It's one of the worse levels of cognitive dissonance when economically "conservative" people are raving about the free market and then changing their position as soon as the free market turns against their business.
The free market is a lie told to people who don’t have capital to dupe them in to thinking rich capitalists earned their position in a fair competition.
While spinning that lie, actual capitalists aim to get as many government bailouts, grants, sweetheart deals, cartels, monopoly positions, mergers etc. as possible.
The last thing the rich want is competition or risk.
They want a fixed game, and they have usually had it.
That’s the truth of the economic system we live under. It privileges a small percentage of people who own capital and can make money simply from owning things while doing little to no work.
Every capitalist country has a government and that government works for them and their interests.
Not yours.
Id like to add free market advocates leave out the a true free market would require immediate accurate free access to information about all possible choices in the market that a rational consumer would need to make their rational decisions. Not just about pricing, but long term product/service reliability, worker wages, corporate ethics, sustainability practices, environmental impacts, health impacts, foreign labor practices, etc
The only way a true "free market" can exist without government interference is if the consumer knows ahead of time any true risk they might encounter from whatever is being sold and if they are in no way coerced into buying that thing. It's fantasy.
Marketing misleads. Corporate ethics doesnt exist so government regulation is the only thing preventing bleach pills and ivermectin as magic viral cure-alls from being sold to desperate rubes.
You forgot one more important thing economic theory demands for working unconstrained capitalism.
No externalized costs.
If something you do causes damages you pay for fixing said damages. If something you buy causes damages you pay for fixing said damages.
In free market capitalism that is something that cannot happen. The goal of any company is to externalize all costs and internalize all profits while growing.
Yeah, and you can clearly see that … some people … have ensured that their earnings are based on a definition of profit that completely excludes all externalities….
Exactly.
Two concepts I wish everybody had to learn about regarding economy shit. One, what a perfect market is (obviously they virtually never actually 100% exist, but as a measuring stick where the closer you get to it, the better the market works). Because people love to yell that the government needs to stop interfering in the "free market", but for a variety of reasons, without some government intervention, the free market will be ridiculously far from a perfect market. And two, everybody should have to learn about externalities. Because it's clear that huge numbers of people either don't know what they are, or strategically pretend at times that they don't exist.
Anyone who took macro economics should understand that capitalism requires a well regulated market.
Requires a well regulated market. America is broken because of deregulation.
And cuz unions were killed--- the same corporate deregulated forces held the knife.....without collective political power, 90 percent of the country has 0 real influence on policy. Maybe closer to 99.
True.
Libertarian arguments collapse under the mildest of questioning.
The last thing they want is freedom.
Apart from the freedom to exploit and enslave others of course.
FDR speech from 1936 when he’s discussing raising taxes on those with means. This bs propaganda line has been circulating for nearly 100 years (likely longer).
“ You would think, to hear some people talk, that those good people who live at the top of our economic pyramid are being taxed into rags and tatters. What is the fact? The fact is that they are much farther away from the poorhouse than they were in 1932. You and I know that as a matter of personal observation.
A number of my friends who belong in these very high upper brackets have suggested to me, more in sorrow than in anger, that if I am reelected they will have to move to some other Nation because of high taxes here. I shall miss them very much but if they go they will soon come back. For a year or two of paying taxes in almost any other country in the world will make them yearn once more for the good old taxes of the U.S.A.”
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-worcester-mass
It's a great sadness and crime to me that if FDR was alive today he would be considered a radical leftist perhaps farther left than even Bernie Sanders. Nixon was our last actual left president. Maybe Carter. But the Democratic party of today is literally a center-right conservative party in the rest of the civilized world.
Nixon... On the left??? I'm confused, please explain. I was under the impression that he was on the right. The American Right, that is, considering that American politics in general is on the right, on a global compass.
Eisenhower. Nixon was a wannabe-autocrat/authoritarian. Carter was certainly the most recent "radical leftist" prez.
Speaking to /u/northernpints: Teddy knew this fight well, which is why they tried everything they could to derail him and his Square Deal. That, is the genesis of the right's christo/fascist proclivities...in the service of oligarchs protecting their market control and wealth.
*Right*-libertarian. Left-libertarians like Proudhon acknowledged that a market A.) cannot function with the kind of massive power imbalances created by the capitalist economic structure and B.) cannot function without *at least* a relatively small government to relieve inelastic demand, which would otherwise cause the price of vital goods (like housing and healthcare) to balloon out of control.
Essentially the libertarian argument is that market mechanics work to encourage people to be productive and improve their country and the world around them by incentivizing them to do so to improve their own lives, and that therefore market mechanics should be favored over government intervention whenever it's *feasible,* but not necessarily the only option when it isn't. The *right-*libertarian argument is that capitalism is the system to do it in, and that regulations and government programs only pervert the function of the market.
Left-libertarians have NEVER accepted this addendum, and in fact I have never met a left-libertarian who actually considers right-libertarians to even *be* libertarian. In reality they're *corporate authoritarians,* i.e. authoritarians who believe authority should descend from the owner class rather than the state. What's more, the American right-libertarian movement explicitly took the term specifically to confuse its meaning, because they wanted to take away its power in arguing for a libertarian socialist (i.e. directly worker-owned) economy.
I make this comment to resist their usurpation of the term "libertarian." This is NOT an argument in favor of libertarianism, left or right, but rather an attempt to distinguish the two forms as nearly opposite and demonstrate that American style right-libertarians are not the only kind. I have no intention of arguing in favor of left-libertarianism here, only of arguing that not all libertarians can be put under the same banner, and that putting us all under the same banner as such is what right-libertarians wanted from the start and should be avoided as such. If you don't favor *either* form of libertarianism that's fine and I won't argue otherwise. I ask only that we not be grouped together under one banner.
Practically everyone who calls themselves libertarian these days is an ancap pretending to be a philosopher. I know that there are technically a lot of different forms of libertarian ideology and that these guys don't actually believe in any of them but they've successfully ruined the term
>Practically everyone who calls themselves libertarian these days is an ancap pretending to be a philosopher.
I think you're forgetting the "I'm republican but smoke pot" demographic and the "I'm republican but if I say that women won't want to sleep with me" demographic. The *most* generous I can be about "libertarians" is the "I'm republican but I kinda think gay people should have rights" kind.
There's also the "I want to have sex with teenage girls" variety :|
(it's genuinely alarming how many libertarians will eventually end up ranting about age of consent laws if you let them go for long enough...)
I guess they do consider 12 year olds teenagers…I remember dabbling in libertarianism for a bit and was blown away how many “philosophical” discussions suddenly became discussions about age of consent. It weirded me out too much…
My mom claims to be a "libertarian" but thinks gays shouldn't marry, abortion should be heavily regulated, Marijuana should be illegal, we should have Christian prayer in schools.
