happyscrappy t1_jdppo64 wrote

Silicon Valley doesn't "keep coming up" with ideas like that.

Yes, the guy is a kook. Every group has kooks. Just this guy had the money to get his kooky idea to a ballot.

There have been other bigtime kooks too.



happyscrappy t1_jcn00k3 wrote

> Just wait for it. Let's come back and revisit this thread in one year. I will happily eat my words with a side of feces.

Oh, you'll eat those words. A year isn't long enough for a place like Silicon Valley to empty out.

> The rich rats flee the ship, then the fun begins in the vacuum left behind.

The rich rats already left. Larry Ellison is gone, National Instruments is owned by Texas Instruments. Idiot Elon Musk left for Texas. And other rich people filled the voids so far. A year from now it'll be the same. Maybe it'll be different in five or ten years.

And the same can be said for any place, including Texas.


happyscrappy t1_jcmyfbc wrote

They were cleaned up. Before the new buildings were built.

You're thinking of Ashley Govik's suits. She's not getting any traction and it's unclear she will.

For lawsuits of the sort of "I don't like my workplace conditions" her lawsuits are incredibly widely covered.

I think she has lawsuits against an apartment complex she lived in too.


happyscrappy t1_j9x2it3 wrote

You can't offer a back door without risk that others will use it.

If you produce messages that can be read by two keys, the recipient or key XYZ which is held by the UK government then anyone who gets that XYZ key can decrypt every message.

On top of that, the politics of back doors are just too problematic. If you give the UK a back door then Russia can come to you and demand one too. Any government, by establishing a precedent that they get a back door opens up to services giving access to their enemies too.


happyscrappy t1_j9bciws wrote

> Or, just spitballing here, they could have designed the kernel so that it doesn’t take root level commands from anything in the application layer…

They already do. The problem is they don't trust it. As there have been privilege escalation bugs before.

This is similar to Apple's "blast door" idea for messages. Neither should be necessary if software is written correctly in the first place.

BTW, Apple's "blast door" was bypassed within a year of introduction. So even that "extra layer" only slowed down the attackers, not stopped them.


happyscrappy t1_j8s9twb wrote

> I mean its February. Why wouldn't they open them up now that the government is handing out free money to do what they were planning on doing anyway?

The only statements made that they were going to open up were under government pressure. Claiming they were just going to open up regardless is ridiculous. Especially when even now with money going to them they still are not opening over 80% of their chargers.

> That's strange since Tesla sells on their website charging stations that work with non-EVs. But I guess Tesla doesn't get credit for that because ...reasons.

We're talking about installations, not EVSE offerings. We're talking about Tesla as a charging network operator, not an accessory vendor.

> In other words they started doing last year what you said they didn't.

No. When I'm talking about opening up I'm talking about DCFC, not AC charging.

And this addition of J1772 was before last year. And it was only in response to the government indicating that tax credits would not be available to sites that install systems that only have Tesla ports.

They didn't do it to "open up", but because the government regulated them.

And I propose further regulation to produce future "good deeds" of this sort from Tesla. You seem to be a fan of these results, why would you be against the government getting more such good results?


happyscrappy t1_j8s907a wrote

> plug-n-charge is not a billing system and will not fix billing system issues.

I don't know what you are talking about. Plug-n-charge means you don't use an app or a screen on the charger to set up your payment info. Instead your car is identified when you connect it. With no way to set billing information that means the billing information will be looked up in a database run by the charger operator.

So yes, that means Tesla will have a database of everyone who owns an EV who uses their chargers. A database to spam. And they will have an app (Already do) you use to set your billing information. That puts them in the pocket of every (okay, a lot of) EV owners.

But it also means billing can be handled like how your cell phone billing is handled. When you roam to another place you may be on a different network but your SIM identifies you and a backend can route the validation so that someone can attest you are allowed to call on that network and so that you are billed for what you do as applicable.

The idea of plug n charge is similar. You just go and the billing takes care of itself behind the scenes. You don't get to a charger and find you can't use it because you don't have a membership card. Or their app. Or the screen is broken. If you can plug in, it'll work. Like a Tesla Supercharger does. This will reduce failed attempts to charge which failed due to billing issues.

> what is this 12.5% about?

That is the percentage of chargers Tesla runs that it is going to make available to non-Teslas before the end of 2024. Only 12.5%.

