adfrhgeaq5hy

You think "Autopilot" is a moat? Every other company has had that stuff for ten years and their systems actually work. Adaptive cruise control ain't new.

And no, I don't think Tesla can improve on build quality. Their cars are fantastically shit. May as well consider Yugo a competitor to Bentley.

>You can get all that money back if you do no longer want to wait for the product. What's your issue?

I don't love fraud. Tesla loses money on every car it sells and cooks the books by charging for imaginary options. That is cut-and-dry securities fraud.

>Other then building a gigantic factory dedicated for building the car.

Tesla does not operate gigantic factories. They're a pipsqueak.

>stainless steal

Freudian slip?

I won't play along with the Gish Gallop, sorry.

>It's clear it's got a long way to go but is improving quickly.

First part yes, second part no. It has been in development since at least 2015 and still drives straight into walls. Meanwhile Waymo and Cruze are putting down tens of thousands of miles between interventions.

1. Securities fraud is fraud.

2. Tesla is currently advertising their cars as being capable of driving themselves. They have videos of people driving with their hands off the wheel. They have failed to implement safety features that make drivers pay attention while using driver assists. People have died because of this.

3. There are no FSD owners because FSD does not exists.

4. You are a victim too. You will realize it someday.

5. I sure as hell have standing. Have you seen the video of the current FSD version? It just plain does not work and is being released on public roads for "testing" by untrained drivers. Tesla is putting my life in danger, and shame on you for going along with it.

>OK, here’s the performance. Factor of 2.2X over its peers (other laptop SKUs) in multithreaded performance, going head to head with 5950X in some (floating-point) scenarios

Finally a sensible comparison! As I said, it is quite impressive.

>it doesn’t mean low-clocked x86 magically beats A15.

Nor did I ever say it would.

What I have said is a simple truth: leading on IPC and trailing on frequency is not obviously an advantage. I don't understand what it is you think I said. Pretty much everything you are writing is a non-sequitur.

Why do you think x86 can't go as wide as ARM? (I predict your answer will involve something about decoders and nothing about uop caches.)

What goalpost have I moved? I have said one (true) thing: that you should judge by performance rather than by implementation details. You are falling victim to the Megahertz Myth, just the other way 'round.

CPUs are designed to hit a certain clock rate. The target frequency influences the design of literally every circuit in the CPU. Downclocking a CPU is not the same as designing it for a lower frequency. An x86 CPU is designed to run at ~5GHz in its highest turbo mode. Simply reducing the frequency in the BIOS does not undo all the tradeoffs the architects made that deliberately sacrificed IPC for frequency.

You could make a very wide CPU indeed if you decided to run it at 100MHz. That would be obviously stupid, though, because it is the product of IPC and frequency that matters.

It certainly looks like Apple has made the better tradeoff. However, you can only tell that from the benchmarks. Either going wider or going faster are valid approaches.

>A factor of 2-to-3 IPC difference?

That is irrelevant. What matters is the product of IPC and frequency. x86 parts today are clocked much, much higher than Apple's parts.

IPC and frequency are both means to an end. Compare on performance and efficiency, not implementation details.

I think that person meant "overstate".

The ISA has relatively little to do with it. Sure, x86 requires power-hungry decoders, but most of the time you'll be running from the uop cache anyway. Plus you get denser code. Arm and x86 aren't all that different under the hood these days and generally RISC vs CISC is a wash. It took heroic engineering to get x86 that fast, but that work is already done.

Tesla is miles behind everyone else. It is hard, yes, but it is even harder if you try to do it with hardware that is not up to the task.

1. They built precisely zero stations for battery swaps.

2. Tesla has been promising a car for $35k or less for years now and still does not sell one.

3. The solar roofs exist only to give an excuse to bail out Elon's cousins. Installations are currently lower than 20% of Tesla's projections and are declining rapidly. They are bad solar panels because they are more expensive to manufacture, far more expensive to install, less durable, and less efficient than an ordinary installation. They are bad roofs because they are more expensive to manufacture, far more expensive to install, and far less durable than ordinary roofs.

4. The Cybertruck is a concept. They have made not even a single working prototype. There has been no news since the scale model had its glass busted over 700 days ago. Similarly, there has never been a working Roadster and we have seen no real information in over three years.

5. The Semi is an asinine idea and cannot ever work. Trucks have a weight limit and run as close as possible to that limit. Batteries are heavy. Using our best technology an electric semi would have well under half the capacity of a normal one even for very short trips.

We know for a fact Tesla is doing something nefarious, i.e. the self driving scam.

But I suppose Tesla isn't hiding anything nefarious. Most of their malfeasance is plain to see.

There are affordable electric cars on the market today with better build quality than what Tesla sells for $80k. Someone will make a killing off affordable electric cars. Every indication is it will not be Tesla.

The reason those people exist is that the US banking system is so bizarrely dysfunctional. The American system is corrupt and byzantine and antiquated and leaves tens of millions of people out in the cold. Those people are absolutely right to be furious. They're just wrong about the solution.