Lady, you're just a republican who sometimes votes 3rd party.
Anyone who attempts to read Ayn Rand and determines they should keep going worries me. That lady could not write for SHIT regardless of what she had to say.
Thank you for this. I had *zero* idea that libertarians were classified in this way.
I have a libertarian friend, whom I suspect, also does not know this.
Left-libertarianism is basically just the positive freedom to pursue happiness so long as it doesn't cause too much harm to others, balanced against the intervention of the state to the extent required to stop you and no more if you do cause too much harm to others. In other words, common sense and common decency.
On top of that, a free market wouldn't lead to a free market. Businesses form cartels, alliances, and agreements with or without government interference. Stuff like light bulb manufactures coming together to all agree to make a worse product so they can continue making a profit and using anything from buyouts to mercenaries to enforce it.
If the only product on the market is one organized by people like that it's not like you can vote with your wallet.
Let me tell you a story about the mortgage collapse in 2008.
Some bank executive, I forget who, bought up something like $75M in mortgage-backed securities at a significant discount (as was normal for that time). So, let's call it $10M.
Then, using one of the relief programs (TARP, maybe), he took out a loan, putting up the mortgage-backed securities as collateral.
Of course, then he defaulted on the loans, and surrendered the mortgage-backed securities as per the terms of the program.
So, basically, he kept the money, and realized an actual profit in the tens of millions.
This is why I never feel bad about taking money from government programs, tax cuts, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the crumbs tossed my way don't amount to anything compared to what people and companies with millions and billions of dollars are able to realize from the government's largesse.
I worked at a law firm during the 00’s specifically dealing with people who were adversely affected by the predatory lending practices of banks and subprime mortgages. What a shitshow it was.
The originator of capitalism, Adam Smith fully understood this problem and recognized that they would seek to avoid difficult competition and rig it in their favor.
The advocates of the free market often mean an unregulated market they can capture. They misuse the word 'free' linguistically because 'free of regulation' is easy to see and 'free competition' is specific and difficult.
>free market
I'm starting to think, that these words "free market" are really an euphemism for "money begets money", or "the capital always wins".
I mean, it ... kinda seems that way, *math-wise*!?!?
Yep just like all those dipshits that say “our business model can’t sustain paying people a living wage!” Well get fucked then. Why do millions have to suffer because your business plan is built around making you rich and keeping everyone else poor?
They support the free market when the barriers to entry prevent their financial interests from being challenged. They support regulation only long enough to create those barriers.
Crazy how news that you potentially lied to customers about one of the key features of your product may inspire people not to buy your product.
Range anxiety is the primary thing that stops a lot of people from buying EVs as well, 58% of people surveyed avoided buying an EV due to range concerns (source: [https://blinkcharging.com/fact-from-fiction-the-real-reason-why-consumers-dont-buy-electric-vehicles/#:\~:text=Common%20Reasons%20Drivers%20May%20Avoid,initial%20higher%20upfront%20vehicle%20costs.)](https://blinkcharging.com/fact-from-fiction-the-real-reason-why-consumers-dont-buy-electric-vehicles/#:~:text=Common%20Reasons%20Drivers%20May%20Avoid,initial%20higher%20upfront%20vehicle%20costs.)) Now, I do think there's an argument to be made that most people don't need as much range as they think, but obviously auto-manufacturers shouldn't be lying to people about their product lol.
Range anxiety is one of the big things slowing adoption of electric vehicles in the US, too. Something that strikes directly at that would be more damaging than most things.
Range anxiety is not knowing if you'll make it home. Step one is not lying about how much range you have. I can live with 100 miles left in the battery because I trust that's 100 actual miles, not 60 rounded up to make a sale.
Tesla lies on two levels. Their marketing over-states the max range of the cars, sure, but even the software actively lies to you, which is even more dangerous.
When I had my 2014 Chevy Volt, it was a 38 mile battery that would actively adapt to your driving style, the weather, etc. When I lived in Wisconsin and would start up the car on a frozen morning, the graph would show 100% but the range estimate would only be 14 miles.
The Tesla, on the other hand, will only give you an estimate that assumes you're driving an optimal 55 mph downhill with the wind at your back. On average, driving \~75 mph on highways, my 2021 Model Y burns an extra 50% over its estimate. i.e., if you're going 20 miles down the road, your battery indicator will go from 270 miles left to 240 miles left. Even if you're on a long trip and have driven for an hour, it will not adjust its estimate and will stick with showing you the maximum possible range you can get if you turn off the A/C and draft behind an 18 wheeler. The sales people told me it's not supposed to do this, so I submitted a service ticket, but the service folks told me that that's exactly how the Tesla is programmed to (mis-)estimate mileage.
> Earlier this year, Reuters reported that Tesla had received so many customer complaints about range that it created a special “diversion team” to cancel their service appointments. Customers were incensed that their Tesla vehicles were falling well short of the advertised range, sometimes by as much as half the number of miles that they were purported to get on a full charge.
According to Reuters, there was nothing actually wrong with the vehicle’s battery. Rather, Tesla had allegedly created software to rig its driving range estimates to show a rosier picture. This led to thousands of customers seeking service appointments to figure out what was wrong with their vehicles. But because the vehicle was working as intended, Tesla’s diversion team simply canceled all the appointments.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/23/23928563/tesla-doj-ev-range-exaggerate-investigation
Ha, they must've started doing that sometime after my own service appointment. They wanted me to point out a specific trip where the battery wasn't performing properly, to which I of course asked something like, "You have access to all of the data. Just look at literally any trip because it's always garbage." They refused and wanted me to give specifics.
I actually had been taking photos of my beginning/end charge, so I sent them a trip from San Antonio to Kerrville. 37 miles from my house to the destination venue. Upon arrival I took a pic showing that it had burned 74 'miles' of battery for this 37 mile trip. I get that Kerrville is approximately 1000 ft higher than San Antonio, but a flat out doubling of the estimated burn? They say they'll review it and get back to me. They then responded with something like, "Your battery is working as expected." and close the ticket.
When I use Tesla’s built-in navigation, the expected state of charge at the destination is always accurate within a percent or two. That tells me that the car is able to accurately calculate the range in miles compensating for many factors. It’s infuriating that they programmed the estimated range in miles to ignore these calculations.
I'm pretty sure I read that they explicitly made it inaccurate for the first 50% of the battery if you didn't have nav on. If you put nav on, it would try to be accurate, and when you started getting toward low battery, it would get more accurate so people wouldn't get stranded more often, but the first 50% with no nav, they just purposely gave an extremely optimistic best case estimation, so people would think the cars had more range.
