't allowed the option to work remotely, but I doubt it is impacting them much right now. They just have so much demand to work there. Considering the future transition of all cars to BEVs, any engineer who wants to fast-track their career and work someone that will most likely prepare them for a future with any car company is probably wanting to work at Tesla.

[Capt Spaulding]

We’ll have to wait to find out. And make no mistake, working remotely isn’t for everyone. Real interaction with real people has been shown to be important for mental health.

The Question is Balance. For some I’m convinced that it’s more about control.

I got into a lengthy Socratic discussion with my youngest’s jr hi principal once over some really stupid dress code stuff. Eventually she admitted that forcing the students to accept the edict was simply about setting the precedent that they HAD to do as she dictated. It was to “show them who was in control.”

It was actually pretty funny. I told my son “if you want to see who’s in control, stage a student strike. Demand that she be fired. If all the students are on board she won’t last a week.”

Im pretty sure the same is true in almost all organizational environments. I used to preach this to my faculty colleagues. 80% were too fearful to stand up.

Edit: and I’m pretty sure the possibility of workers doing that scares managers shitless.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://youtube.com/shorts/7iT3Hzavo2o?feature=share

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://youtube.com/shorts/7iT3Hzavo2o?feature=share

Right attitude, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't walk the walk. I doubt all the folks Musk has fired were fired because they succeeded at something.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

https://youtube.com/shorts/7iT3Hzavo2o?feature=share

who cares about this shit

hell the account its posted under is "daddyelon" which is cringe

[Sasquachulator]

so going back to EV talk....

The Lexus RZ reviews came out and just as expected its mostly MEH, since the underlying EV setup used in the RZ/BZ4X/Solterra triplets are underwhelming. (Consensus seems to be, its a good Lexus but a bleh EV)

I did read an interesting blurb though in one review.....
The triplets uses a 71.4KW/h battery pack...but only 64kw/h is usable....

Which probably explains some of the low range figures. Anyone have any idea what other EV's use in terms of max capacity vs usable capacity? Cuz that seems like alot of unused capacity to try to keep their degredation low.....

Oh and they use a 6.6kw onboard charger (explains the slow charging i think) which is an odd choice...considering almost every other EV out there uses one thats double or more of that.....

Seems like Toyota just decided to go with the minimum requirements needed to make a viable EV. Hopefully their next efforts are far more competitive.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Right attitude, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't walk the walk. I doubt all the folks Musk has fired were fired because they succeeded at something.

Like Jobs, who would fire people in the elevator after asking them what they were working on, I think Musk is known for assessing whether someone is doing something impactful or not. Cutting out the fat. He will fire people for failure, as it relates to incompetence or for being wasteful, but the word at Tesla and SpaceX is you’re more likely to get fired for never trying anything and being mediocre than for trying to be or do something exceptional and failing.

[Capt Spaulding]

But never, ever, ever, question a decision from management. Jobs was Jobs (maybe) and Musk is Musk. There is an aura surrounding both. Mercurial, bombastic, tyrannical and cruel. Some seem to find it attractive. Others find it supremely repulsive.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

who cares about this shit

hell the account its posted under is "daddyelon" which is cringe

We were talking about work culture, hiring and retaining top engineering recruits. It was stated that the C-suite is “small c” conservatives, trapped in old thinking, which is why their want people to return to work when remote work has the potential to be better for the employee and employer. The video suggests that his style of management may not be so tyrannical or incapable of some progressive thinking.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

But never, ever, ever, question a decision from management. Jobs was Jobs (maybe) and Musk is Musk. There is an aura surrounding both. Mercurial, bombastic, tyrannical and cruel. Some seem to find it attractive. Others find it supremely repulsive.

Outside of some exceptions that must exist, I’m under the impression that he is like a military general. A military general might be tyrannical and cruel because they are direct and finite in their decisions, absolute in the way they manage and in the way they expect their orders to be carried out, and so on. Failure is tolerated, but not incompetence, complacency, inefficiency or insubordination.

Being labile, sociopathic and obsessive seems to be par for the course for most of these exceptional visionary leaders. How else would they do what they do? It might be part of the package.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Outside of some exceptions that must exist, I’m under the impression that he is like a military general. A military general might be tyrannical and cruel because they are direct and finite in their decisions, absolute in the way they manage and in the way they expect their orders to be carried out, and so on. Failure is tolerated, but not incompetence, complacency, inefficiency or insubordination.

Being labile, sociopathic and obsessive seems to be par for the course for most of these exceptional visionary leaders. How else would they do what they do? It might be part of the package.

I’m not quite sure how to interpret this. A fair number of those “visionary leaders” have been directly or indirectly responsible for some to most of the greatest human rights atrocities committed in the history of our species.

Are we better off for having had them? If not, what should we do when we identify one?

Personally, I don’t think instability, socio/psychopathy, and total obsessiveness are the sine qua non of visionary leadership. I may be Mary Poppins here. But I don’t think they are either necessary nor sufficient.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I’m not quite sure how to interpret this. A fair number of those “visionary leaders” have been directly or indirectly responsible for some to most of the greatest human rights atrocities committed in the history of our species.

Are we better off for having had them? If not, what should we do when we identify one?

Personally, I don’t think instability, socio/psychopathy, and total obsessiveness are the sine qua non of visionary leadership. I may be Mary Poppins here. But I don’t think they are either necessary nor sufficient.

You can expect to have the good with the bad. I also don’t know if we need these types like you suggest we don’t, but we do. Maybe the bad and the good leads to the same results as the incremental norm, especially now that we are at a point in history where we have the sharing of information and preservation of information and where we aren’t trying to exterminate each other.

As Musk has noted, throughout history, progress hasn’t been progressive and incremental; large amounts of knowledge and momentum has been lost as dynasties have fallen or when interest has waned. As it pertains to SpaceX, Musk has pointed out that rocket development and milestones for space exploration has basically slowed/stopped from a peak from when we landed on the moon. The argument here is that sometimes we might need a push from someone with a vision and the capacity and resources to motivate people to move towards that vision. He seems to be one of those types.

If we eliminate the psychotic, obsessive compulsives with driven and grandiose ideas who are labile then yeah, we would eliminate some of the monsters, but we would also eliminate Tesla, Newton, etc.