Boring company

[Brotoro]

Yeah... I was shocked when a guy running a company first told me that he was suing his competitors...not because he had a chance of winning, but just to put that economic burden onto the competitor.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

The environmental waver is nothing like having to bulldoze everything in a straight line (don't expect tight turns in a hyperloop) between to points in a city (or even between cities).  That just isn't happening.

Well, but it's also about seeing what the structures are.

A full environmental report is a combination of detailed public release, technical assessment as well as the usual "environmental assesment". It serves more than just seeing the people around or the environmental implications, you can even spot whether they will really work or not from there (and how will it work, or not).

38 minutes ago, tater said:

99% of all lawsuits are nonsense

Just because 99% of the sample isn't gold while the rest is, makes the site unsuitable for gold mining.

[tater]

8 minutes ago, YNM said:

Just because 99% of the sample isn't gold while the rest is, makes the site unsuitable for gold mining.

Most lawsuits here are done with the idea that the person sued will settle for some fraction of the suit that is cheaper than fighting it, even when the case has no merit. We're (a group of co-owners) being sued by couple of other co-owners of a building we own. They expected us to pay out (settle) the many thousands they want because it'll be cheaper than fighting it. We're not the usual people. We all told our lawyer we'd spend a multiple of the desired settlement not to give the guys suing us a penny (plus they have to pay their own lawyer). We told our lawyer we'd rather pay him a lot then pay them anything. PS, the case has zero merit, they will lose.

[Green Baron]

That is very annoying indeed.

But why do courts accept suits without merit ? I think (but don't know exactly) that courts in Germany first check if a suit has any chance and is somehow founded before accepting it for trial ...

[tater]

24 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

That is very annoying indeed.

But why do courts accept suits without merit ? I think (but don't know exactly) that courts in Germany first check if a suit has any chance and is somehow founded before accepting it for trial ...

That's sort of impossible here. A judge could decide to not hear it if it tried to go to court, but they idea is that you throw out the lawsuit, then make a zillion motions, all of which must be replied to, and you beat people into settling to make it stop. The bits before that are only lightly related to the actual court system, and if judges were chiming in on every precursor to possible cases, they'd have no time for anything else. It's a mess (and I'm likely screwing up some of my explanation, I only know what I know as a civilian stuck in the process).

On the plus side of the law, my buddy who is an attorney was here last night with his Model 3, and I got to play with it (I actually used the steering wheel to play "Pole Position" on the screen in my driveway). Hopefully I'll get a ride and get to drive it another day soon (there were a zillion people at my house for a party, no time to take a test drive (also, wine)).

[Green Baron]

That's harsh for private people. Hope you get out cheaply.

[sevenperforce]

39 minutes ago, tater said:

That's sort of impossible here. A judge could decide to not hear it if it tried to go to court, but they idea is that you throw out the lawsuit, then make a zillion motions, all of which must be replied to, and you beat people into settling to make it stop. The bits before that are only lightly related to the actual court system, and if judges were chiming in on every precursor to possible cases, they'd have no time for anything else. It's a mess (and I'm likely screwing up some of my explanation, I only know what I know as a civilian stuck in the process).

Once a case is in court, you can file a motion for summary judgment (i.e., to have it dismissed before trial) if you believe the case is without merit as a matter of law. Then the judge rules on the law alone.

If there are genuine issues of facts in dispute, then the case goes to trial.

39 minutes ago, tater said:

On the plus side of the law, my buddy who is an attorney was here last night with his Model 3, and I got to play with it (I actually used the steering wheel to play "Pole Position" on the screen in my driveway). Hopefully I'll get a ride and get to drive it another day soon (there were a zillion people at my house for a party, no time to take a test drive (also, wine)).

My next-door neighbors just bought a Model 3 and I'm dying to get behind the wheel.

[YNM]

7 hours ago, tater said:

Most lawsuits here are done with the idea that the person sued will settle for some fraction of the suit that is cheaper than fighting it, even when the case has no merit.

I'm well aware of it, thanks.

But sometimes these people got bitten back at the head as well.

 

 

And as I said with Boring... they were spared from actual scrutiny that prevails with other projects in other places & times. They're not some small people sued by what is practically a huge company with extremely loyal people to it. They're a company at which shoulder rests the safety and lives (and livelihood) of millions of people, as with every other civil engineering contractors and consultants. And they hold the burden of these public people for decades.

If they aren't sure that they can do a work on which safety, lives and livelihood of millions of people stand on ? At least start off with a much smaller, much less riskier projects first.

Edited December 24, 2018 by YNM

[Cassel]

On 12/22/2018 at 8:33 PM, Nightside said:

I think the presentation a few days ago he specifically said electric, autonomous cars only.

So road only for the rich.

[Xd the great]

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

So road only for the rich

Technically, unless Musk makes tesla 4 spacester cheaper... then it is road for the rich.