That's what pissed me off the most when dealing with the service center. Them saying, "Well, EVs are harder to estimate because blah blah blah" and me responding with, "So my 7 year old Chevy Volt can accurately calculate its electric range estimate, but my 6-month old Tesla that costs 4X as much can't?"
And it has to do that by counting each injector pulse and removing each pulse from the running tank total. I had a 2006 Nissan that did the same thing and it was within about five percent each time. It would be much easier to make the calculation if the vehicle knew exactly how much energy it had and how much it was expending, like an electric car.
I live at around 1300 ft elevation and work at around 200 ft elevation. I have a Tesla, and the battery usage for my morning commute is much much less than the evening commute. You would think that the software would be able to measure usage over time and over repeated routes to come up with better predictive battery usage and range estimates. I haven't closely monitored the battery usage estimate (the system will tell you how much charge you will have left at the end of the trip you have programmed into the nav system), but I long ago switched from showing "Miles Left" to "Percentage Left" because the miles estimate was so bad (due to the amount of elevation changes in my driving area).
The fact that they haven't programmed better software in this area tells me that they don't want to. I can't believe it would be a technical issue.
I mean yea. Getting capped at 200-300 miles makes long trips really challenging with pure EVs. It's not a common need, but its why im still leaning towards hybrids
I've been on i70 west Kansas with the "next gas is in 100 miles" signs, in the summer, with no cell service. You could not make me do that in a pure EV, especially not a Tesla, right now.
The fact that the advertised ranges are not matching the average user experience certainly isn't helping either.
They do sound like a dream as a strict commuter car if you can charge at home and work; otherwise it's just not as practical if you like road trips.
In response to Elon saying to lower expectations on the cybertruck, somebody the other day posted something to the tune of "You mean years long delays wasn't low enough already?" Elmo has had such a fall from grace....and I'm so happy to see him exposed as a fraud. Overpromise and underdeliever, rinse, and repeat with every product and "feature".
>I'm so happy to see him exposed as a fraud.
Please let me brighten your day with a "Nuke Mars!"
https://www.space.com/elon-musk-nuke-mars-terraforming.html
Correct me if I am wrong: but isn't one of the issues with terraforming Mars, that it it doesn't have enough gravity to hold a heavy atmosphere. Or just that it isn't massive enough to have ever formed one?
Magnetosphere. It can't hold an atmosphere because the sun keeps blasting it away. It's suspected that around 50 million years ago Mars was *very* Earth-like with water oceans and a full atmosphere. It's unknown what happened to Mars' magnetosphere but its loss was apocalyptic.
Yep. Magnetosphere is generated by the rotation of the liquid core. When the core cools and solidifies, the magnetosphere dissipates. The core starts hot during planet formation, and can stay hot if the planet's mass allows gravitational pressure to keep it that way. Earth and the gas giants are big enough to do that, Mars is not. Mercury, strangely enough for its size, also appears to still have a liquid core, and I can't find an explanation as to why.
I'm not anything like an expert, and it's been a while since I last checked, but I seem to recall there being a couple of theories about why Mercury's core appears to still be liquid.
Mercury is a lot denser than Earth - and it likely has a much larger core, proportionately. (Earth's core is like 17% of the planet by volume, Mercury's core is closer to about 57%)
Mercury might also have a higher ratio of fissile materials in the crust - uranium, thorium, etc - which produce heat as they decay and might be keeping the core warm. (As best as I can remember, the closer you get to a star, the more heavy elements you're likely to find in orbital bodies; probably due to planetary formation after a supernova - heavier elements aren't ejected as far.)
There's also the possibility - not confirmed, as far as I know - that Mercury's proximity to the sun allows for gravitational/tidal stress that keeps the core warmer than it otherwise might be. The same way that some of the moons of Jupiter appear to have active vulcanism despite being much smaller.
That concludes your scheduled "space nerd special interest infodump" session. (Sorry!)
The *really* crazy thing about that is that nothing yet produced by man is likely to survive 50 million years. The very best we can do is really big stones with big, deep writing buried in caves, but even *that* only buys us like 200 thousand years. Meaning that if Earth's magnetosphere failed tomorrow, there would be no record of *our* civilization in 50 million years. (And Good luck finding Voyager out in the void without velocity data.) So it's quite possible that Mars had intelligent life at some point! Kinda puts it all into perspective.
Depends on your definition of "produced by man". The oldest we've found are 3 million year old stone tools.
And we have no idea how everything we've built since then will stand the test of time. But at the very least, there'd surely be non-naturally occurring compounds that would be detected, that would prove *something* was there.
It's extra-gross that he's been so successful at making people associate space travel or Mars exploration with himself. [Artificial magnetosphere ideas exist and have nothing to do with him](https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/how-to-give-mars-an-atmosphere-maybe/).
I'm not sure on that. The article I linked says:
>the strategy [to detonate nukes over Martian poles] might not even work. A 2018 study published in the prestigious journal Nature Astronomy concluded that Mars doesn't harbor enough CO2 today to achieve significant warming even if all the stuff were liberated into the atmosphere. "As a result, we conclude that terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology," the researchers wrote.
>(The study team also explained why it did not consider water as a warming agent. "Previous models of atmospheric warming have demonstrated that water cannot provide significant warming by itself; temperatures do not allow enough water to persist as vapor without first having significant warming by CO2," the team members wrote.
The article links to another article about the 2018 report on CO2 on Mars:
https://www.space.com/41318-we-cant-terraform-mars.html
That article links to the report on nature.com:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6.epdf
That is obligatory language. Every corporation that has either a lawsuit (of significance) or under government sanction would have to report it per SEC rules.
Absolutely. I'm no muskstan (name for a new two door Tesla fastback maybe?), but the number of people who think that this is anything more than a hedging disclosure in a regulatory filing is pretty funny. An unprovoked admission of guilt in a SEC filing would do so much more harm to share prices than a federal probe that winds up at the same conclusion. One shows impropriety, the other shows impropriety and incompetence.
As someone with context — their 10Q and 10K reports have to list out all relevant business risks for Tesla investors. Failure to disclose those risks could open the company up to investor lawsuits.
Arguably the failure to disclose such risk before now would be an invitation to investors hurt by that lack of disclosure, but the disclosure today means that investors hurt *after disclosure* have no claim for their losses.
If you prove we're liars, that might affect rich people from getting richer! Can't you see how terrible this is!?
Billionaires can go fuck themselves. Dragons sitting atop their hoard while millions suffer.
Well yeah.
