792
Tesla’s value drops $60bn after investors fail to hail self-driving ‘Cybercab’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
792 points (98.4% liked)
News
23680 readers
3262 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not like Elon is famous for keeping the timeline. Man on Mars and Tesla semi any day now.
I posted this elsewhere, but I always enjoy the timeline:
Well, he did say he'd put a man on Mars in 10 years... back in 2011.
...And then in 10 years in 2014 (meaning 2024).
...And then in 6 years in 2016 (meaning 2022)
...And then in 6 years again in late 2020 (meaning 2026)
Then we finally end up on his current 2022 estimate of 2029.
Don't worry, Trump and Elon said that if Trump wins 2024, we'll have a man on Mars before Trump's term is over.
So from someone who works in human spaceflight, this is ridiculously outrageous.
I’m not insinuating that anyone thought it was realistic, but just confirming your suspicions.
Don't worry, since Trump will install himself as dictator for life, this means he has more than 4 years to get someone to Mars.
Then again, given Trump's age and diet, maybe 4 years is generous in and of itself...
Can you think of any realistic benefit to a manned mission to Mars?
Bringing back samples would be an amazing feat, and that seems a worthwhile mission. Having a human onboard seems to complicate things far more than any data that would give us would be worth.
Once those ring gates open, Mars will be finished.
🤞
I'm not the person you asked and I don't know anything about such things so this is just supposition but...
I guess it's an important milestone on the way to colonising Mars. It would be an acknowledgement that we've solved (or mitigated...) all the problems in getting a human to and fro.
Now, if you're asking whether there's any realistic benefit to colonising Mars, the answer IMHO is "not in the next 50 years".
Yeah, that's about what I'm thinking. A manned mission to Mars could be an interesting project for our kids or grandkids. Anyone talking about it in our lifetimes is just a grifter.
Lots of side benefits when solving the problems faced getting there.
There are lots of useful minerals on Mars.
Backup planet if earth gets asteroided
An asteroided earth is still more habitable than Mars.
Probably. And a lunar base is likely much more achievable for the same objective.
First, it’s crewed or human mission - inclusive language is important! :)
I do think human exploration is important because humans can cover longer distances faster. So your overall options for exploration increase. I do think both human and robotic are important and serve valuable purposes.
It would be more complicated with humans, but I think that’s also a valuable learning experience that could lead to technology that would benefit Earth.
I do not think “colonization” or whatever term you want to use should be a priority. I think science and exploration are what we should stick to, and if your excuse for colonization is because something bad will happen to Earth so we have to go somewhere else…just spend that time and those resources figuring out how to not fuck up Earth just to go fuck up the next place.
Will this man be alive by the time he reaches mars, or returns to earth? Will the mars spacecraft have the same build quality and reliability as a Tesla Cybertruck, or will it blue screen after leaving the Earth's orbit?
Dude, I'm positive he won't make it 2 years and then those christofascists can start with their project with JD couchfucking Vance as the president.