Post: #251

Could you summarize the video? Is the toxic lake the result of human choices resulting in contamination or unavoidable consequences resulting from EV use?

Post: #252

Musk bet the ranch on the 18650 lithium ion battery. The problem is that battery is nearing the end of it's lifecycle. It will be replaced in a few years with the safer solid electrolyte battery being developed.

The new batteries don't explode, don't require a complicated cooling system, are cheaper to produce, weigh less and pack almost twice the energy density.

Musk fanboys claim his gigafactory can simply be retooled to produce the new batteries, and I guess they're right in a sense. Anything can be retooled - a Ford plant can be retooled to produce refrigerators - it's just cost prohibitive.

Post: #253

(07-11-2017 11:35 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 06:49 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 09:28 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

He's trolling, don't bother.

I wish I could say that I was trolling, but this is no joke.

A car with an internal combustion engine is only able to compete with other transportation options because it is allowed to spread it's harmful bi-products wherever it pleases.

While an electric car currently is not competitive in terms of cost with an ICE propelled car, it has the distinct advantage that it can produce zero unmanaged waste. It would cost more to do so, but if the future demands that we do so to prevent our habitat from collapsing, it'll be an option. An ICE would not be an option in that scenario, because it simply produces too much byproduct in the process of creation locomotion for the byproduct to be contained.

Retired batteries may be harmful to the environment, but it is a byproduct that can be managed. In fact, doing so is very straightforward.

There may be significant portions of the human population that can be expected be in poverty well into the future of this planet, but not all. The potential environmental costs of the number of current daily car users doubling may be something even conservatives have trouble stomaching.

It sounds like you believe in catastrophic anthropologic global warming driven by CO2, which really undermines your opinion about the need for EVs here. I'm not against EVs, but this should be settled by technology and engineering alone, not by a naive blue pill "saving the planet" kind of world view.

Post: #254

(07-14-2017 12:28 PM)911 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 11:35 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 06:49 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 09:28 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

He's trolling, don't bother.

I wish I could say that I was trolling, but this is no joke.

A car with an internal combustion engine is only able to compete with other transportation options because it is allowed to spread it's harmful bi-products wherever it pleases.

While an electric car currently is not competitive in terms of cost with an ICE propelled car, it has the distinct advantage that it can produce zero unmanaged waste. It would cost more to do so, but if the future demands that we do so to prevent our habitat from collapsing, it'll be an option. An ICE would not be an option in that scenario, because it simply produces too much byproduct in the process of creation locomotion for the byproduct to be contained.

Retired batteries may be harmful to the environment, but it is a byproduct that can be managed. In fact, doing so is very straightforward.

There may be significant portions of the human population that can be expected be in poverty well into the future of this planet, but not all. The potential environmental costs of the number of current daily car users doubling may be something even conservatives have trouble stomaching.

It sounds like you believe in catastrophic anthropologic global warming driven by CO2, which really undermines your opinion about the need for EVs here. I'm not against EVs, but this should be settled by technology and engineering alone, not by a naive blue pill "saving the planet" kind of world view.

Every day I check the AQI reading for the city I live in. The air is often toxic to the point that I choose to wear a mask with a filter.

Is that a scientific enough reason for someone to support technological development that will give humans options when it comes to how they create and consume energy?

Post: #255

(07-14-2017 03:04 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 12:28 PM)911 Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 11:35 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 06:49 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 09:28 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

He's trolling, don't bother.

I wish I could say that I was trolling, but this is no joke.

A car with an internal combustion engine is only able to compete with other transportation options because it is allowed to spread it's harmful bi-products wherever it pleases.

While an electric car currently is not competitive in terms of cost with an ICE propelled car, it has the distinct advantage that it can produce zero unmanaged waste. It would cost more to do so, but if the future demands that we do so to prevent our habitat from collapsing, it'll be an option. An ICE would not be an option in that scenario, because it simply produces too much byproduct in the process of creation locomotion for the byproduct to be contained.