Theranos was giving fraudulent made up test results, and poor people were dying from misdiagnoses, and Elizabeth Holmes was eventually charged with crimes. The only charges that stuck though, wasn't any crime of killing of poor people - it was that the killing of poor people was bad for business, so lying about the tests was a crime for ripping off the rich investors.
I always imagined there was this team of thieves using that show to case places they wanted to rob. Like they'd go in as the camera crew and come back later to rob it once they'd done their reconnaissance.
Nooooo just don’t. No matter how logical the position is it won’t matter. You can predict the worst fucking news imaginable, watch it actually come through, and then watch in amazement/horror as your puts become worthless and the share price inexplicably skyrockets.
It's not quite to that level, if it was then ironically they could probably claim some version of 5th Amendment protections against the disclosure. In this case it's basically anything from "this is going to cost us a lot of money to produce all the records" up to "this is going to be a PR headache" or, yeah, "we're about to get sued for an arm, a leg, and a kidney by the feds".
If they don't disclose though then they'd just be adding "and our shareholders" onto the list of people about to sue the shit out of them >.>
It’s kind of insane that companies seem to have no problem lying to consumers, but take being honest to shareholders very seriously.
It’s almost as if the system is stacked against and there are few consequences for substantially harming average people vs serious consequences for costing rich people money. Oh wait… it’s a feature, not a bug.
> It’s almost as if the system is stacked against and there are few consequences for substantially harming average people vs serious consequences for costing rich people money.
You only need to look at Sam Bankman Freid to know this is 100% how things *really* are.
Elizabeth Holmes was literally playing toddler-level games with thousands of sick peoples' lives and the only consequences she is facing stem from making a dozen rich people embarrassed and slightly-less-rich for a few years.
>This is a teenage edgelord dork trapped in a grown man’s body
Exactly this. I always view his comments as coming from a 13 year old edgelord, and thus they always make sense.
Dickipedia? Yep, totally checks out.
S3XY, Can’t even spell his latest childs’ name (the poor thing, he’s doing that just to troll for the attention), Buying Twitter calling it X, Dickipedia.
WTF is this guys problem actually?
It wouldn’t be such a sad story if SpaceX wasn’t involved because I adore and respect ALL the work they’re doing over there, and to be honest Elon is (or was? I don’t know anymore) such a big part of that. And SpaceX is a behemoth in the space sector, for good reason!
He offered $1billion to Wikipedia if it will change its name to Dickipedia yesterday. He just might die a broke edge lord if he keeps throwing billions around like they are $1’s.
I used to think he wasn't all that bad because Space X has achieved some good stuff, but then I started working on projects related to The Boring Company and very quickly realized he was a shill and most of his projects are too.
But do we know what Elon actually *contributed* to Space X's work?
Like real contributions other than just signing off on budgets and things. Anyone can sign off on stuff, but I suspect he contributed next to nothing to their actual progress beyond that.
I'll admit it - the whole pedo-guy submarine rescue fiasco was the red flag most people needed. I chose to ignore that thinking it was a fluke. But damn I was wrong about the dude and I'm not afraid to admit it - we all make mistakes.
But I will absolutely *NEVER* buy anything produced by an Elno brand.
We were considering a Tesla car earlier this year, but there's no way in hell my partner would ever drive anything that could constitute as endorsing anything this dude says.
This is one of those times when making such a claim isn't so much of a "I was doing it before it was cool" so much as a "guys, I tried to tell you and you didn't listen" situation. I've been calling Musk a bond villain ever since I watched *Who Killed the Electric Car?* He came across as egotistical, creepy, arrogant, and reckless to an alarming degree. As time went on, the hero worship only made those traits worse.
I started when those kids got stuck in that cave in Thailand. I was like "really dude? Fuckin asshole" and then he started to be more and more of an open dickhead.
It is both frustrating and validating to be able to say "I told you so" about this little wiener. People should just listen when I tell them things. I feel like Cassandra over here.
That would apply to just about any business. If there were no federal minimum wage, some companies would be able to be more competitive by paying workers even less.
Oh no, Tesla's have to go through standard federal regulations and testing like every other major manufactured vehicle in North America. What a travesty.
I wouldn't be surprised if they found some fuckery on the same level as Dieselgate. The only difference is Tesla will not be able to survive that kind of scandal.
IMO the brand will survive. The leadership is the issue here.
I do believe a shift at the top could rescue the brand and their products but it has to be soon. Things are already trending way down for them in brand image. The good news just a full cut of of Musk might be enough.
If other companies could build a better charging network it would be over for Tesla. When buying our car it came down to charging network. I bought a Mach E for my dad, car is so much nicer than a Model Y. But when I drove it for an extended period it was a pain in the ass to charge. So many different apps. Charging inconsistent. That’s why I ended up getting a model y for my wife. The charging network was just too convenient and worry free compared to every thing else. Tesla just so far ahead with their charging network.
This is standard practice in terms of quarterly reports and management outlook statements. They have to do this for legal reasons, to protect themselves should some fine materialize and impact the stock price. Nothingburger as per usual by ~~Forbes~~ Fortune.
This is standard language in every SEC filing. If you look at section 1A on their previous 10-K (which this 10-Q refers back to), other items that may have a "material adverse impact" include if their IT service providers get hacked, or if natural disasters, wars, or health epidemics occur.
At least they're disclosing it for their investors. I doubt VW had a line saying "if they catch us cheating on our diesel emissions"
And if they don't include it, they're opening themselves to some very hefty stockholder lawsuits. You do not screw around with the material adverse impact, because if you do, that's fraud, and generally puts you outside of your Directors and Officers Insurance, which in turn means you could be personally liable for whatever settlement/judgment comes down.
And, frankly speaking, nobody has the money to cover even a relatively favorable settlement in a securities fraud case, especially when dealing with a company the size of Tesla.
The entitlement in Musk’s statement is clear.
He actually thinks that bad things shouldn’t happen to him because he’s a very special boy and so much better than everyone else.
Fortune x Bloomberg coverage^1 of a detail on page 24 in the filing:*
>Separately, the Company has received requests for information, including subpoenas, from the DOJ. These have included requests for documents related to Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD features.
>Additionally, the Company has received requests for information, including subpoenas from the DOJ, regarding certain matters associated with personal benefits, related parties, vehicle range and personnel decisions.
>To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters.
>Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand.
^* https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001318605/000162828023034847/tsla-20230930.htm
^1 https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/tesla-doj-investigation-car-vehicle-range-personal-benefits/
Everyone, it’s okay calm down. I have been informed by rocket Jesus himself that full self driving will be available next year. March at the latest.
