For the sake of society, I hope Musk succeeds. We've spent too much time as a culture celebrating fairly useless achievements and being unwilling to dare to do the things that will truly take us forward.

The important part of Musk's plan has already succeeded. He made electric cars cool and competitive. If Tesla folds tomorrow, there will still be a large market for electric cars, and multiple other companies serving that.

Depending on your needs, that has arguably already happened. While Tesla is still the "coolest" brand of car, there are better/cheaper electric cars from many non-Tesla companies already widely available today. That will not go away, even if Tesla implodes.

> While Tesla is still the "coolest" brand of car, there are better/cheaper electric cars from many non-Tesla companies already widely available today.

No, there are a very small handful of cheaper electric cars that may be subjectively better for some uses but worse for many others. Bolt, i3, Leaf - that's about it for mass-produced cars being bought in any volume, and the manufactureres are taking a bath on them.

GM is reportedly losing ~$7,500 for each Bolt they sell, how long do you think that would go on if Tesla were to disappear overnight?

there is also Prius Prime, Clarity, Volt, Fusion, Ioniq, Outlander and more

https://insideevs.com/april-2018-plug-in-electric-vehicle-sa...

You’re conflating plug-in hybrids with pure EVs here, and even then most of the ones you lost won’t ship 1000 cars per month, let alone 5k. Those are peanuts.

My point is, the needle is just barely starting to move toward EVs - it’s not pegged yet by any means.

And the German brands are getting in on electric in a big way.

> GM is reportedly losing ~$7,500 for each Bolt they sell, how long do you think that would go on if Tesla were to disappear overnight?

I think they would sell more Bolts because without the Model 3 there would be less competition in the Bolt's price range.

Everything I've seen indicates to me that GM is very serious about this, and the German brands are also investing a lot -- the rise of electric cars is coinciding with the decline of diesel, and they are moving their money from one to the other.

At worst we would revert to hybrids as the dominant low-emission platform. Which is still much, much better than IC-only. Tesla dates back to 2003 by which point Toyota and Honda had been selling hybrids for six years.

But given that Nissan and Renault had EVs on the market for as long as Teslas has, I wouldn't be too concerned about the post-Tesla EV market.

If Tesla folds then my concern is that it would just be used as justification for shutting down EV programs as not viable.

If Tesla folds, how much will they be able to refund to customers ? I guess it's probably written on the deposit contract.

Also, I wonder how many would go buy a competitor EV vehicle if their Model 3 doesn't happen. Or will they go ICE ?

I drive a Tesla MX. If Tesla folds and my car gets destroyed I’m tempted to get the Jaguar iPace - it’s the only other “skateboard” BEV currently available. I don’t understand why all the other BEVs go for the “batteries in the trunk”-design when the skateboard model is clearly far superior.

You have to redesign the whole car to make room for underfloor batteries. EVs based on existing platforms have to work within the platform's constraints.

The Chevy Bolt is a clean-sheet design and is also a "skateboard".

> If Tesla folds, how much will they be able to refund to customers ? I guess it's probably written on the deposit contract.

If it's a bankruptcy (and why would they told before that point?), whatever he deposit contract or general principles of law suggest for a going concern would be the upper limit of refunds, but the actual value would be dependent on what assets were left and what other claims were competing.

Technically yes. The engineering idea has caught on.

I'd like Tesla to stick around for a while, so that the other idea also catches on - you know, the "do the right thing for a change" philosophy.

Agreed. At this moment on HN front page we have Musk story and the Fake It Till You Make It story[1]. Illustrates the different ways of achieving success in the modern world. I prefer the Musk way. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16986701

I think a lot of Musk's critics would consider Tesla the poster child of "fake it till you make it".

Whatever Musk's and Tesla's current weaknesses, it's undeniable that they made a real impact in making electric vehicles mainstream. No small feat when you consider the entrenchment of the auto industry and infrastructure.

Musk is definitely trying to achieve something that many entrepreneurs would be shy to even attempt. I'm rooting for him, despite feeling that his business model is inherently difficult. I think net-net, he definitely adds to society with his vision and the sheer fact that he tries to do what practically every one thought would not be possible. If anything, it inspires other would-be inventors and entrepreneurs to continue pushing.