Retired batteries may be harmful to the environment, but it is a byproduct that can be managed. In fact, doing so is very straightforward.

There may be significant portions of the human population that can be expected be in poverty well into the future of this planet, but not all. The potential environmental costs of the number of current daily car users doubling may be something even conservatives have trouble stomaching.

It sounds like you believe in catastrophic anthropologic global warming driven by CO2, which really undermines your opinion about the need for EVs here. I'm not against EVs, but this should be settled by technology and engineering alone, not by a naive blue pill "saving the planet" kind of world view.

Every day I check the AQI reading for the city I live in. The air is often toxic to the point that I choose to wear a mask with a filter.

Is that a scientific enough reason for someone to support technological development that will give humans options when it comes to how they create and consume energy?

LA has the same number of cars as Beijing, and much worse geography as far as pollution getting trapped by the arc of mountains around the LA Basin, yet the air there has been fairly clean there (by chinese standards at least) after catalytic converters were implemented. And burning more coal near urban centers like Beijing to provide power for millions of new EVs is not going to solve that problem.

Post: #256

(07-14-2017 04:00 PM)911 Wrote:  LA has the same number of cars as Beijing, and much worse geography as far as pollution getting trapped by the arc of mountains around the LA Basin, yet the air there has been fairly clean there (by chinese standards at least) after catalytic converters were implemented. And burning more coal near urban centers like Beijing to provide power for millions of new EVs is not going to solve that problem.

We don't currently have a solution to this problem, but I don't think the solution will be found in outdated tech.

We are going to have to create something altogether new, which is why I support on-going tech development.

Post: #257

(07-13-2017 02:37 AM)Suits Wrote:  Could you summarize the video? Is the toxic lake the result of human choices resulting in contamination or unavoidable consequences resulting from EV use?

http://inhabitat.com/chinas-massive-toxi...ic-device/

Quote:The Baogang Steel and Rare Earth Complex, located near Baotou, Mongolia, is one of the world’s main suppliers of rare earth minerals, which are used to make all manner of electronic gadgets, including smart phones, flat screen televisions—as well as things like wind turbines and electric car motors.

Considering the sheer cost of new EVs at present, it stands to reason that a lot of that savings of these parts has already been taken into account because of the horrific environmental damage the Chinese inflict on their environment in an effort to be the lowest possible bidder.

Post: #258

(07-12-2017 07:48 PM)weambulance Wrote:  The Tesla S came out 5 years 3 weeks ago, for reference.

If Tesla has managed to make magical batteries that don't degrade, where no other company has managed it, I want them making batteries for all my devices. Every single Li-ion battery powered device I've ever owned has shown significant battery capacity loss inside 3 years. My laptop is about 4.5 years old and has 55% remaining battery capacity. My old iPhone 4S, which is a little under 5 years old, has like 25% original capacity. I can throw out a dozen examples of Li-ion battery packs that definitely did degrade with use, but none that magically only degraded a tiny amount, or--as some Tesla maniacs claim--got better with age.

If people are getting their reported battery capacity from the car itself, that means nothing at all. The only way to really know the battery pack capacity is to run the car almost dry along the same route periodically, see how far you got, and see how it changes over time. Not too many people are doing that (none, in fact, that I've found have actually done that obvious test). If you only drive 60 miles a day, and your battery goes from 300 miles of ideal capacity to 180 miles, you won't even notice the difference until that one time you need to make a long trip.

Since it's such a PR issue, it would also be trivially easy for Tesla to fudge the numbers. Even for real-world testing. The obvious way of doing it is simply overprovisioning the original battery pack--give it more capacity than it needs for the base range--then artificially limiting range. Maybe the original pack has 400 miles of real range, but they only let it run 250-300. Then over time, as mileage increases, let the battery discharge to a lower point as the capacity drops. Net result = no apparent change in capacity over the first several years, even though there was actually a significant drop.