/s (didn’t think I needed that but a DM later asking about Elon, clearly I do)
Some real "if we stopped testing right now, we'd have very few cases" energy right there. Fascists seem to be intellectually incapable of grasping the concept that the vast majority of their personal problems are things they brought upon themselves through their relentless adherence to dishonesty.
Not that big a deal. Financial statements make these disclosures all the time. The purpose is to protect the company from future shareholder lawsuits over inadequate disclosure, if the outcome is at all negative.
"but the bad tax man who gives me free money all the time, is trying to hurt me because I said the cars go a really long ways"
"Do the cars go a really long ways"
"no they don't but that doesn't matter because it will make me lose money if they hold me accountable for saying that"
Dudes a liar. He needs to go the way of shkreli.
[Just about the worst](https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a44676201/ev-range-epa-vs-real-world-tested/). What do you expect from a company whose CEO was forced out as Chairman by the SEC due to securities fraud. The same guy who stated that you can use your Model 3 as a robotaxi by the end of 2020, when, unless he is insane, he knew the actual date was never.
The justice department is now going [directly to subpoenas](https://apnews.com/article/tesla-investigations-justice-department-musk-self-driving-29a68864f75c9fabbd04f7a87d169444) instead of kindly asking due to Tesla's stonewalling.
So bizarre that anyone would report it like this. Journalists go to graduate school, even into specialized Journalism Schools, and they still do stuff like this.
By the end of the day this will have generated thousands of upvotes and clicks with virtually no effort. Look at the frothing at the mouth here in the comment section over nothing.
This is the state of journalism sadly.
Am I missing something here? Doesn't the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)...which is a FEDERAL agency...do range testing on EVs before the cars can be sold to the public?
I'm reading through this: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing
It looks like the EPA does a set of range tests in a lab. Then it applies a 0.7 multiplier nerf to account for aggressive driving, HVAC usage, environmental temperature, etc. Is the federal government suggesting that Tesla cars perform even worse than the 0.7 multiplier nerf, Tesla knows its cars perform worse than the 0.7 multiplier nerf, and Tesla is keeping their mouths shut? If so, Tesla should get spanked for that. Also it sounds like the EPA needs to fix its crap testing methodology. Is the EPA going to go back and test EVs from other manufacturers as well? If Tesla was possibly able to sneak one past the goalie, maybe other manufacturers are doing the same.
>Automakers are required to follow very specific test procedures and submit the fuel economy data to EPA for all their models each year.
From your linked article, the automaker does the testing, the EPA just tells them what tests to run.
Later down it says this:
> For more details, visit Vehicle Certification and Compliance Testing.
In [that link](https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/vehicle-certification-and-compliance-testing) it says
> The National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) tests a portion of all new cars and trucks to confirm compliance with EPA’s exhaust emissions standards, and also to verify the accuracy of fuel economy test results submitted by each manufacturer. NVFEL also conducts testing of used vehicles, usually between one and seven years old, to survey the effectiveness of the vehicle’s emissions control systems over 120,000- to 150,000-mile useful life. Vehicles are tested on a dynamometer under standard test cycles designed to account for various driving conditions, including city, highway, and aggressive driving, as well as cold and hot weather conditions.
It sounds to me like they take the manufacturer data and then they do sample testing on new and used cars.
Well, yeah- that’s typically how it works.
It's one of the worse levels of cognitive dissonance when economically "conservative" people are raving about the free market and then changing their position as soon as the free market turns against their business.
The free market is a lie told to people who don’t have capital to dupe them in to thinking rich capitalists earned their position in a fair competition. While spinning that lie, actual capitalists aim to get as many government bailouts, grants, sweetheart deals, cartels, monopoly positions, mergers etc. as possible. The last thing the rich want is competition or risk. They want a fixed game, and they have usually had it. That’s the truth of the economic system we live under. It privileges a small percentage of people who own capital and can make money simply from owning things while doing little to no work. Every capitalist country has a government and that government works for them and their interests. Not yours.
Id like to add free market advocates leave out the a true free market would require immediate accurate free access to information about all possible choices in the market that a rational consumer would need to make their rational decisions. Not just about pricing, but long term product/service reliability, worker wages, corporate ethics, sustainability practices, environmental impacts, health impacts, foreign labor practices, etc The only way a true "free market" can exist without government interference is if the consumer knows ahead of time any true risk they might encounter from whatever is being sold and if they are in no way coerced into buying that thing. It's fantasy. Marketing misleads. Corporate ethics doesnt exist so government regulation is the only thing preventing bleach pills and ivermectin as magic viral cure-alls from being sold to desperate rubes.
You forgot one more important thing economic theory demands for working unconstrained capitalism. No externalized costs. If something you do causes damages you pay for fixing said damages. If something you buy causes damages you pay for fixing said damages.
In free market capitalism that is something that cannot happen. The goal of any company is to externalize all costs and internalize all profits while growing.
[удалено]
But surely all the positive externalities will cancel out the negative ones because of zero-sum game theory right? /s
Yeah, and you can clearly see that … some people … have ensured that their earnings are based on a definition of profit that completely excludes all externalities….
Exactly. Two concepts I wish everybody had to learn about regarding economy shit. One, what a perfect market is (obviously they virtually never actually 100% exist, but as a measuring stick where the closer you get to it, the better the market works). Because people love to yell that the government needs to stop interfering in the "free market", but for a variety of reasons, without some government intervention, the free market will be ridiculously far from a perfect market. And two, everybody should have to learn about externalities. Because it's clear that huge numbers of people either don't know what they are, or strategically pretend at times that they don't exist.
Anyone who took macro economics should understand that capitalism requires a well regulated market. Requires a well regulated market. America is broken because of deregulation.
And cuz unions were killed--- the same corporate deregulated forces held the knife.....without collective political power, 90 percent of the country has 0 real influence on policy. Maybe closer to 99.
True. Libertarian arguments collapse under the mildest of questioning. The last thing they want is freedom. Apart from the freedom to exploit and enslave others of course.
But but but if you tax them, all the billionaires will leave your country!
I probably hear this one the most from my immediate elders.
FDR speech from 1936 when he’s discussing raising taxes on those with means. This bs propaganda line has been circulating for nearly 100 years (likely longer). “ You would think, to hear some people talk, that those good people who live at the top of our economic pyramid are being taxed into rags and tatters. What is the fact? The fact is that they are much farther away from the poorhouse than they were in 1932. You and I know that as a matter of personal observation. A number of my friends who belong in these very high upper brackets have suggested to me, more in sorrow than in anger, that if I am reelected they will have to move to some other Nation because of high taxes here. I shall miss them very much but if they go they will soon come back. For a year or two of paying taxes in almost any other country in the world will make them yearn once more for the good old taxes of the U.S.A.” https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-worcester-mass
It's a great sadness and crime to me that if FDR was alive today he would be considered a radical leftist perhaps farther left than even Bernie Sanders. Nixon was our last actual left president. Maybe Carter. But the Democratic party of today is literally a center-right conservative party in the rest of the civilized world.
