Readit News>Had a great productive chat with @elonmusk before leaving, would’ve stuck around longer if I didn’t have the itch to chase a specific vision.
>Don’t see any capacity eroding on his front like the article mentions
Since launching in January 2022, we've significantly outperformed the market with lower volatility and reduced max drawdown:
Model - Return - Max drawdown
S&P 500 (benchmark): +9.91% -27.56%
Platinum: +45.34% -16.48%
Gold: +39.53% -19.12%
Silver: +17.24% -22.96%
Bronze: +14.12% -23.93%
Vix Basic: +9.81% -24.23%
TA - Mean Reversion: +17.77% -19.92%
TA - Trend: +17.29% -24.98%
This is an unleveraged, apples to apples comparison. These are not high frequency trading models. Most of them only make a trade every 2-4 weeks on average. During long signals, the models are simply long the S&P 500 and during short signals, they go to cash. This can be implemented very tax efficiently by holding a core ETF long position that never gets sold and then selling S&P 500 futures (ES or MES) of equal value to the ETFs against the long position. This way your account will accumulate unrealized capital gains indefinitely and you'll only pay tax on the net result of successful hedging. The cherry on top is that the S&P 500 futures are section 1256 contracts that are taxed at 60% long term / 40% short term capital gains rates regardless of the duration they are held.
The models use a variety of indicators, many of them custom built. Most important are various VIX metrics (absolute level, VIX futures curve shape/slope, divergences against S&P 500 price, etc), trend-following TA metrics (MACD, EMV, etc), mean-reversion TA metrics (Bollinger Bands, CMO, etc), macroeconomic (unemployment, housing starts, leading composite), and monetary policy (yield curve inversion, equity risk premium, dot plot, etc). They've been backtested very cautiously to avoid overfitting.
Did you list the returns of the commodities as a comparison, or are you trading those futures as well in the mix? (I know you only talked about ES/MES)
There are not many tasks that require a neck for example. Or a whole head really. This robot feels like it’s designed with a shape in mind first.
The dexterity and wobblyness is actually pretty unimpressive in this example, compared to Atlas, which absolutely feels closer to the full range of human dexterity and physical ability.
Atlas is still general purpose. It’s just built with human tasks in mind first, rather than a human shape.
Am I understanding you correctly that you would want something that still had cameras at head height, but simply didn't have the head form factor? And perhaps had 4 arms for some tasks that it would benefit from instead of being limited to two arms?
If so, how many environments are you going to build robots for? And how does your total overall build cost increase with each different model you build?
Doesn't matter if it's simper in the end-design if getting there ends up costing you as much as it would to build a general purpose design in the first place.
Nowhere do they describe initial starting conditions for the batteries / vehicles besides saying 10% SOC at start.
Also neat that we ended up with complimentary energy generation and storage technologies to fix the "it gets dark at night" problem of solar electricity generation!
BYD's numbers often contain plugin hybrids (PHEV). So if you're trying to compare apples/apples, be sure to look at pure-battery EVs between the two.
Note 'electrified' from a different article from Barrons: "BYD delivered 206,089 electrified passenger vehicles in March [2023], up about 98% from the 104,338 delivered in March 2022. The March 2023 figures include 102,670 all battery electric vehicles and 103,419 plug-in hybrid models."
Sure --- if roborides are cheap enough and safe enough, more people will use them.
The immediate question for Tesla and their investors --- can they really provide "safe" robo rides using their current approach?
This is far from being proven since Tesla is only rated as Level 2 autonomy which according to Tesla itself, requires constant supervision. Placing passengers and the public in danger with inadequate technology is a textbook legal definition of negligence.
The longer term question; assuming they solve FSD --- is can they make tons of money from cheap rides? Enough to justify their current outlandish stock price.
They recently launched their Robotaxi service in Austin, and it seems to be as good as Waymo or better. https://youtu.be/RcaBZenrCCs
They also recently autonomously delivered a car to a customer’s apartment straight from the factory line. https://youtu.be/lRRtW16GalE