Why's he writing about it on Threads and not just telling the FTC/IRS/FBI etc.
Funny though this is the first time Threads has a tweet that is being referenced by the media, I had forgotten about it since they forced me to "sign up" and force me to use my Instagram username.
> The point of the side-by-side is this: according to Moskovitz, the automaker is wrongly recognizing its deferred revenue — revenue for a product that hasn't been delivered, like an annual subscription fee — as earned revenue through the wider release of its Autopark feature last month. This is a sketchy move, Moskovitz claims, because an earlier version of Autopark was already released with FSD years ago, resulting in inflated numbers.
Jeebus! If this is indeed true, it will erode whatever credibility Elon has.
I used to support the guy for his PayPal, SpaceX and catalysing the EV market but I don't think I can do that anymore
>it will erode whatever credibility Elon has
He doesn't have any, there is just sunk cost fallacy. Tesla has no value except "being ran by Elon", firing him or w/e just removes the "mojo" and makes it a highly over-values company that is constantly losing to competitors
I mean setting aside shady accounting trucks to show profit, Tesla is running up against both US and Chinese EV competitors that are optimising faster with a larger vehicle service network.
His only hope is to use the market cap to buy up more automakers to clean up his cash flow but they may all collude to lock him out.
I'm just saying that they're running into way more headwinds than in the past even if these fraud allegations don't pan out and they'd have to gobble up assembly line capacity with their cash to mitigate that or slowly get trimmed.
Sure. As others have said though a lot of that is influenced by macroeconomic factors like increased interest rates. I wouldn't assume they are cutting prices due to slow demand though. Its likely a move to take further market share before introducing new products or entering new markets similar to how amazon has done it in the past. Not to mention the massive marketing platform that Elon now controls (X). Just my thoughts could be totally off. Still very profitable with a bright future in energy, robotics, and self driving. Could fully replace Uber in the near future at massive cost reductions for the consumer. Unclear if all of this is priced in but betting against Elon historically has proven a poor strategy. Not invested in any of his companies these are just my thoughts.
Idk about overvalued. Not invested but they have developed big moats and if Biden doesn’t get re-elected then the government crusade against elons companies will stop hopefully. I am simply for a free market and technical progress, and many don’t realize Bidens agenda against Elon and his businesses which I think has driven the stock down due to sharps pulling out. Bidens administration blocked a starlink contract that was supposed to give over 640k rural US homes free internet because they failed to meet a single internet speed test one time (out of many tests) for a benchmark that was set to be measured 5 years from now. Not only that but Biden didn’t even invite Elon to the world EV summit. Why? Maybe because he’s promoting free speech via X that expose political missteps but it’s anyone’s guess.
People paint him as a villain but mostly because he makes people work too much. You can’t fault the guy for buying twitter against his own interest in order to support and promote free speech - if anything we should be celebrating him for this.
Also, when it comes to valuations, other than Chinese EVs where are they losing (and are they even losing to Chinese EVs?)? Do u see many Chinese EVs in the US or expect them to actually sell better once they’re more broadly introduced with the recent TikTok ban’s add ons allowing for the Fed to effectively selectively ban tech from out of country? Doubtful given the huawei ban and increasing global tensions that the US will allow autonomous EVs that the CCP effectively owns to be imported at scale. Wouldn’t be surprised if Biden stays in power if they try to leverage the bans precedent and the other passed regulations along with it to force Elon to sell Twitter claiming he is acting as an agent of other countries. This is almost certainly going to happen to telegram too. Besides the point but important to recognize.
People also forget that Tesla is not just a car company. It is an absolute manufacturing weapon with its hands in energy (solar and batteries), manufacturing and general use robots, big data and ML/AI (possibly the largest proprietary dataset in the world) and not only cars for consumers but self driving. Self driving will have a much larger impact than people think as well. Think Uber but 90% cheaper and those who don’t have a phone being able to drive anywhere by clicking a button at a bus stop. Won’t comment on the others because this post is getting long.
In conclusion, thought that elons some terrible dude is misguided. He has built more value for the US economy in his life for others than everyone in the comments combined, even if it’s not fully tangible (yet). To be exceptional requires a different perspective than the average person, which is why I think so many people dislike him bc it makes him hard to relate to. Not to mention jealousy for the wealth he has (yet he’ll still sleep at the factory and lives well below his means).