Some EV/hybrids are built with an overprovisioned battery for sure. It's a known technique. Many good SSDs work the same way; they have a whole block of spare cells to replace worn cells as the drive ages. Perception that the expensive device is long-lived and durable is much more important than absolute base capacity.

But that game only goes so far, and eventually the battery will start to show its degradation at the real rate. For people who buy vehicles expecting to drive them into the ground, that's a serious problem. But if you only keep your vehicles for 5-7 years you're not going to care.

The 2012 models are 5 years old and are selling for north of $40,000. I don't know if that his high or low. However, I had been hearing how the batteries would be kaput after 3-5 years and that the value of the cars at that point would be zero. So they are $40,000 ahead of where some folks claimed. [3 years was the typical lease] I haven't heard much about folks having to replace their batteries yet and unlike some cars like Jaguars with expensive repair histories these have healthy resale values. Don't get me wrong - I would touch a 5 year old Telsa, but the claims of poor battery life have been greatly exaggerated.

Post: #259

dude takes a stock Tesla to illegal street races and makes a bundle

Post: #260

Tesla stock dropped like a rock:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/468627002

Quote:The decision came during a month in which Musk and Tesla are coping with a crisis sparked by a fatal crash in California involving one of the company's Model X cars. Shares of Tesla (TSLA) are down 7% from this time last year and are 17.2% lower year-to-date. The stock was up 4.6% at $269.64 in Thursday afternoon trading, reversing losses earlier in the day.

It seems Musk is also losing some of his appeal with his investors:

Quote:Investors in Musk's Tesla electric-car company may press on with their lawsuit that challenges the firm's 2016 acquisition of SolarCity on grounds that the $2.6 billion deal was flawed by potential conflicts of interest involving Musk and other company directors, the court ruled late Wednesday.

The investors provided sufficient evidence to prove it was "reasonably conceivable" that Musk, though a minority stakeholder in his electric-car company, "controlled the Tesla Board in connection with the acquisition," Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights wrote.

In what he characterized as a close legal call, Slights denied Tesla's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and allowed the legal battle to continue. The ruling means the case will continue to be a financial and legal challenge for Musk.

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/415...ical-bulls

Quote:Tesla is in dire financial straits and will have to raise billions in new capital just to stay afloat through 2018. The company could well post a billion-dollar loss in Q1 2018, thanks to ballooning costs and painfully slow production ramp of the Model 3. Indeed, Bloomberg’s Tesla Model 3 Tracker estimates a current weekly production rate of just 1076 – far below the promised 2500 per week by the end of March. Moody’s sees short-term capital needs of $2 billion, but that is probably only enough to keep the lights on; Tesla will need far more cash if it plans to actually expand its production capacity and start producing new vehicles like the Model Y and Tesla Semi.

Post: #261

All the tech stocks are going down.

I'm thinking of shorting the ones that are still standing.

Post: #262

Tesla recalling close to half of all Tesla cars ever built:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/t...nk-n861421

Quote:Tesla is recalling almost half of all the vehicles the company has so far produced, after corroding bolts that could lead to the loss of power steering has forced the company to fix 123,000 of its Model S sedans.

Quote:At the closing bell on Thursday, the price stood at $266.13, down from a 52-week high of $389.61.

Quote:Additionally, reports began to surface from current and former employees who said that what Musk last year called “production hell” at the Tesla plant in Fremont, California has been made worse by serious quality problems with many of the parts and components needed for the Model 3.

I think I mentioned this before, but software guys often tend to be bad at understanding and appreciating tech that isn't software based. What do I mean?

Software has given some people (not all) the impression that anything is possible and naysayers are just haters, instead of perhaps actual experts who realize physical laws are immutable (you can't debug the laws of physics, nor can you rewrite them).

So we get silicon valley VCs investing into:

* Theranos, despite real experts stating it would never work

* uBeam, to wirelessly charge everything, despite real experts stating it would never work

* Tesla, though I'll give Musk credit for admitting even from the get-go he thought it only had a 10% chance of succeeding.

It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out. I'm getting the impression SV is running out of ideas.