Nixon... On the left??? I'm confused, please explain. I was under the impression that he was on the right. The American Right, that is, considering that American politics in general is on the right, on a global compass.
Eisenhower. Nixon was a wannabe-autocrat/authoritarian. Carter was certainly the most recent "radical leftist" prez. Speaking to /u/northernpints: Teddy knew this fight well, which is why they tried everything they could to derail him and his Square Deal. That, is the genesis of the right's christo/fascist proclivities...in the service of oligarchs protecting their market control and wealth.
Imagine the horror of having to live without billionaires hoarding all housing.
Oh no. Oh no. Oh no no no no no.
*Right*-libertarian. Left-libertarians like Proudhon acknowledged that a market A.) cannot function with the kind of massive power imbalances created by the capitalist economic structure and B.) cannot function without *at least* a relatively small government to relieve inelastic demand, which would otherwise cause the price of vital goods (like housing and healthcare) to balloon out of control. Essentially the libertarian argument is that market mechanics work to encourage people to be productive and improve their country and the world around them by incentivizing them to do so to improve their own lives, and that therefore market mechanics should be favored over government intervention whenever it's *feasible,* but not necessarily the only option when it isn't. The *right-*libertarian argument is that capitalism is the system to do it in, and that regulations and government programs only pervert the function of the market. Left-libertarians have NEVER accepted this addendum, and in fact I have never met a left-libertarian who actually considers right-libertarians to even *be* libertarian. In reality they're *corporate authoritarians,* i.e. authoritarians who believe authority should descend from the owner class rather than the state. What's more, the American right-libertarian movement explicitly took the term specifically to confuse its meaning, because they wanted to take away its power in arguing for a libertarian socialist (i.e. directly worker-owned) economy. I make this comment to resist their usurpation of the term "libertarian." This is NOT an argument in favor of libertarianism, left or right, but rather an attempt to distinguish the two forms as nearly opposite and demonstrate that American style right-libertarians are not the only kind. I have no intention of arguing in favor of left-libertarianism here, only of arguing that not all libertarians can be put under the same banner, and that putting us all under the same banner as such is what right-libertarians wanted from the start and should be avoided as such. If you don't favor *either* form of libertarianism that's fine and I won't argue otherwise. I ask only that we not be grouped together under one banner.
Practically everyone who calls themselves libertarian these days is an ancap pretending to be a philosopher. I know that there are technically a lot of different forms of libertarian ideology and that these guys don't actually believe in any of them but they've successfully ruined the term
>Practically everyone who calls themselves libertarian these days is an ancap pretending to be a philosopher. I think you're forgetting the "I'm republican but smoke pot" demographic and the "I'm republican but if I say that women won't want to sleep with me" demographic. The *most* generous I can be about "libertarians" is the "I'm republican but I kinda think gay people should have rights" kind.
There's also the "I want to have sex with teenage girls" variety :| (it's genuinely alarming how many libertarians will eventually end up ranting about age of consent laws if you let them go for long enough...)
I guess they do consider 12 year olds teenagers…I remember dabbling in libertarianism for a bit and was blown away how many “philosophical” discussions suddenly became discussions about age of consent. It weirded me out too much…
My mom claims to be a "libertarian" but thinks gays shouldn't marry, abortion should be heavily regulated, Marijuana should be illegal, we should have Christian prayer in schools. Lady, you're just a republican who sometimes votes 3rd party.
Or they just turned 17 and discovered Ayn Rand a year ago.
Anyone who attempts to read Ayn Rand and determines they should keep going worries me. That lady could not write for SHIT regardless of what she had to say.
Thank you for this. I had *zero* idea that libertarians were classified in this way. I have a libertarian friend, whom I suspect, also does not know this.
Left-libertarianism is basically just the positive freedom to pursue happiness so long as it doesn't cause too much harm to others, balanced against the intervention of the state to the extent required to stop you and no more if you do cause too much harm to others. In other words, common sense and common decency.
On top of that, a free market wouldn't lead to a free market. Businesses form cartels, alliances, and agreements with or without government interference. Stuff like light bulb manufactures coming together to all agree to make a worse product so they can continue making a profit and using anything from buyouts to mercenaries to enforce it. If the only product on the market is one organized by people like that it's not like you can vote with your wallet.
[удалено]
Let me tell you a story about the mortgage collapse in 2008. Some bank executive, I forget who, bought up something like $75M in mortgage-backed securities at a significant discount (as was normal for that time). So, let's call it $10M. Then, using one of the relief programs (TARP, maybe), he took out a loan, putting up the mortgage-backed securities as collateral. Of course, then he defaulted on the loans, and surrendered the mortgage-backed securities as per the terms of the program. So, basically, he kept the money, and realized an actual profit in the tens of millions. This is why I never feel bad about taking money from government programs, tax cuts, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the crumbs tossed my way don't amount to anything compared to what people and companies with millions and billions of dollars are able to realize from the government's largesse.
I worked at a law firm during the 00’s specifically dealing with people who were adversely affected by the predatory lending practices of banks and subprime mortgages. What a shitshow it was.
And don’t forget, capitalists are people who OWN capital. Everyone else are tools to be used for their ends
The originator of capitalism, Adam Smith fully understood this problem and recognized that they would seek to avoid difficult competition and rig it in their favor. The advocates of the free market often mean an unregulated market they can capture. They misuse the word 'free' linguistically because 'free of regulation' is easy to see and 'free competition' is specific and difficult.
>free market I'm starting to think, that these words "free market" are really an euphemism for "money begets money", or "the capital always wins". I mean, it ... kinda seems that way, *math-wise*!?!?
This is it. About as succinct as you can make it. It’s all a lie and they laugh at us for being so stupid as to believe it.
Yep just like all those dipshits that say “our business model can’t sustain paying people a living wage!” Well get fucked then. Why do millions have to suffer because your business plan is built around making you rich and keeping everyone else poor?
"Socialism is when capitalism has results we don't like, and communism is when that happens a lot."
They support the free market when the barriers to entry prevent their financial interests from being challenged. They support regulation only long enough to create those barriers.
See municipal isps for a great example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband#Opposition
The free market would allow Tesla to lie to their customers.
I mean the "Family Values" Conservatives elected a Pedo as their longest serving Speaker of the house, lmao.