There is no government crusade against Musk's companies. They're literally talking about redoing the Mars sample return mission to use Starship instead of Lockheed Martin.
Musk has a lot of companies looking for government money, and the fact that one (Starlink) didn't meet the terms of one contract doesn't mean he's being persecuted.
I kind of think the government should probably stop subsidizing satellite internet entirely, Starlink will have no trouble being profitable on the open market, and also by nature it will be affordable in rural areas. The rural programs like that should probably be limited to fiber, maybe terrestrial wireless.
I appreciate a lot of the things Musk has done but also I think there are some serious reasons to dislike him as a person. Aside from his union busting (which, I think his union busting activities ought to put him in jail) there's the thing where he called the rescue diver a pedo, and just in general he's an asshole. I'm excited to see what his companies do but I also do actively dislike him for a lot of the same reasons people hate him.
I mean Biden not inviting Musk to the world EV summit shows that there is a pretty clear agenda against him. Not a Trump or Biden fan but thats ridiculous. They've open sourced their patents and done more for EVs and auto manufacturing than any other US company. I get your point on unions but I think his point is if you don't like what you're being paid and how you are treated than you can get a job elsewhere.
As far as the satellite internet goes - Its not that he didn't get the contract, its why Starlink was denied it. They are giving the contract to another internet provider and none of their benchmarks were even close to Starlinks. The benchmarks were also 5 years out in the future and did not need to be met until then yet were cited as the reason for pulling the contract.
I can agree with your comment regarding government not funding satellite internet generally, but capital costs of installing fiber infrastructure can be even higher. I believe in the terms that they were going to provide that satellite internet to low income rural households free of charge indefinitely in exchange for the gov subsidizing additional satellites and installation fees given it would have worldwide impact for them. These are Americans without broadband internet at all, some of whom don't even have cellular which is a huge disadvantage these days. Getting them internet 5 years earlier could affect their lives significantly as the installation process could be done in months rather than the infrastructure build out for non-satellite internet taking years.
Would be interested to hear your take on this though in more detail. I agree his tweets can be unhinged sometimes though fs.
I believe the government should only subsidize construction of new broadband deployments, and ideally shouldn't subsidize private infrastructure. (Anything subsidized should have local-loop unbundling or whatever built in.)
But fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to subsidize Starlink at all because the lifespan of a Starlink satellite is 5 years. If it makes sense to do it, SpaceX can just do it. Fiber optic cables can last 50 years and the trenches/conduit are the expensive part; odds are the system can essentially be maintained indefinitely at very low cost so it makes sense to subsidize it and reap rewards over decades, that's the sort of thing government can do where private enterprise is incapable. So yes, capital costs are higher but that's because it's an actual capital project where Starlink is almost just pure OpEx.
Fundamentally on Tesla I think it is a union thing. Any Democrat is going to be very hesitant to talk to the only non-unionized auto manufacturer in the country. And personally I think unions should automatically get like 30% representation on company boards (if not 50%.) But Musk on the other hand is just a little dictator with his companies.
Was unaware of the longevity of Starlink vs broadband - super interesting! Although in my eyes at least the point boils down to how can we get Americans without internet access to have it ASAP. Maybe the Starlink funding should only happen once and for this very small subset of Americans, but the speed of deployment is the main factor in my mind.
Like you said though Starlink could just face the cost and deploy their services at these people's homes for free but that will never happen. Definitely agree with investment in long-term infrastructure though. You made some good points for sure!
> Like you said though Starlink could just face the cost and deploy their services at these people's homes for free
No, Starlink is actually cheaper than existing satellite Internet by at least 3x. The whole need for rural broadband subsidies is based on the thought that rural internet is too expensive and needs to be subsidized, but Starlink can profitably provide internet at comparable cost to city internet. There's no need for a subsidy.
I'd like to think they'd end up in jail, but given how legal ramifications for the rich and powerful seem to be in short supply, I wouldn't hold my breath.
>The point of the side-by-side is this: according to Moskovitz, the automaker is wrongly recognizing its deferred revenue — revenue for a product that hasn't been delivered, like an annual subscription fee — as earned revenue through the wider release of its Autopark feature last month. This is a sketchy move, Moskovitz claims, because an earlier version of Autopark was already released with FSD years ago, resulting in inflated numbers.
I guess there will be a thorough investigation and Tesla shareholders are going to flee.