Post: #263

(07-20-2017 07:19 AM)Hypno Wrote:  dude takes a stock Tesla to illegal street races and makes a bundle

Yes, electric motors can make maximum torque at 0 rpm. Neat, we get it. Now, let's talk about the rest of the unnecessary doodads, the Orwellian tracking systems and the engineering quality of the car and how they function in everyday use over the lifespan of the vehicle.

Even if you take the auto driving failure out of the picture from that wreck last week, I am throughly impressed with how everything from the firewall forward sheered right off that model x right before the batteries lit up and barbecued the interior.



That's some game changing shit right there yo.

Post: #264

We all know that ahuge amount of Tesla's appeal is because Elon Musk is literally Jesus in the eyes of soyfag millenials and tech types. He's a brilliant visionary who is saving the world one electric car at a time and all that.

Which is why it's significant that a lot of SJW outlets (like Gawker network) are now running articles about Elon Musk with titles like "Elon Musk is an asshole". It appears that the sentiment momentum has peaked and the borg-collective is starting to turn against Elon. This is a problem for anyone investing in Tesla because their market cap depend almost entirely on confidence that Elon Musk is to the 21st century what Henry Ford was to the 20th Century. The moment that perception collapses Tesla's equity value will fall back to reflect a somewhat more reasonable growth expectation: which is a fraction of the current market cap even IF you assume that they'll get through their current issues.

Quote:So we get silicon valley VCs investing into:

* Theranos, despite real experts stating it would never work

* uBeam, to wirelessly charge everything, despite real experts stating it would never work

* Tesla, though I'll give Musk credit for admitting even from the get-go he thought it only had a 10% chance of succeeding.

It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out. I'm getting the impression SV is running out of ideas.

They never had any ideas to begin with.

Think about what the typical path of someone working for a name-brand VC is: They start by going to a middle to upper class white family. They then go to an elite prep school and manage to kiss enough ass there that they get recommended for and accepted into an Ivy League or equivalent tier school. Once there they then kiss enough ass that someone gives them a job at a name-brand investment bank. After THAT they they network and kiss enough ass to get into a huge VC or PE fund.

I word it that way for a reason. Every single step of their journey up until this point is determined NOT on tangible results (aside from test scores), but on the ability to please gate keepers and authority figures To be able to do that requires one to be both exceptionally competent in basic skills and have an exceptionally conformist mindset to where the extent of your "thought" is parroting things that these authority figures already believe to be true and insightful. This means that more often than not these are people who instinctively gravitate towards believing whatever the herd thinks.

That's a recipe for disaster when investing, because by the time the herd thinks something is awesome they've already jumped in and inflated the value to a level far higher than what it's actually worth. The exception seems to be Wharton, which is unique among business schools in that the entire design of the school is designed to train their students to be viciously opportunistic and competitive.

Post: #265

Musk over-promises and under-delivers.

His primary appeal must be to the soyboys and environmentalists.

Post: #266

Model 3 production shut down temporarily:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonova...-elon-musk

Quote:Just a few days after Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he’s feeling optimistic about his ability to speed up production on the company’s vehicles, the assembly line for the Model 3 in the company’s Fremont, California, plant has been temporarily shut down — again.

The announcement of the four- to five-day production pause for the Model 3 came without warning, according to Tesla employees who spoke with BuzzFeed News. During the pause, workers are expected to use vacation days or stay home without pay; a small number of workers may be offered paid work elsewhere in the factory.

A Tesla spokesperson said that the assembly line is on pause in order to “improve automation.”

Tesla previously shut down the Model 3 line in late February, according to Bloomberg. At the time, Tesla said the February pause was ultimately meant to increase output, and that such pauses are “common in production ramps like this.” Tesla provided BuzzFeed News with an identical statement regarding this month’s pause.

Not long after the February pause, Bloomberg reported that Tesla factory workers received an email from Senior Vice President of Engineering Doug Field, asking some of them to work extra hours on the Model 3 line in order to increase output and make the Tesla’s detractors (“haters”) “regret ever betting against us.”

