Ok, that's a fair point, although it was not implied that Tesla will not improve efficiency, it was just a quick illustrative calculation.
They've been cost-cutting very aggressively so I assume there are few low-hanging or middle-hanging fruits left.
The big picture is that their business is currently not profitable without government money, which doesn't scale linearly with revenue. Sure, I guess they will slowly improve their margins in the future. But my point is that it's unlikely that their car manufacturing business will become a massive cash cow as the market seems to think.
Batteries becoming cheaper won't directly translate to margins because of competition.
See, this is what I mean by clueless. Price and valuation are completely different concepts. An asset that will never generate any cash has a valuation of zero, but its market price could be anything.
Tesla can't use lidars because: 1. It would make the cars much more expensive. 2. They would have to refund all people who've bough FSD or provide them a free upgrade.
Maybe in general, but I don't think you're right in the case of self-driving systems. Waymo says that perception is the easy part and most of the work is elsewhere. So in the absolute worst case scenario, they would have to develop the perception part from scratch. At Tesla, this took 2 years.
BTW, all companies that can, use lidars. Even MobileEye says that their L4 system will use lidars and they've been working on a camera based system for 2 decades. Tesla doesn't use lidars because they can't.
(Using a different account because I got a "you're posting too fast" error.)
It's probably even less readable to be honest. And it would mean there are now 2 ways of doing something which makes the language irregular (unless everyone switches to this syntax).
I would just read it as: "Take str, convert it to an int and take the absolute value." It also corresponds to the order of steps as it actually happens.
Another example where the readability difference is clearer:
Below is excerpt from 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.
Summary: Since 1980s, the decision power in US corporations started to move to the hands of shareholders. They care about short term profits, not about the employees.
> And then, in the 1980s, the holy grail was found. It was called the principle of shareholder value maximization. It was argued that professional managers should be rewarded according to the amount they can give to shareholders. In order to achieve this, it was argued, first profits need to be maximized by ruthlessly cutting costs – wage bills, investments, inventories, middle-level managers, and so on. Second, the highest possible share of these profits needs tobe distributed to the shareholders – through dividends and share buybacks. In order to encourage managers to behave in this way, the proportion of their compensation packages that stock options account for needs to be increased, so that they identify more with the interests of the shareholders. The idea was advocated not just by shareholders, but also by many professional managers, most famously by Jack Welch, the long-time chairman of General Electric (GE), who is often credited with coining the term ‘shareholder value’ in aspeech in 1981.
> Soon after Welch’s speech, shareholder value maximization became the zeitgeist of the American corporate world. In the beginning, it seemed to work really well for both the managers and the shareholders. The shareof profits in national income, which had shown a downward trend since the 1960s, sharply rose in the mid 1980s and has shown an upward trend since then.
And the shareholders got a higher share of that profit as dividends, while seeing the value of their shares rise. Distributed profits as a share of total US corporate profit stood at 35–45 per cent between the 1950s and the 1970s, but it has been onan upward trend since the late 70s and now stands at around 60 per cent. The managers saw their compensation rising through the roof, but shareholders stopped questioning their pay packages, as they were happy with ever-rising share prices and dividends. The practice soon spread to other countries – more easily to countries like Britain, which had a corporate power structure and managerial culture similar to those of the US, and less easily to other countries, as we shall see below
> Now, this unholy alliance between the professional managers and the shareholders was all financed by squeezing the other stakeholders in the company (which is why it has spread much more slowly to other rich countries where the other stakeholders have greater relative strength). Jobs were ruthlessly cut, many workers were fired and re-hired as non-unionized labour with lower wages and fewer benefits, and wage increases were suppressed (often by relocating to or outsourcing from low-wage countries, suchas China and India – or the threat to do so). The suppliers, and their workers, were also squeezed by continued cuts in procurement prices, while the government was pressured into lowering corporate tax rates and/or providing more subsidies, with the help of the threat of relocating to countries with lower corporate tax rates and/or higher business subsidies. As a result, income inequality soared and in a seemingly endless corporate boom (ending, of course, in 2008), the vast majority of the American and the British populations could share in the (apparent) prosperity only through borrowing atunprecedented rates.
I really like the design and simple UI. You have done a great job. Added the website into my "Nice design" bookmarks folder. If it was for Android I would buy it.
I have a very similar view. One thing that seems to be specific for US high schools is that there are relatively clearly defined and isolated groups. In the school I attended (in the Czech Rep), there were vague / fuzzy groups but basically everyone was friends with everyone.
They've been cost-cutting very aggressively so I assume there are few low-hanging or middle-hanging fruits left.
The big picture is that their business is currently not profitable without government money, which doesn't scale linearly with revenue. Sure, I guess they will slowly improve their margins in the future. But my point is that it's unlikely that their car manufacturing business will become a massive cash cow as the market seems to think.
Batteries becoming cheaper won't directly translate to margins because of competition.