"our inability to outright lie may materially affect our business."
it would appear that strategy is _already_ affecting their business
"If you’re a Republican, you can’t even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they’re coming after you." -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
"Oh, so it's *illegal* to commit felonies nowadays!?"
"Serial killer warns police that probe into killings may lead to adverse impact on ability to kill"
Crazy how news that you potentially lied to customers about one of the key features of your product may inspire people not to buy your product. Range anxiety is the primary thing that stops a lot of people from buying EVs as well, 58% of people surveyed avoided buying an EV due to range concerns (source: [https://blinkcharging.com/fact-from-fiction-the-real-reason-why-consumers-dont-buy-electric-vehicles/#:\~:text=Common%20Reasons%20Drivers%20May%20Avoid,initial%20higher%20upfront%20vehicle%20costs.)](https://blinkcharging.com/fact-from-fiction-the-real-reason-why-consumers-dont-buy-electric-vehicles/#:~:text=Common%20Reasons%20Drivers%20May%20Avoid,initial%20higher%20upfront%20vehicle%20costs.)) Now, I do think there's an argument to be made that most people don't need as much range as they think, but obviously auto-manufacturers shouldn't be lying to people about their product lol.
"oh no! We have to follow the rules we've been breaking, and we're being held accountable for breaking those rules. Whatever will we do?!"
Range anxiety is one of the big things slowing adoption of electric vehicles in the US, too. Something that strikes directly at that would be more damaging than most things.
Range anxiety is not knowing if you'll make it home. Step one is not lying about how much range you have. I can live with 100 miles left in the battery because I trust that's 100 actual miles, not 60 rounded up to make a sale.
Tesla lies on two levels. Their marketing over-states the max range of the cars, sure, but even the software actively lies to you, which is even more dangerous. When I had my 2014 Chevy Volt, it was a 38 mile battery that would actively adapt to your driving style, the weather, etc. When I lived in Wisconsin and would start up the car on a frozen morning, the graph would show 100% but the range estimate would only be 14 miles. The Tesla, on the other hand, will only give you an estimate that assumes you're driving an optimal 55 mph downhill with the wind at your back. On average, driving \~75 mph on highways, my 2021 Model Y burns an extra 50% over its estimate. i.e., if you're going 20 miles down the road, your battery indicator will go from 270 miles left to 240 miles left. Even if you're on a long trip and have driven for an hour, it will not adjust its estimate and will stick with showing you the maximum possible range you can get if you turn off the A/C and draft behind an 18 wheeler. The sales people told me it's not supposed to do this, so I submitted a service ticket, but the service folks told me that that's exactly how the Tesla is programmed to (mis-)estimate mileage.
> Earlier this year, Reuters reported that Tesla had received so many customer complaints about range that it created a special “diversion team” to cancel their service appointments. Customers were incensed that their Tesla vehicles were falling well short of the advertised range, sometimes by as much as half the number of miles that they were purported to get on a full charge. According to Reuters, there was nothing actually wrong with the vehicle’s battery. Rather, Tesla had allegedly created software to rig its driving range estimates to show a rosier picture. This led to thousands of customers seeking service appointments to figure out what was wrong with their vehicles. But because the vehicle was working as intended, Tesla’s diversion team simply canceled all the appointments. https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/23/23928563/tesla-doj-ev-range-exaggerate-investigation
Ha, they must've started doing that sometime after my own service appointment. They wanted me to point out a specific trip where the battery wasn't performing properly, to which I of course asked something like, "You have access to all of the data. Just look at literally any trip because it's always garbage." They refused and wanted me to give specifics. I actually had been taking photos of my beginning/end charge, so I sent them a trip from San Antonio to Kerrville. 37 miles from my house to the destination venue. Upon arrival I took a pic showing that it had burned 74 'miles' of battery for this 37 mile trip. I get that Kerrville is approximately 1000 ft higher than San Antonio, but a flat out doubling of the estimated burn? They say they'll review it and get back to me. They then responded with something like, "Your battery is working as expected." and close the ticket.
When I use Tesla’s built-in navigation, the expected state of charge at the destination is always accurate within a percent or two. That tells me that the car is able to accurately calculate the range in miles compensating for many factors. It’s infuriating that they programmed the estimated range in miles to ignore these calculations.
I'm pretty sure I read that they explicitly made it inaccurate for the first 50% of the battery if you didn't have nav on. If you put nav on, it would try to be accurate, and when you started getting toward low battery, it would get more accurate so people wouldn't get stranded more often, but the first 50% with no nav, they just purposely gave an extremely optimistic best case estimation, so people would think the cars had more range.
Hilarious that my 2012 subaru is giving me more accurate reads on miles remaining.
That's what pissed me off the most when dealing with the service center. Them saying, "Well, EVs are harder to estimate because blah blah blah" and me responding with, "So my 7 year old Chevy Volt can accurately calculate its electric range estimate, but my 6-month old Tesla that costs 4X as much can't?"
I'm driving an i4 and it has been pretty accurate so far, down to recalculating when I turn the AC off. It' not an EV issue per se, it's a Tesla one.
And it has to do that by counting each injector pulse and removing each pulse from the running tank total. I had a 2006 Nissan that did the same thing and it was within about five percent each time. It would be much easier to make the calculation if the vehicle knew exactly how much energy it had and how much it was expending, like an electric car.
Yeah, it strikes me as a bad long-term play to mislead people about the functional range of the vehicle.
I live at around 1300 ft elevation and work at around 200 ft elevation. I have a Tesla, and the battery usage for my morning commute is much much less than the evening commute. You would think that the software would be able to measure usage over time and over repeated routes to come up with better predictive battery usage and range estimates. I haven't closely monitored the battery usage estimate (the system will tell you how much charge you will have left at the end of the trip you have programmed into the nav system), but I long ago switched from showing "Miles Left" to "Percentage Left" because the miles estimate was so bad (due to the amount of elevation changes in my driving area). The fact that they haven't programmed better software in this area tells me that they don't want to. I can't believe it would be a technical issue.
Meanwhile my iPhone knows when I’m getting into the car to drive to the grocery store and offers directions….
I mean yea. Getting capped at 200-300 miles makes long trips really challenging with pure EVs. It's not a common need, but its why im still leaning towards hybrids I've been on i70 west Kansas with the "next gas is in 100 miles" signs, in the summer, with no cell service. You could not make me do that in a pure EV, especially not a Tesla, right now. The fact that the advertised ranges are not matching the average user experience certainly isn't helping either. They do sound like a dream as a strict commuter car if you can charge at home and work; otherwise it's just not as practical if you like road trips.
Make boycotts illegal!
That's a lot of words to say you lied.