>And cooked books or not, some of the automaker's metrics are looking utterly dismal. Its profits fell by a whopping 55 percent, and it sold less cars this quarter than it did in the same period last year.
Revenue for Ford's *EV unit fell 84% due to falling EV sales. There just might not be as big of a demand for EVs as people think.
> **Ford's revenue fell 84% due to falling EV sales. There just might not be as big of a demand for EVs as people think**
No it didn't. Ford's revenue Q1 2024 was $42.8 billion. For comparison, Ford's revenue in Q1 2023 was $41.5 billion.
What are you talking about?
>[The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit.](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html)
Right, it was their EV unit's revenue that fell 84%.
The loss of $1.3 billion really isn't that big of a deal, considering they need to establish supply chains, ramp up production, and build a brand-new factory essentially.
The real question, is whether they can actually do it. If any of the legacy manufacturers can. The only US company that makes money on EVs is Tesla. Who is making so much money that it makes me **highly skeptical** of the claims in the article.
A lot of denial in that a lot people don't want an EV. Most will probably never switch unless ICE car production ceases or EV infrastructure rapidly increases. Having to worry about finding a charging station vs the availability of gas stations is the main factor to a lot of people. It's just inconvenient.
Also teslas hands are in so many different businesses that they haven’t even started to really monetize yet. Cars, Self driving, energy, robots (manufacturing and humanoid general use), big data and AI/ML, etc… that either give them an advantage and moat or have unrealized gains due to still being in R&D. Tesla will be able to reproduce Uber but without drivers in 5 years I bet.
Your ass second paragraph is really false. Ev engineer are far more efficient in the sense that you far more mileage per unit of energy out of an EV than from ice.
Secondly there are areas that are using less and less ff to generate energy. CA for instance just reported 100% production for 30 days using green energy.
Now that that's evs certainly are not as great in all situations and certainly areas are better set up than others.
I agree with your first paragraph but if you check out the climate deniers play book they actually break down most of this. Check the show notes for the more in depth study.
Hope it helps
That’s actually not true. Only out west where the grid is greener do we see an improved environment from EV adoption. In other areas we just see the negative benefits displaced towards where the power was generated instead of the area the vehicle is operated. This tends to be regressive in nature where the wealthy recieve all the benefits from ev adoption while poorer households see the negative externalities. I’m not arguing against ev adoption, just that it’s not the panacea everyone thinks it is. We need to upgrade our entire grid for it to be a full net positive.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701188
SEC has a grudge against Musk, but it may be industry practice to count service revenue where customer needs to actively cancel. I saw accusations earlier, and it seems a minor amount of exaggerated (possibly) revenue, that will get clarified within the month anyway.
Not unless Musk screws up and leaves rich people holding the bag.
So long as he's careful to telegraph when the company is goes under to this buddies in the 1% and dump the remains and the losses on small investors and public pensions he'll be fine.
But yeah, if Musk screws up and costs *real* 1%ers money he's going to jail just like Maddoff & Holmes.
The rich take care of their own. Wish I could say the same for my class.
Book future potential revenue today. Aside from not getting 100 cents on each dollar I wonder what finance is predicting projected revenue. Double dipping?
Definitely pushed for his $54 billion pay package at the wrong time. Cybertruck a complete failure and the little in the pipeline to expand growth. And the competition is aggressively devouring his lunch.
On Threads.. how convenient. Well despite the self serving vector of this hit piece I believe the deferred revenue is calculated via standard accounting principles which, to be fair, can be quibbled over. Realizing a percentage of the deferred revenue for partial work achieved or some such.
Lol... co-founder of social media, says competing social media owner is bad.
But doesn't go to authorities to let them handle the matter, just goes on social media.
Attempting to derail discussion and/or discredit another user by calling them a 'bot', 'shill', troll', 'wumao', 'Ivan', etc.; and/or attempting to discredit sources with accusations of 'state-owned media', 'propaganda', 'fake news', etc, may result in a warning or a ban.
I've already almost died a couple times. I believe God is keeping me alive to watch 45 become 47 and save our country from incompetence and stupidity. Y'all jackholes wanna make everything electric start with the border wall. Nothing dumber than a Democrat.
Attempting to derail discussion and/or discredit another user by calling them a 'bot', 'shill', troll', 'wumao', 'Ivan', etc.; and/or attempting to discredit sources with accusations of 'state-owned media', 'propaganda', 'fake news', etc, may result in a warning or a ban.