> How is it vendor lock in when your opening up?

What? They are only opening up 12.5% of their chargers and only by the end of 2024. That means 87.5% of chargers are still only their own connector. That's vendor lock-in.

> locking Tesla out of the funds would do what for the US charging infrastructure?

The money would go to other companies who are committed to an infrastructure instead of vendor lock-in. It turns out most of the $7.5B is going to other companies, I corrected myself in an edit. The reporting implied it all goes to Tesla. It does not.

> Changing side mirrors to allow cameras was proposed years ago by many more companies then tesla.

What I'm talking about was Musk opining that since not having wing mirrors was illegal in the US he would put both wing mirrors and side cameras on the car and then customers would remove the wing mirrors and use just the side cameras.

Malicious compliance.

> Sometime after march 2023 side mirrors will be replaceable with camera.

Maybe. Or not. The rulemaking isn't done yet. None of that is material regardless, as Musk was proposing to release the car before the rule change.

> To summarize my points. Tesla opening up is great for the EV driver.

Tesla opening up 12.5% shows really that they aren't opening up at all. They are instead buying time to extend their vendor lockin.

> Tesla opening up is bad for other charging companies.

I don't care if companies that do a worse job have a hard time. I presume you don't either.


happyscrappy t1_j8s7wj5 wrote

> Tesla WANTS their charging to be the standardized mechanism for EVs

There already is a standard. Coming by and saying "switch to me thing" is just an excuse.

> They opened up their patents

No they didn't. You got fooled by Musk's false bravado. They offer a patent swap. You can use their patents for free for electric car use in exchange for allowing them to use all your patets for free for any use.

It's an offer of a patent swap, and a bad deal at that. It's not any kind of good deal for a company which has a patent portfolio.

> Tesla has the biggest network and most vehicles, so it'd make sense to use that format.

Tesla has the single biggest network, but the number of non-Tesla chargers greatly exceeds the number of Tesla chargers. So the biggest interoperable network is not Tesla.

And switching to Tesla's connector after 10 years of using the standard one would be ridiculous. It would hurt everyone who made an investment in the standard. That includes car owners, charger makers and those who installed chargers (hotels, etc.).

Tesla switched to the standard connector in Europe with the Model 3. Because the EU forced them to. It's worked out great. The logical thing is to use the standard connector in the US also.


happyscrappy t1_j8qoj9r wrote

The money is ridiculous.

I would give them $0. Just do like Europe and say you're prohibited from making any more DC chargers that don't support CCS (at least in addition to your proprietary connector). You're not required to retrofit the old ones, and so we're not going to pay you anything for it.

Tesla is right now saying 7500 chargers. It's not even clear they are all DC. Some may be Level 2.

[edit: It's 3500 DC and 4000 L2!. But also the entire $7.5B does not go to Tesla. Just part of it. So my $1M below figure may be far too high.]

$1M a charger? Ridiculous.

Plus Tesla will use the billing system in place to create a database of EV owners for them to market to. And force them to download the Tesla app, giving them a line direct to their pocket.

California law requires them to make their chargers available to everyone without joining a club (no memberships). I hope that law sticks here. But this is Musk. The same guy who refused to close his plants during COVID because he's too damn important for it. He made false claims that he had permission to operate.

I don't really expect them to follow the California law.


happyscrappy t1_j8qns2v wrote

> Don't you think its likely that the the delay by a couple months of opening the network might have been because they knew this was coming down the pike?

I don't believe it is a delay "of a couple months". This is the company that will have self driving by the end of the year for 6 years running.

Musk promised this by the end of last year and now the current tweets say 7500 chargers "by the end of 2024". How is that "a couple months"?

> Also there are already Tesla level 2 destination chargers open to non-tesla drivers with an adapter.

Jimmying into their system is no credit to Tesla. The adapters trick the chargers.

Tesla also started to install J1772 ports (fewer than Tesla ports, but still) with their destination chargers at some sites (like hotels, etc.) after a while. But only after the government said that the site operators (again, like hotels, etc.) couldn't get any tax credits for EV infrastructure if they were only installing chargers with Tesla connectors.

It worked before. Time to do it again. For sure don't give them money for 7500 chargers and so far empty promises. And take away all their benefits/handouts as well as CCS charging for their cars until the commit to fully joining the CCS charging infrastructure (with their DC network).