Tesla "Full Self Driving" not capable of autonomous driving

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

The Forbes piece cites a dozen or more academic (Harvard, Stanford, and the Sloan School at MIT) and business generated studies that support this conclusion.

The Forbes piece quotes a study on call center employees. That is a completely different animal as they are already "metriced" to death. Call Center employees have worked from home for literally decades with good results. Delta has had a large portion of their reservation agents working from home for over 20 years.

That's a lot different than a group of engineers working to design the next great automobile. Not saying you can't do it, but I question whether it's as effective to work alone.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

The Forbes piece quotes a study on call center employees. That is a completely different animal as they are already "metriced" to death. Call Center employees have worked from home for literally decades with good results. Delta has had a large portion of their reservation agents working from home for over 20 years.

That's a lot different than a group of engineers working to design the next great automobile. Not saying you can't do it, but I question whether it's as effective to work alone.

Yes they did. But I think you fell into the TL;DR trap. Read the whole article. Read the other studies it cites. It isn’t limited to call centers.

Also from the Forbes piece.

This extensive evidence is widely available to anyone who Googles remote work productivity and looks at all the results on the first page. Leaders are taught to make data-driven decisions.

So why do so many leaders continue to ignore the data and stubbornly deny the facts? The key lies in how leaders evaluate performance: based on what they can see.

As the Harvard Business Review points out, leaders are trained to evaluate employees based on “facetime.” Those who come early and leave late are perceived and assessed as more productive.

My youngest is an SE at a west coast tech behemoth. He has been working from home for close to three years. But he is far from working alone. He has instant communication with his manager and his colleagues. If anything collaboration seems more effective than before. You don't have to walk down the hall or to another building to have a face-to-face with a co-worker.

So, I suggest that yes, you can design the next world beating car or aircraft or anything else working remotely.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

So, I suggest that yes, you can design the next world beating car or aircraft or anything else working remotely.

I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying it may not be the most efficient or effective way to do it.

Ultimately, I'm all for working from home, but I do think it has it's practical limitations, and not all of those are physical (like hard to work on an assembly line from home).

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

The problem with conflating facetime with productivity, is it seems to be wrong.

Yeah, that is a thing, but I am with Dadhawk on the idea that some things require hands on approaches, in-person collaborations, etc., yet admittedly, I don't know what a typical work week looks like for the software and hardware engineers. I don't know how much time is spent behind a computer writing software or creating CAD parts. Maybe the vast majority. Maybe the vast majority of collaborative meetings, where ideas are shared, can happen on Zoom. I don't know if there is trainable benefits to holding a 3D model in hand and passing it around a room or moving the meeting to the design studio to see it on the car.

Musk could have been influenced by the viral videos of people faking being in Zoom meetings or faking working, when he said, "pretend to work somewhere else."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kzq...-zoom-meetings

https://www.harmonizehq.com/blog/zoom-pranks/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58674888

I like this video. There is some truth in this video that is shared with remote workers; productivity should be all that matters, so if someone can do it at home and in less time because they don't have to commute, have less distractions or can take a break to watch their kid's baseball game, and then return to the desk, then that is all that matters because they are fulfilling their contract obligations. But Musk and Jobs like to squeeze every second out of people, and they do that by pushing their engineers to stay late and work weekends, and they can do that much better by having them come to work. We will see what strategies result in better products over time. To use the video, Musk wants it all: the cheapest logo that is the best logo in the fastest time. It is one of these things were you can have two, but not three, examples. If remote work is a win-win for everyone then I'm sure he will go back to it, but I don't believe he is calling for a return to work because he only is a micromanager; I think he probably saw some differences and realized he needed to get on top of the culture change before it hurt performance.

[Capt Spaulding]

Actually, my son’s employer was concerned that employees might take the productivity uber alles approach leading to rapid burnout. they went to some lengths to steer employees towards a more healthy work-life balance.

It may have backfired a bit. Some took it as a signal that the company actually cared about them as people and put in even more effort and time.

