bobjoylove t1_jcxp2gk wrote

Red Bull have been mixing a bit of brilliant design with a bit of cheating. Perez qualified almost a full second faster than Hamilton and even after a wind-tunnel penalty for RB for cheating, they are some 5~7 KPH faster than anyone on the straights and they gain 27kph when they open the DRS which is more than anyone else manages to get.

It’s frustrating and perplexing to see they had the least wind tunnel time due to being champions, plus a wind tunnel penalty; and yet they still have untouchable aero.


bobjoylove t1_j977j8u wrote

Ok let’s agree to disagree on the technical aspects of a know working collision avoidance system they is shipping on millions of cars including my own.

It’s good to have a secondary system to cross-check the cameras. I have noted that many (not this one) cases of the Tesla systems failing have been at night. Adding RADAR or LIDAR augments the cameras. BTW the answer in the back of the book is Tesla have realised that they actually do need RADAR and have begun adding it.


bobjoylove t1_j971ijk wrote

The Radar is used for ranging. It provides a distance and a rate of change over a reasonably narrow aperture. The bottom of the valley does not get close enough to warrant emergency intervention from the braking system.

The fact that the majority of cars with dynamic cruise and automated pedestrian braking systems all using 60GHz as the detection method should tell you it is possible and it is shipping already.


bobjoylove t1_j96hyfd wrote

Nevertheless with ADAS this exact collision type should be 100% avoidable without extenuating circumstances (ice on the road, impact from another vehicle driven by a human). The reason it’s not is Tesla’s refusal to use ranging technology like Radar, and insisting on cheaper visible-light based cameras.


bobjoylove t1_j6n8b91 wrote

This is a discussion about why they choose buybacks over dividends or simply hoarding. All of those scenarios occur after they have decided they can’t use the money for operations.

There’s definitely the paradox that a failing company might have sufficient cash to do a buyback to protect its stock/EPS; as it likely would not be failing if it has billions in excess. The only time that might happen is a windfall such as from the sale of a significant asset.


bobjoylove t1_j6n3f5l wrote

It’s not conjecture, it’s what is happening. Look at the size of the buybacks. It’s tens of billions of dollars. For example Chevron’s latest $75Bn or Google at $70bn last year. That’s a huge sum, and Google’s top 3 biggest acquisitions are Motorola at $12.5bn, Nest at $3.2bn and Doubleclick at $3.1bn.

So it could remake 3 of its biggest acquisitions and still have about $50bn for a buyback. They would then have three huge acquisitions to integrate and manage, which is a lot of work for HR and a pivot for the company to new revenue sources and a risk of being investigated as a monopoly.

They have no better idea to use the vast sums of money other than a buyback.


bobjoylove t1_j6kw88p wrote

Dividends have a couple of other negatives. One is that if you reduce the dividend for any reason, people sell the stock. Also I believe if you pay a dividend it reduces the value of the company because it is removed from the company assets, which should reduce the price of stock (if you ignore all other factors influencing the stock price) Finally if the company buys back stock it can then issue it to staff as RSUs over 4 years to make “golden handcuffs” to retain the best players.


bobjoylove t1_j6kkkal wrote

It means the company has so much cash that it doesn’t even know what to do with it. So they buy back stock.

The stockholders like it because it reduces supply of shares, underpinning the prices.

The staff kinda like it as it means it may form part of a compensation package later on.

The general public doesn’t like it because it means the company is making too much profit.

The strategists are wary of it because it means the board doesn’t have any significant ideas about how to expand the business when it has a glut of cash.