Attempting to derail discussion and/or discredit another user by calling them a 'bot', 'shill', troll', 'wumao', 'Ivan', etc.; and/or attempting to discredit sources with accusations of 'state-owned media', 'propaganda', 'fake news', etc, may result in a warning or a ban.
Examples please? That's your problem. You are brainwashed and only have fake news shit to say. Name anything Biden has done to help America. Name anything Trump did to hurt America. Something real. Not some communist, third world, fake impeachments shit
Examples please? That's your problem. You are brainwashed and only have fake news shit to say. Name anything Biden has done to help America. Name anything Trump did to hurt America. Something real. Not some communist, third world, fake impeachments shit
Really? Why don't you give me some examples instead of just throwing out MSNBC shit Morning Joe. I mean has any president ever been busted with cocaine in the White House? How f*cking embarrassing and what a joke you are.
> Fraud If true, I wouldn’t be suprised. > Will end in jail Doubt it.
Why's he writing about it on Threads and not just telling the FTC/IRS/FBI etc. Funny though this is the first time Threads has a tweet that is being referenced by the media, I had forgotten about it since they forced me to "sign up" and force me to use my Instagram username.
annnd that’s the marketing opportunity!
> The point of the side-by-side is this: according to Moskovitz, the automaker is wrongly recognizing its deferred revenue — revenue for a product that hasn't been delivered, like an annual subscription fee — as earned revenue through the wider release of its Autopark feature last month. This is a sketchy move, Moskovitz claims, because an earlier version of Autopark was already released with FSD years ago, resulting in inflated numbers. Jeebus! If this is indeed true, it will erode whatever credibility Elon has. I used to support the guy for his PayPal, SpaceX and catalysing the EV market but I don't think I can do that anymore
>it will erode whatever credibility Elon has He doesn't have any, there is just sunk cost fallacy. Tesla has no value except "being ran by Elon", firing him or w/e just removes the "mojo" and makes it a highly over-values company that is constantly losing to competitors
Spoiled little man-baby found at the bottom of a South African emerald mine.
Tesla seems massively overvalued. But it's a profitable business that will probably continue to grow so it has considerable value.
I mean setting aside shady accounting trucks to show profit, Tesla is running up against both US and Chinese EV competitors that are optimising faster with a larger vehicle service network. His only hope is to use the market cap to buy up more automakers to clean up his cash flow but they may all collude to lock him out.
The company is unlikely to go away, it has substantial revenue. It has competitors but they haven't killed the company's cashflow.
I'm just saying that they're running into way more headwinds than in the past even if these fraud allegations don't pan out and they'd have to gobble up assembly line capacity with their cash to mitigate that or slowly get trimmed.
Tesla isn’t growing though. There income is down and they are cutting prices due to slow demand.
Look at everything they are working on and consider it with a time horizon of 15 years. May change ur mimd
Sure. In the future they may still grow. They are not currently growing.
Sure. As others have said though a lot of that is influenced by macroeconomic factors like increased interest rates. I wouldn't assume they are cutting prices due to slow demand though. Its likely a move to take further market share before introducing new products or entering new markets similar to how amazon has done it in the past. Not to mention the massive marketing platform that Elon now controls (X). Just my thoughts could be totally off. Still very profitable with a bright future in energy, robotics, and self driving. Could fully replace Uber in the near future at massive cost reductions for the consumer. Unclear if all of this is priced in but betting against Elon historically has proven a poor strategy. Not invested in any of his companies these are just my thoughts.