Whatever, studies from a number of reputable sources suggest that concerns among many about remote workers shirking their responsibilities are not supported by the data. As the Forbes piece seems to conclude, the problem is, in part, narrow minded, small “c” conservative management philosophies that refuse to accept the facts as presented.

My main point is that with Musk at the helm, his businesses are shackled to narrow minded thinking. I suspect he believes that reality is his to create. He has had some success with that approach. In the end, however, I don’t think it is sustainable.

But, as my dad said, “if you’re so smart why aren’t you rich?”

My reply was, “because you haven’t given me enough money.”

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t think he is wrong. Maybe some people will find their productivity increases staying at home and working remotely, saving time and money living in cheaper areas and not having to commute or get fancied up, so they can work instead, but it can also mean people are more distracted and slack off, which is why Musk forced people to return and cancelled remote working jobs. Also, there is a reason Apple built their circular spaceship to enhance interaction and collaboration and inspire great design. Same with McLaren and other companies with amazing buildings that inspire and are built around collaboration. As Steve Jobs said, “A-types want to work with A people,” so creating an environment that weeds out the slackers or weeds out people who put in less than 110% might be best for the team. Apple has pushed too for a return to work. We will have to see what strategy prevails.

As the article pointed out, Musk works a lot and is a hands on manager, so he expects the same. They also continue to be at the top of lists for desirable places to work, receiving 3 million applications at a 0.5% take rate, and we aren’t talking Walmart positions here.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-3-mi...tions-in-2021/

https://blog.kickresume.com/how-to-get-a-job-at-tesla/

Expect Apple still allows remote working on a reasonable basis (2 days a week I believe), and McLaren is a small niche company that's been on the verge of collapse for several years. I can also find examples of companies promoting remote work with great success (AirBnB comes to mind).

Hands-on micro-management may work with some types and in some contexts, but has its (numerous) limitations. People's priorities in regards to work have evolved as well, and that vision of trying to squeeze every ounce of productive juice out of people while weeding out so-called slackers belongs in the last decade.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alex87f

Hands-on micro-management may work with some types and in some contexts, but has its (numerous) limitations. People's priorities in regards to work have evolved as well, and that vision of trying to squeeze every ounce of productive juice out of people while weeding out so-called slackers belongs in the last decade.

Not completely disagreeing with you but I would point out you do not have to be in the office to be micromanaged. If anything, work from home lends itself to more micromanagement, not less as those managers that are micromanagers only do more so when they can't see their employees.

[Irace86.2.0]

@Capt Spaulding @alex87f

I don't disagree that the pandemic changed the status quo, and I am a pro-union/worker who believes the movement to scale back the hustle (quiet quitting) and work remotely for a better quality life and better work/life balance is great. The corporate world continues to try to squeeze the middle class dry, so I am all for these changes, and if it is a win-win for corporations too because remote work improves productivity then that is great. I think the ability to work remotely, even part time is extremely job specific and maybe company specific, so I'm sure AirBnB's management, HR or call centers will do fine working remotely.

Musk has said:

He also referred to his management of Tesla and SpaceX, explaining that "a small number of exceptional people can be highly motivated [and] can do better than a large number of people who are pretty good and moderately motivated."

This is almost identical to Steve Jobs, and the quote I said earlier. There are a group of people who are highly motivated, really dedicated, willing to take a beating if it means making an impact and getting paid well, and he is gambling that he will get those A-types if he creates a culture that is what A-types want. It seems antiquated, and it may not survive the new status quo, and he may find the talent pool gets thin over time if he can't keep the company moving in the direction of his vision. We will have to see. At minimum, like how it is good having an Ivy League school on a resume, the value is in the name and the filtering process. Musk is filtering the workforce, and limiting supply by having high standards just increases the demand to have that Tesla name on their resume.

https://www.geekwire.com/2023/amazon...3-days-a-week/

If remote working is so much more productive then it is just interesting that all these tech companies are pushing people to return to work, even three days a week. If it objectionably better, it would seem illogical that corporate leaders would ignore improving their bottom line in order to fulfill a need to micromanage the company or teams.