Meanwhile, Tesla workers who work on the Model S and X lines have been informed by the company that those lines will be operating throughout all weekends in June, a current Tesla employee told BuzzFeed News. Other Tesla workers made similar comments on a pro-union Facebook page for Tesla employees.

Workers are paid for the extra hours, and Tesla says they volunteer for overtime shifts, but some workers say the weekend shifts are mandatory. Tesla did not respond to questions about the June schedule or mandatory overtime.

The Information reported in April that Musk was taking over responsibilities on the Model 3 line for Field, who remains with the company.

Over the last six months, Tesla’s inability to meet its production goals has become a mounting problem for the company. The most recent miss came at the end of the first quarter of 2018; Musk had said the company would be manufacturing 2,500 cars a week by that date, but it was making only 2,000 per week by April 1. Now, just two weeks later, production is once again on hold.

Tesla's current goal is to manufacture 5,000 cars per week by the end of the second quarter; 5,000 per week had initially been its year-end goal for 2017.

These production problems — as well as some lackluster reviews of the new Tesla model and alleged problems with its Autopilot technology — could put Tesla in a cash crunch, CNN (and others) have reported. Musk recently responded to such speculation with an April Fools' joke in which he pretended the business, which employs more than 30,000 people, had in fact gone out of business, and that he was wandering Palo Alto drinking a fake product called Teslaquilla.

Tesla’s struggle to hit ambitious production goals has been a priority for years, at times above issues like worker safety, according to workers. Tesla has denied these claims and says its factory is getting safer, though a recent investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting suggests the company’s evidence of improvement may be inaccurate. Musk himself has referred to the factory during high-stress periods as “production hell” and told CBS’s Gayle King that the last few months have been “incredibly difficult and painful.”

Post: #267

Your only problem in the entire world is literally infinite demand for your product, and yet you manage to not turn a profit? How is that even possible?

Post: #268

Building cars is HARD.

I used to be an anti-Musk guy, but I've changed my mind.
At least he's building things that people want, as opposed to making algorithms that can front-run retail traders a quarter of a nanosecond earlier, or making an AI that's 3% more effective at getting clickthroughs on the advertisements it shows.

Post: #269

(04-17-2018 01:09 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Building cars is HARD.

I used to be an anti-Musk guy, but I've changed my mind.
At least he's building things that people want, as opposed to making algorithms that can front-run retail traders a quarter of a nanosecond earlier, or making an AI that's 3% more effective at getting clickthroughs on the advertisements it shows.

I'd generally agree. Except my problem with Musk has always been his ability and willingness to swindle the average person who doesn't understand how hard building real shit is.

Maybe he really did believe he could beat the traditional car makers. So perhaps he wasn't actually bullshitting, he genuinely believed his own hype.

Regardless, I'm not very fond of those types. In the short term, they get to enjoy a lot of popularity. In the long term, it will probably negatively affect the rest of the renewable tech industries.

I've seen this play out a few times: guy comes in, saying he's going to change the world, gets everyone excited, turns out he was full of shit, and makes everyone skeptical of anything related to the field.

The most notable example in my mind is that of Jan-Hendrik Shon, who put the field of organic electronics back a full decade after people found all his papers were fake. And that doesn't even account for the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted trying to reproduce his nonsensical data, nor the countless years gone down the drain trying to achieve his results. A lot of assistant professor who were banking their tenureship on getting similar results.

We have OLED technology today, but that entire field had to go through some really dark days to make up for what Shon did. And I don't think that field really needed the distraction Shon provided.

Did the renewable energy sector require the "distraction" Musk entails? If Tesla goes down in flames, how will it affect solar, battery, electric car industries? I'm not entirely sure. The solar industry had to deal with the aftermath of Solyndra. Tesla took in an enormous amount of investment money that could've gone to more deserving companies, although maybe that's a stretch of an argument anyways. What isn't: if Tesla goes down, you can bet investment money is going to dry up for other renewable energy projects.