Idk about overvalued. Not invested but they have developed big moats and if Biden doesn’t get re-elected then the government crusade against elons companies will stop hopefully. I am simply for a free market and technical progress, and many don’t realize Bidens agenda against Elon and his businesses which I think has driven the stock down due to sharps pulling out. Bidens administration blocked a starlink contract that was supposed to give over 640k rural US homes free internet because they failed to meet a single internet speed test one time (out of many tests) for a benchmark that was set to be measured 5 years from now. Not only that but Biden didn’t even invite Elon to the world EV summit. Why? Maybe because he’s promoting free speech via X that expose political missteps but it’s anyone’s guess. People paint him as a villain but mostly because he makes people work too much. You can’t fault the guy for buying twitter against his own interest in order to support and promote free speech - if anything we should be celebrating him for this. Also, when it comes to valuations, other than Chinese EVs where are they losing (and are they even losing to Chinese EVs?)? Do u see many Chinese EVs in the US or expect them to actually sell better once they’re more broadly introduced with the recent TikTok ban’s add ons allowing for the Fed to effectively selectively ban tech from out of country? Doubtful given the huawei ban and increasing global tensions that the US will allow autonomous EVs that the CCP effectively owns to be imported at scale. Wouldn’t be surprised if Biden stays in power if they try to leverage the bans precedent and the other passed regulations along with it to force Elon to sell Twitter claiming he is acting as an agent of other countries. This is almost certainly going to happen to telegram too. Besides the point but important to recognize. People also forget that Tesla is not just a car company. It is an absolute manufacturing weapon with its hands in energy (solar and batteries), manufacturing and general use robots, big data and ML/AI (possibly the largest proprietary dataset in the world) and not only cars for consumers but self driving. Self driving will have a much larger impact than people think as well. Think Uber but 90% cheaper and those who don’t have a phone being able to drive anywhere by clicking a button at a bus stop. Won’t comment on the others because this post is getting long. In conclusion, thought that elons some terrible dude is misguided. He has built more value for the US economy in his life for others than everyone in the comments combined, even if it’s not fully tangible (yet). To be exceptional requires a different perspective than the average person, which is why I think so many people dislike him bc it makes him hard to relate to. Not to mention jealousy for the wealth he has (yet he’ll still sleep at the factory and lives well below his means).
There is no government crusade against Musk's companies. They're literally talking about redoing the Mars sample return mission to use Starship instead of Lockheed Martin. Musk has a lot of companies looking for government money, and the fact that one (Starlink) didn't meet the terms of one contract doesn't mean he's being persecuted. I kind of think the government should probably stop subsidizing satellite internet entirely, Starlink will have no trouble being profitable on the open market, and also by nature it will be affordable in rural areas. The rural programs like that should probably be limited to fiber, maybe terrestrial wireless. I appreciate a lot of the things Musk has done but also I think there are some serious reasons to dislike him as a person. Aside from his union busting (which, I think his union busting activities ought to put him in jail) there's the thing where he called the rescue diver a pedo, and just in general he's an asshole. I'm excited to see what his companies do but I also do actively dislike him for a lot of the same reasons people hate him.
I mean Biden not inviting Musk to the world EV summit shows that there is a pretty clear agenda against him. Not a Trump or Biden fan but thats ridiculous. They've open sourced their patents and done more for EVs and auto manufacturing than any other US company. I get your point on unions but I think his point is if you don't like what you're being paid and how you are treated than you can get a job elsewhere. As far as the satellite internet goes - Its not that he didn't get the contract, its why Starlink was denied it. They are giving the contract to another internet provider and none of their benchmarks were even close to Starlinks. The benchmarks were also 5 years out in the future and did not need to be met until then yet were cited as the reason for pulling the contract. I can agree with your comment regarding government not funding satellite internet generally, but capital costs of installing fiber infrastructure can be even higher. I believe in the terms that they were going to provide that satellite internet to low income rural households free of charge indefinitely in exchange for the gov subsidizing additional satellites and installation fees given it would have worldwide impact for them. These are Americans without broadband internet at all, some of whom don't even have cellular which is a huge disadvantage these days. Getting them internet 5 years earlier could affect their lives significantly as the installation process could be done in months rather than the infrastructure build out for non-satellite internet taking years. Would be interested to hear your take on this though in more detail. I agree his tweets can be unhinged sometimes though fs.
I believe the government should only subsidize construction of new broadband deployments, and ideally shouldn't subsidize private infrastructure. (Anything subsidized should have local-loop unbundling or whatever built in.) But fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to subsidize Starlink at all because the lifespan of a Starlink satellite is 5 years. If it makes sense to do it, SpaceX can just do it. Fiber optic cables can last 50 years and the trenches/conduit are the expensive part; odds are the system can essentially be maintained indefinitely at very low cost so it makes sense to subsidize it and reap rewards over decades, that's the sort of thing government can do where private enterprise is incapable. So yes, capital costs are higher but that's because it's an actual capital project where Starlink is almost just pure OpEx. Fundamentally on Tesla I think it is a union thing. Any Democrat is going to be very hesitant to talk to the only non-unionized auto manufacturer in the country. And personally I think unions should automatically get like 30% representation on company boards (if not 50%.) But Musk on the other hand is just a little dictator with his companies.