[alex87f]

There’s definitely a balance to be found. Full remote works for some companies and people but I don’t think it’s an appropriate model for most office jobs. I’ve done full remote for 1.5 years during Covid and am glad to be able to return to work, if only to see other people.

Being able to work remotely around half the time is great. Being able to consolidate those days in order to spend some time with family living far away is even better.

I can see where you’re coming from with the mindset that one needs a-types to be working together in a single place all the time, but that really only works for specific jobs, and if you have a lot of key jobs in the same location. Having people be 100% on-site in a remote office, where they can spend all day zooming with people in headquarters make no sense, for example.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

@Capt Spaulding @alex87f

I don't disagree that the pandemic changed the status quo, and I am a pro-union/worker who believes the movement to scale back the hustle (quiet quitting) and work remotely for a better quality life and better work/life balance is great. The corporate world continues to try to squeeze the middle class dry, so I am all for these changes, and if it is a win-win for corporations too because remote work improves productivity then that is great. I think the ability to work remotely, even part time is extremely job specific and maybe company specific, so I'm sure AirBnB's management, HR or call centers will do fine working remotely.

Musk has said:



This is almost identical to Steve Jobs, and the quote I said earlier. There are a group of people who are highly motivated, really dedicated, willing to take a beating if it means making an impact and getting paid well, and he is gambling that he will get those A-types if he creates a culture that is what A-types want. It seems antiquated, and it may not survive the new status quo, and he may find the talent pool gets thin over time if he can't keep the company moving in the direction of his vision. We will have to see. At minimum, like how it is good having an Ivy League school on a resume, the value is in the name and the filtering process. Musk is filtering the workforce, and limiting supply by having high standards just increases the demand to have that Tesla name on their resume.

https://www.geekwire.com/2023/amazon...3-days-a-week/

If remote working is so much more productive then it is just interesting that all these tech companies are pushing people to return to work, even three days a week. If it objectionably better, it would seem illogical that corporate leaders would ignore improving their bottom line in order to fulfill a need to micromanage the company or teams.

part of the return to work push is due to city politics. they want workers going back to their offices so they get lunch out, fill up parking garages, get dry cleaning, ect.

commercial real estate hates the idea of some businesses switching entirely to WFH

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

part of the return to work push is due to city politics. they want workers going back to their offices so they get lunch out, fill up parking garages, get dry cleaning, ect.

commercial real estate hates the idea of some businesses switching entirely to WFH

I've read that, but I question the degree to which this is pressuring employers to change their policy.

New York City Is Losing Out On $12 Billion Annually Because Of Remote Work

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkel...h=6a6e085c6fb3

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

@Capt Spaulding @alex87f

I don't disagree that the pandemic changed the status quo, and I am a pro-union/worker who believes the movement to scale back the hustle (quiet quitting) and work remotely for a better quality life and better work/life balance is great. The corporate world continues to try to squeeze the middle class dry, so I am all for these changes, and if it is a win-win for corporations too because remote work improves productivity then that is great. I think the ability to work remotely, even part time is extremely job specific and maybe company specific, so I'm sure AirBnB's management, HR or call centers will do fine working remotely.

Musk has said:



This is almost identical to Steve Jobs, and the quote I said earlier. There are a group of people who are highly motivated, really dedicated, willing to take a beating if it means making an impact and getting paid well, and he is gambling that he will get those A-types if he creates a culture that is what A-types want. It seems antiquated, and it may not survive the new status quo, and he may find the talent pool gets thin over time if he can't keep the company moving in the direction of his vision. We will have to see. At minimum, like how it is good having an Ivy League school on a resume, the value is in the name and the filtering process. Musk is filtering the workforce, and limiting supply by having high standards just increases the demand to have that Tesla name on their resume.

https://www.geekwire.com/2023/amazon...3-days-a-week/

If remote working is so much more productive then it is just interesting that all these tech companies are pushing people to return to work, even three days a week. If it objectionably better, it would seem illogical that corporate leaders would ignore improving their bottom line in order to fulfill a need to micromanage the company or teams.

In order of appearance.

I don't doubt your sincerity. You'll get no argument from me about the rapaciousness of most of the (American at the very least) corporate world.