But if the rich drives underground, more space of us common people. Yay.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Xd the great

[YNM]

4 hours ago, Cassel said:

So road only for the rich.

I suppose Elon would've loved EPCOT.

[Cassel]

2 hours ago, Xd the great said:

Technically, unless Musk makes tesla 4 spacester cheaper... then it is road for the rich.

But if the rich drives underground, more space of us common people. Yay.

So rich won't be even driving on same roads as poor, future seems to shape very interesting. Some regions or cities in future may be available only by tunnels.

[wumpus]

6 hours ago, Cassel said:

So road only for the rich.

That's all that is being built in northern Virginia (and that's been the case for decades, and plenty of roads).  Small surprise Amazon moved there.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

They have promised to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists in the pod things over cars:

But it isn't clear whether that still holds, if they decided the skate isn't necessary for cars. On the car side of things, though, they seem to have implicitly restricted it to Teslas. However, hopefully there will be more electric autonomous cars in the future.

[YNM]

On 12/25/2018 at 3:03 AM, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

prioritize pedestrians and cyclists in the pod things

That's what they always said...

Roads are roads, cycle paths are cycle paths, pedestrian paths are pedestrian paths.

Maybe LA needs their own christmas carol.

 

EDIT : Oh, and also, the idea of moving cars underground isn't new. Please welcome : Underways.

EDIT 2 : And now, someone come around with a flamethrower calculator.

Spoiler

I suppose we all know it, but eh, just putting it out.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by YNM

[Nightside]

Hey, Boring Company’s not dead yet!

 

Anyone want to move to Vegas?

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Anyone want to move to Vegas?

Spoiler

 It's the strangest undermining plan I've ever seen.

 

[Cheif Operations Director]

Nothing new if they build tunnels good for them but it is a side show and not innovation.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Nothing new if they build tunnels good for them but it is a side show and not innovation.

There's nothing new because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Aren't they doing it a bit different though? With smaller diameter they can bore quicker and use scrubbers instead of ventilation to make the whole thing cheaper.

[Cheif Operations Director]

3 minutes ago, Wjolcz said:

There's nothing new because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Aren't they doing it a bit different though? With smaller diameter they can bore quicker and use scrubbers instead of ventilation to make the whole thing cheaper.



With smaller diameter they can get less traffic through I'm willing to bet this may be a polynomial function of efficiency. Why not just dig a hole 1.5 yards wide and tell people to lie down on a tube and go through like a bobsled? This makes zero sense. 

Also all of this tunneling will weaken the structural integrity of cities

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

With smaller diameter they can get less traffic through I'm willing to bet this may be a polynomial function of efficiency. Why not just dig a hole 1.5 yards wide and tell people to lie down on a tube and go through like a bobsled? This makes zero sense.

That really depends on how the train/vehicle is designed and how the traffic is handled. It's not like people in regular underground trains are strapped to the ceiling to maximize the amount of passengers per cubic meter. And it's not like these metro trains are always full. Sometimes there are just a few passengers per section. What a waste of taxpayers' money, right?

2 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Also all of this tunneling will weaken the structural integrity of cities

Hmm...

I'm not trying to defend the Boring Company. I need to see it first to believe it too. But I remember saying the same thing about landing rockets. Was a pretty cool trick in KSP until it actually happened IRL.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Wjolcz

[YNM]

7 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

With smaller diameter they can bore quicker and use scrubbers instead of ventilation to make the whole thing cheaper.

Hmm...

Oh, and if you think you won't have problems when you only use electric vehicles...

Larger diameter tunnels are safer, period.

[Cheif Operations Director]

8 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

That really depends on how the train/vehicle is designed and how the traffic is handled. It's not like people in regular underground trains are strapped to the ceiling to maximize the amount of passengers per cubic meter. And it's not like these metro trains are always full. Sometimes there are just a few passengers per section. What a waste of taxpayers' money, right?





Hmm...

I'm not trying to defend the Boring Company. I need to see it first to believe it too. But I remember saying the same thing about landing rockets. Was a pretty cool trick in KSP until it actually happened IRL.



If you look at the boring companies animation of how elon initially wanted this to look it was a tunnel every 10 to 20 meters. Give me a break. Not impossible but it puts to much faith on a single archway holding.

[Wjolcz]

35 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

If you look at the boring companies animation of how elon initially wanted this to look it was a tunnel every 10 to 20 meters. Give me a break. Not impossible but it puts to much faith on a single archway holding.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. As I said though: it's not like I'm a huge fan or anything. Original plans always change. Falcon Heavy had a VTOL upper stage in the animation too. Still, they got the majority of the rocket to fly back to be reused. I know it's apples and oranges, but I feel like they will continue and build on the experience gained.

[YNM]

17 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Also all of this tunneling will weaken the structural integrity of cities

If you do them like they mined the limestone beneath Paris, then it might well be...

That being said, so far Paris hasn't disappeared into the ground... yet...