Musk is literally struggling to build a car factory, and people spin it as some staggering titanic glorious heroic monumental heartbreaking-genius-level thing. I don't really get it. There are electric vehicles on the market right now from major companies which have figured out how to do this. What sort of ten-million-times-more-impressive-than-Newton-and-Copernicus-and-Galileo-combined leap were you expecting Tesla to make here?

Its inspiring to see him but it's also ridiculous that Elon Musk is the one pushing the space and auto industries forward. I really hope he succeeds, but it is just stupid that our hopes for scientific and technological advancement have shifted to the private sector.

The private sector has historically been the one that had sane and logical business practices minimizing risk, while government had the funding necessary to take on large, risky projects for the good of their constituents. Somehow taxes have gone further and further up while our expectations of government plummeted, and now we are looking to these single "genius" entrepreneurs to revolutionize science and technology with investor money.

> The private sector has historically been the one that had sane and logical business practices minimizing risk, while government had the funding necessary to take on large, risky projects for the good of their constituents

I'm not a "free market trumps all" person by any means, but is this really true? Xerox PARC, GE, IBM, Ford all come to mind. Sure, still the government was involved in quite a few of these, but I wouldn't say these companies were minimizing risk by any means.

Yeah, sure. Edison, Tesla, Ford were all public employees.

> We've spent too much time as a culture celebrating fairly useless achievements and being unwilling to dare to do the things that will truly take us forward.

Are you kidding? Society had progressed more in the last 10 years than it has in the previous 20, with all indications the next 10 will see even more progress. We are making real progress, even excluding the great work Musk is doing in Solar/EV/Space/Boring/Hyperloop.

* We are very near peak carbon output, with the majority of the developed world very concerned.

* The United States voted for an African American president (slightly more than 10 years ago) and a female presidential candidate won the popular vote, a milestone for equality.

* Almost 50% of the world's population is connected to the internet, and can communicate directly and instantly.

* The internet moved from on our desks/laps to in our pockets and on our wrists.

* We've made major advancements in medical science, from cardiology to genetics.

* Huge social changes, from winding down the drug war to marriage equality

* Super computers have roughly the same processing speed as the human brain

* VR/AR is entering mainstream.

Yeah, the idea that 2008, pre-smartphone, is somehow worse than 2018 post-smartphone seems absurd.

It's not really a flamethrower, it's a glorified propane torch with a plastic gun shell, it's a toy. Can't say S&W wouldn't get flak for making something like this given our current climate but it's really not a weapon.

What is the difference between a flamethrower and a propane torch? I find myself inexplicably delighted at the prospect of understanding this distinction.

Flamethrowers launch a flammable liquid and can light that liquid. They have a longer range and the fuel they project generally sticks and continues burning after hitting a target. Propane torches just burn propane at their nozzle their range is much shorter and don't really pose a danger outside of a few feet. This [0] is a flamethrower and this is a propane torch [1].

The Tesla Flamethrower is literally just a roofing torch like in [1] with a plastic gun around it and the valve turned all the way open. [2]

[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/3/...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UprliuSNvX0

[2] https://qz.com/1191685/elon-musks-boring-company-flamethrowe...

Depending on the worth of pictures I might save some words here.

Weeney propane torch: http://gigadgetstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Organic_...

A real flamethrower: https://flamethrowerplans.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Fla...

Or, as others have already described, one burns a flammable gas and puts out a flame a few inches long. The other squirts flammable liquid at you from a long ways away, then ignites it. </vast_oversimplification>

A torch is essentially ignited butane (like a fancy lighter or Bunsen burner). A flamethrower is ignighted gasoline (or napalm). A flamethrower's flames stick and have a much further range.

A flamethrower is essentially a gasoline/napalm hose / stream with a lighter at the end of it.

Flamethrowers 'launch' a flame a long distance, typically by igniting some liquid and spraying it over a distance. A torch generally creates a much more localized flame. It's a much more controlled device.

The Flamethrowers aren't a Tesla fundraiser. He's "getting away with it" because The Boring Company is private.

He’s also getting away with it because it was a propane torch mounted in an airsoft gun, not a dangerous weapon. It’s a tool in a toy, so basically... who cares?

Also, actual flamethrowers are commercially available and completely unregulated in 48 states: https://throwflame.com

Oh my god, I didn’t know that and to be honest, I’m surprised. My first reaction was that must be a satirical site, but no it’s a real and claims of legality are accurate.

I don’t know what to say.