The pandemic certainly changed the workplace landscape, but it also provided an impetus for changes in policy that technological advances had been long in developing. The pandemic provided a sort of natural experiment to examine "work from home" as a model for some sorts of jobs. The data suggest that for some - generally knowledge based - types of jobs it has shown that workers generally don't use the opportunity to shirk and that the potential distractions associated with working from home are not productivity killers.

For the last 10 years of my teaching career, i had a number of friends and colleagues, both from the academic and administrative sides of campus promote the benefits of remote teaching. They had a number of arguments to support their plans. My request of them was simple. "Show me the results of well designed studies that demonstrate the efficacy of on-line instruction in a university environment. If you can demonstrate that on-line is as "good" a format as face to face, I'll switch."

No one answered the challenge. I was, and remain, convinced that as a tool for teaching university undergrads, face to face has features that remote instruction cannot match. The bond a teacher can create with their class face to face is very difficult, if not impossible, to foster in an online environment. In my opinion, successful teaching requires a substantial degree of empathy with one's students. A willingness to hold their hand, offer a tissue at times, and get to know them as the complex creatures they are. I don't think that is fully possible in a remote model.

The other side of my job involved research. For many in the academy, particularly in some of the social sciences, on-site collaboration is not really doable. For most of your colleagues, your research program is mysterious. The substantive questions you want to answer and the methodological tools you use are unfamiliar to many of them. I was fortunate for most of my career to have colleagues in my departments with whom I shared interests that led to a number of in-house collaborations. However, at least half of my work was done with colleagues who worked in distant time zones. But for both, most of my "work" was done in my office with the door closed to limit interruptions or at home. I don't have a measure, but I suspect I was more "productive," whatever that means, at home.

I understand, you cannot work on an assembly line from home. But for those who work in an office the dynamic changes. A good friend from the administrative side at my last university used to regale me with claims about how much more efficient the private sector was than the public sector. But, he had never worked in the private sector. Half of my working life was in the private sector, working on the design and construction of large petro-chemical plants and off-shore platforms. The amount of time wasted in and around a drafting room or an office suite or on a jobsite is huge.

The same is true here. Moreover, for knowledge based jobs, there may be FEWER distractions at home than in the office. The fishing or hunting or motorcycling buddy in the control engineering group; the knockout woman in purchasing - the things that you spent/wasted time on in the office - are not there.

Some employers, Amazon come first to mind, have gone to great lengths to 'systematize' manual work to maximize productivity - similar to the old time and motion studies of the 1950s. They have by many accounts created pretty unpleasant workplaces. Can you get lots of output from an oppressive work environment? Perhaps. For a while.

To the Musk / Jobs comparison. Musk isn't Steve Jobs. A lot of what's come out since his death suggests that Steve Jobs might not have been Steve Jobs. Both seem, at present or in retrospect to be hemorrhaging assholes. One question this presents is, do you have to be an asshole to get people to work hard for you? Jobs was, I think a visionary. Musk may be as well.

I guess the bigger question for me is, "was Apple the success that it was, or Tesla/SpaceX the successes they have been so far BECAUSE the top guy was an asshole, or in spite of it?"

In the end, the studies from Harvard, Stanford and elsewhere suggest that, where appropriate, the "work from home" effect is positive and real. As to why more companies have not adopted it and others want to go back to the 8 to ? office environment, I suspect the Forbes conclusion is close to the mark. 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. And, like one of my friends/instructors in grad school use to say, "I don't have to believe nuthin I don't want to." I suspect that Musk holds similar attitudes.

[Capt Spaulding]

For those who found the preceding soliloquy TL;DR

In the end, the studies from Harvard, Stanford and elsewhere suggest that, where appropriate, the "work from home" effect is positive and real. As to why more companies have not adopted it and others want to go back to the 8 to ? office environment, I suspect the Forbes conclusion is close to the mark. 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. And, like one of my friends/instructors in grad school use to say, "I don't have to believe nuthin I don't want to." I suspect that Musk holds similar attitudes.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

For those who found the preceding soliloquy TL;DR

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.