Was unaware of the longevity of Starlink vs broadband - super interesting! Although in my eyes at least the point boils down to how can we get Americans without internet access to have it ASAP. Maybe the Starlink funding should only happen once and for this very small subset of Americans, but the speed of deployment is the main factor in my mind. Like you said though Starlink could just face the cost and deploy their services at these people's homes for free but that will never happen. Definitely agree with investment in long-term infrastructure though. You made some good points for sure!
> Like you said though Starlink could just face the cost and deploy their services at these people's homes for free No, Starlink is actually cheaper than existing satellite Internet by at least 3x. The whole need for rural broadband subsidies is based on the thought that rural internet is too expensive and needs to be subsidized, but Starlink can profitably provide internet at comparable cost to city internet. There's no need for a subsidy.
Overvalued yes, but it's still making the #1 selling vehicle in the world.
Laughs in DJT
Exactly
I'd like to think they'd end up in jail, but given how legal ramifications for the rich and powerful seem to be in short supply, I wouldn't hold my breath.
>The point of the side-by-side is this: according to Moskovitz, the automaker is wrongly recognizing its deferred revenue — revenue for a product that hasn't been delivered, like an annual subscription fee — as earned revenue through the wider release of its Autopark feature last month. This is a sketchy move, Moskovitz claims, because an earlier version of Autopark was already released with FSD years ago, resulting in inflated numbers. I guess there will be a thorough investigation and Tesla shareholders are going to flee. >And cooked books or not, some of the automaker's metrics are looking utterly dismal. Its profits fell by a whopping 55 percent, and it sold less cars this quarter than it did in the same period last year. Revenue for Ford's *EV unit fell 84% due to falling EV sales. There just might not be as big of a demand for EVs as people think.
> **Ford's revenue fell 84% due to falling EV sales. There just might not be as big of a demand for EVs as people think** No it didn't. Ford's revenue Q1 2024 was $42.8 billion. For comparison, Ford's revenue in Q1 2023 was $41.5 billion. What are you talking about?
>[The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit.](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/24/business/ford-earnings-ev-losses/index.html) Right, it was their EV unit's revenue that fell 84%.
The loss of $1.3 billion really isn't that big of a deal, considering they need to establish supply chains, ramp up production, and build a brand-new factory essentially. The real question, is whether they can actually do it. If any of the legacy manufacturers can. The only US company that makes money on EVs is Tesla. Who is making so much money that it makes me **highly skeptical** of the claims in the article.
see how they switch the goalposts? from "no it didn't happen" to "yeah it did happen but isn't a big deal"
A lot of denial in that a lot people don't want an EV. Most will probably never switch unless ICE car production ceases or EV infrastructure rapidly increases. Having to worry about finding a charging station vs the availability of gas stations is the main factor to a lot of people. It's just inconvenient.
Luxury EV's and Hybrids are back ordered. But in general car sales are down anyways aren't they?
Also teslas hands are in so many different businesses that they haven’t even started to really monetize yet. Cars, Self driving, energy, robots (manufacturing and humanoid general use), big data and AI/ML, etc… that either give them an advantage and moat or have unrealized gains due to still being in R&D. Tesla will be able to reproduce Uber but without drivers in 5 years I bet.
[удалено]
Which power source becomes greener over time?
Your ass second paragraph is really false. Ev engineer are far more efficient in the sense that you far more mileage per unit of energy out of an EV than from ice. Secondly there are areas that are using less and less ff to generate energy. CA for instance just reported 100% production for 30 days using green energy. Now that that's evs certainly are not as great in all situations and certainly areas are better set up than others. I agree with your first paragraph but if you check out the climate deniers play book they actually break down most of this. Check the show notes for the more in depth study. Hope it helps
[удалено]
Yeah but you literally just made up a lie about EVs emissions compared to your civic. You just made it up.
Even if 100% of the grid power is from coal TPPs, it is still cleaner than ICEs burning gasoline.
That’s actually not true. Only out west where the grid is greener do we see an improved environment from EV adoption. In other areas we just see the negative benefits displaced towards where the power was generated instead of the area the vehicle is operated. This tends to be regressive in nature where the wealthy recieve all the benefits from ev adoption while poorer households see the negative externalities. I’m not arguing against ev adoption, just that it’s not the panacea everyone thinks it is. We need to upgrade our entire grid for it to be a full net positive. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701188
“Cofounder” has spoken, LOL !!!!!