And perhaps that's just part of life, that in every industry you'll have the hype man. But I can't say I've ever been a fan of hype.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4163197...ngle-tweet

I'm a believer of natural law though - what comes around, goes around.

If Musk and Tesla actually pull it all off, I'll give them their due. If they don't...well, on a long enough timescale, we all get what we deserve.

Post: #270

How the fuck is he not allowing any days off in the month of June... Mandatory overtime. What is this, China? Word gets out that factory won't be on top of anyone's list of places to work.

Post: #271

(04-17-2018 01:09 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  Building cars is HARD.

I used to be an anti-Musk guy, but I've changed my mind.
At least he's building things that people want, as opposed to making algorithms that can front-run retail traders a quarter of a nanosecond earlier, or making an AI that's 3% more effective at getting clickthroughs on the advertisements it shows.

I'm all for his success. Just do it without corporate welfare. Do it without carbon credits. Do it without phony renewable energy scams.

If there's such a demand for his cars, sell them at full price and stop forcing taxpayers to make up the difference. The reality is that his cars aren't what the vast majority of people want. In every area that revokes government subsidies, sales plummet. It's happened in Hong Kong, Australia, Denmark - everywhere it's tried.

Post: #272

(04-17-2018 12:40 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Your only problem in the entire world is literally infinite demand for your product, and yet you manage to not turn a profit? How is that even possible?

Because being a Silicon Valley tech company /= being a car manufacturer.

Should've set his hubris aside and spent more time learning from his short-lived joint venture with Toyota when he had the chance.

Meanwhile, keep sending imperfect dies and molds to outside machine shops, hand-working parts like its the Lansing Craft Centre, and gloating about faxu deadlines that will never, ever be met.

Post: #273

I'm potentially coming around to Tesla.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/18/tesla-to...rcent.html

Quote:Tesla is cutting its full-time staff headcount by approximately 7 percent, as it ramps up production of its Model 3 sedans, CEO Elon Musk said Friday.

The announcement come on the back of various cost-cutting measures the company has made of late, as it looks to reduce the price of its products and boost margins.

Tesla shares fell almost 8 percent in premarket trade following the news.

In an email to employees, Musk notes that the company faces a “very difficult” road ahead in its long-term goal to sell affordable renewable energy products at scale, noting the company is younger than other players in the industry.

I strongly disliked Musk's habit of overhyping Tesla. It came across as highly irresponsible. 2018 was a turbulent year for that reason.

But if he can buckle down, keep costs down and focus on being a sustainable, profitable company - shit, there might be hope for Tesla after all.

Post: #274

You don't have much experience with press releases. This means they know the quarter is going to be bad and they are cutting costs ahead of their poor results

Post: #275

(01-18-2019 04:38 PM)Hypno Wrote:  You don't have much experience with press releases. This means they know the quarter is going to be bad and they are cutting costs ahead of their poor results

Maybe I did not make my point clear.

Of course they have poor results. They were always going to have poor results with Musk's hype over execution approach.

My point is that now Musk is finally admitting this stuff isn't as easy as he hypes it. That he admits they have a difficult road ahead is a significant improvement in his outward behavior, even if it's due to poor quarterly results. It usually does take some hard setbacks for people to snap out of their own delusions.

I actually wrote what a scam I thought Tesla was almost two years ago:

Quote:I for one hope to see the bankruptcy of Tesla much sooner than later. In my opinion, they are Solyndra except 100x more impactful. They've sadly positioned themselves as the poster boy for renewables despite having inferior products. If and when they fail, they will set the entire renewable energy sector back a decade or two. I really hope that happens very soon, so the rest of the renewable industry can finally move on from this cancerous curse.

This is why I said I'm potentially coming around to Tesla. One can't deny Tesla has brand hype and a loyal following. If Musk can be realistic about costs and expectations and focus on being profitable instead of burning through cash every quarter while promising the moon, they just might make it.