undefined

points

[-]

Lots of words to say they built something useless to impress manchildren and investors, get ready for yet another "fell for it again" medal

by rickdeckard14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's also true, but I meant to say something different. I am referring to this sheer blindness to the rationality of what's being presented.

This event was like Disney presenting a mass-production rollercoaster you can pre-order for your home, but the general public seems to glance over how utterly irrational this is.

So far companies did alot of fundamental due diligence before making such an announcement (and the prior R&D investment!), because the consequences could be fatal.

The average consumer apparently still assumes that this due diligence phase was passed, thinking it's impossible that a known company presents something that big it cannot deliver on...

by autuni17 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It's a cool demonstration, I'll give them that. From what I've seen online, people don't even seem to consider whether or not they would actually want this, just because the novelty of it. I'd even ignore that and call it good marketing, if that's what they would actually try to sell here - but you need some kind of special invitation access to even get those, while they use this demonstration to boost the pre-orders for a car without the features everyone is talking about (or at least trying to, we'll see how many will actually go for it).

by rickdeckard17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yeah, that's what I meant. The gap between what's presented as ready-to-order and the actual practical feasibility of the product is so big, it wows people because they are still accustomed to presentations of actually consumable products.

And also your point: It is a company presenting a jet-pack to actually sell a premium back-pack under the same name.

They invested in the engineering of 1-10 jet-packs, to sell 200-2000 backpacks...

by nutjob217 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

And more to the point: want what?

The demonstrations seems to be very specific, it probably can't do anything more than fall to the ground. The practicality of actual levitating the car may out of reach.

Everyone calls it a "flying car" the idea is planted in people's mind and they let people's imagination or credulity do the rest. Stock price goes up.

by autuni14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I agree this is more of a "jumping car" than anywhere near an actual "flying car". My main issue with both is that if ground based cars have an issue, for example an engine failure, in most cases you can still get the car to safely stop at the side of the road. If you're flying, that's a very different story.

Even if we would accept the premise that flying cars will be the norm at some point, I'm not sure what people imagine that would do for them. Technically you could solve traffic jams to some degree, but still not entirely because I can't imagine that at any point flying cars would mean that you just fly wherever you want. It would give us multilayered traffic, which is cool to reduce traffic jams, but does it really do anything else?

by rickdeckard14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's true.

But prior to any of that, I'm fascinated by how irrational it is to think that this jumping car is even remotely feasible to participate in any kind of traffic.

That's why I assume that the general public expects that Tesla has already solved all these problems, as they otherwise wouldn't announce such a product.

In reality, we apparently have entered times where they could present a teleporting machine and start a 200k USD pre-order with little to no public scrutiny.

by wallst0713 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Who cares, they built a car that can jump or fly or whatever you want to say.

You can clearly see what it does. If nobody buys it or it can't be driven on public roads, so what.

by qarl17 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I'm reminded of that time that guy made the Statue of Liberty disappear.