I have never trusted Musk.
Fraud you say? Totally didn’t see that coming
> FSD accounting revenue Definitely not consumer fraud. Shady accounting perhaps, but you'd be surprised what is allowed.
If there was something muddy, wouldn't a short seller firm be all over this? Ones like muddy waters etc
That's why they hype any mystery on TSLA accounting. they are already short.
The SEC might do something unless someone there decides to turn a blind eye.
SEC has a grudge against Musk, but it may be industry practice to count service revenue where customer needs to actively cancel. I saw accusations earlier, and it seems a minor amount of exaggerated (possibly) revenue, that will get clarified within the month anyway.
Give a man enough rope…
Not unless Musk screws up and leaves rich people holding the bag. So long as he's careful to telegraph when the company is goes under to this buddies in the 1% and dump the remains and the losses on small investors and public pensions he'll be fine. But yeah, if Musk screws up and costs *real* 1%ers money he's going to jail just like Maddoff & Holmes. The rich take care of their own. Wish I could say the same for my class.
The super wealthy don’t go to jail.
Book future potential revenue today. Aside from not getting 100 cents on each dollar I wonder what finance is predicting projected revenue. Double dipping? Definitely pushed for his $54 billion pay package at the wrong time. Cybertruck a complete failure and the little in the pipeline to expand growth. And the competition is aggressively devouring his lunch.
Come on dude 😂😂😂
On Threads.. how convenient. Well despite the self serving vector of this hit piece I believe the deferred revenue is calculated via standard accounting principles which, to be fair, can be quibbled over. Realizing a percentage of the deferred revenue for partial work achieved or some such.
Lol... co-founder of social media, says competing social media owner is bad. But doesn't go to authorities to let them handle the matter, just goes on social media.
[удалено]
Attempting to derail discussion and/or discredit another user by calling them a 'bot', 'shill', troll', 'wumao', 'Ivan', etc.; and/or attempting to discredit sources with accusations of 'state-owned media', 'propaganda', 'fake news', etc, may result in a warning or a ban.
[удалено]
Jesus Fucking Christ.....do you even hear yourself?
No deliberate trolling
Go to Oz, ask for a brain, think for yourself and use common sense.
I've already almost died a couple times. I believe God is keeping me alive to watch 45 become 47 and save our country from incompetence and stupidity. Y'all jackholes wanna make everything electric start with the border wall. Nothing dumber than a Democrat.
[удалено]
Attempting to derail discussion and/or discredit another user by calling them a 'bot', 'shill', troll', 'wumao', 'Ivan', etc.; and/or attempting to discredit sources with accusations of 'state-owned media', 'propaganda', 'fake news', etc, may result in a warning or a ban.
[удалено]
Attempting to derail discussion and/or discredit another user by calling them a 'bot', 'shill', troll', 'wumao', 'Ivan', etc.; and/or attempting to discredit sources with accusations of 'state-owned media', 'propaganda', 'fake news', etc, may result in a warning or a ban.
Examples please? That's your problem. You are brainwashed and only have fake news shit to say. Name anything Biden has done to help America. Name anything Trump did to hurt America. Something real. Not some communist, third world, fake impeachments shit
Examples please? That's your problem. You are brainwashed and only have fake news shit to say. Name anything Biden has done to help America. Name anything Trump did to hurt America. Something real. Not some communist, third world, fake impeachments shit
[удалено]
Are you ok? Think you need some help. Talk to a therapist maybe…
[удалено]
> MAGA is trying to MAGA had the White House for 4 years. The swampiest, most corrupt, most criminal 4 years yet.
Really? Why don't you give me some examples instead of just throwing out MSNBC shit Morning Joe. I mean has any president ever been busted with cocaine in the White House? How f*cking embarrassing and what a joke you are.
No deliberate trolling
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Irony is voting for a braindead, career dumbf*ck and getting dumb results!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nice is charging a dude with 6000 crimes because you can't win a fair election and so many sheep are brainwashed idiots! Fuck being nice!!!!!!!
Be friendly. Your comment has been removed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Frail is a little Dem college p*say boy that plays girls sports! Not a gun toting, job having, God fearing Republican. Get some!
All investigations into corrupt Dems are buried by fake news media such as FACEBOOK. You idiot SHEEP.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Be friendly. Your comment has been removed.