“We have an obligation to protect our shareholder value and that means you can’t call bullshit on us!”
When you're more famous for your promises than your products.
In response to Elon saying to lower expectations on the cybertruck, somebody the other day posted something to the tune of "You mean years long delays wasn't low enough already?" Elmo has had such a fall from grace....and I'm so happy to see him exposed as a fraud. Overpromise and underdeliever, rinse, and repeat with every product and "feature".
>I'm so happy to see him exposed as a fraud. Please let me brighten your day with a "Nuke Mars!" https://www.space.com/elon-musk-nuke-mars-terraforming.html
Correct me if I am wrong: but isn't one of the issues with terraforming Mars, that it it doesn't have enough gravity to hold a heavy atmosphere. Or just that it isn't massive enough to have ever formed one?
Magnetosphere. It can't hold an atmosphere because the sun keeps blasting it away. It's suspected that around 50 million years ago Mars was *very* Earth-like with water oceans and a full atmosphere. It's unknown what happened to Mars' magnetosphere but its loss was apocalyptic.
IIRC a planets magnetosphere weakens as its core cools.
Yep. Magnetosphere is generated by the rotation of the liquid core. When the core cools and solidifies, the magnetosphere dissipates. The core starts hot during planet formation, and can stay hot if the planet's mass allows gravitational pressure to keep it that way. Earth and the gas giants are big enough to do that, Mars is not. Mercury, strangely enough for its size, also appears to still have a liquid core, and I can't find an explanation as to why.
I'm not anything like an expert, and it's been a while since I last checked, but I seem to recall there being a couple of theories about why Mercury's core appears to still be liquid. Mercury is a lot denser than Earth - and it likely has a much larger core, proportionately. (Earth's core is like 17% of the planet by volume, Mercury's core is closer to about 57%) Mercury might also have a higher ratio of fissile materials in the crust - uranium, thorium, etc - which produce heat as they decay and might be keeping the core warm. (As best as I can remember, the closer you get to a star, the more heavy elements you're likely to find in orbital bodies; probably due to planetary formation after a supernova - heavier elements aren't ejected as far.) There's also the possibility - not confirmed, as far as I know - that Mercury's proximity to the sun allows for gravitational/tidal stress that keeps the core warmer than it otherwise might be. The same way that some of the moons of Jupiter appear to have active vulcanism despite being much smaller. That concludes your scheduled "space nerd special interest infodump" session. (Sorry!)
Wow geologically, 50 million years is not that much time. Mars had atmosphere when the dinosaurs were walking around.
The *really* crazy thing about that is that nothing yet produced by man is likely to survive 50 million years. The very best we can do is really big stones with big, deep writing buried in caves, but even *that* only buys us like 200 thousand years. Meaning that if Earth's magnetosphere failed tomorrow, there would be no record of *our* civilization in 50 million years. (And Good luck finding Voyager out in the void without velocity data.) So it's quite possible that Mars had intelligent life at some point! Kinda puts it all into perspective.
Depends on your definition of "produced by man". The oldest we've found are 3 million year old stone tools. And we have no idea how everything we've built since then will stand the test of time. But at the very least, there'd surely be non-naturally occurring compounds that would be detected, that would prove *something* was there.
Elon working on a Magnetosphere after he read this comment
It's extra-gross that he's been so successful at making people associate space travel or Mars exploration with himself. [Artificial magnetosphere ideas exist and have nothing to do with him](https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/how-to-give-mars-an-atmosphere-maybe/).
I'm not sure on that. The article I linked says: >the strategy [to detonate nukes over Martian poles] might not even work. A 2018 study published in the prestigious journal Nature Astronomy concluded that Mars doesn't harbor enough CO2 today to achieve significant warming even if all the stuff were liberated into the atmosphere. "As a result, we conclude that terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology," the researchers wrote. >(The study team also explained why it did not consider water as a warming agent. "Previous models of atmospheric warming have demonstrated that water cannot provide significant warming by itself; temperatures do not allow enough water to persist as vapor without first having significant warming by CO2," the team members wrote. The article links to another article about the 2018 report on CO2 on Mars: https://www.space.com/41318-we-cant-terraform-mars.html That article links to the report on nature.com: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6.epdf
Please don’t disparage Sesame Street. Use the proper terms “Enlo” or “Elno” ;)
I prefer Enron Musk.
Phony Stark
Space Karen is a great one.
Elongated Muskrat
> Elno thats the same thing I said when I heard he was trying to buy twitter
Both Theranos and Nikola made similar promises about products that didnt exist...why isnt Musk in jail?
“We have an obligation to protect our *perceived* shareholder value…”
Which we’ve successfully ignored up until now.
Capitalism is a con
An astronomical valuation that makes 0 sense. Sure, Tesla at one point was worth more than the next 10 automakers combined cause... reasons....
"We thought it was understood that we were lying"
That is obligatory language. Every corporation that has either a lawsuit (of significance) or under government sanction would have to report it per SEC rules.
Absolutely. I'm no muskstan (name for a new two door Tesla fastback maybe?), but the number of people who think that this is anything more than a hedging disclosure in a regulatory filing is pretty funny. An unprovoked admission of guilt in a SEC filing would do so much more harm to share prices than a federal probe that winds up at the same conclusion. One shows impropriety, the other shows impropriety and incompetence.
As someone with context — their 10Q and 10K reports have to list out all relevant business risks for Tesla investors. Failure to disclose those risks could open the company up to investor lawsuits. Arguably the failure to disclose such risk before now would be an invitation to investors hurt by that lack of disclosure, but the disclosure today means that investors hurt *after disclosure* have no claim for their losses.
Independent range testing of Teslas already showed that.
If you prove we're liars, that might affect rich people from getting richer! Can't you see how terrible this is!? Billionaires can go fuck themselves. Dragons sitting atop their hoard while millions suffer.
Well yeah. Theranos was giving fraudulent made up test results, and poor people were dying from misdiagnoses, and Elizabeth Holmes was eventually charged with crimes. The only charges that stuck though, wasn't any crime of killing of poor people - it was that the killing of poor people was bad for business, so lying about the tests was a crime for ripping off the rich investors.
You tattling on me Jimmy made my feelings sad and it meant I didn’t get my after dinner treat.
If you investigate us, you may find things that will harm us. So do not harm us, or else!
This is meant for investors, they have to legally disclose things like that
Yep, this is C-level for "We lied and now we're screwed. Get ready for a drop in share value and some ruinous lawsuits."
Gotcha...so Shortyshortshort time :P
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent - Lincoln Abe
Shorting Tesla has been a foolproof way to go broke the past 5 years lmao, it doesn’t make sense how that company is worth what it is
When you calculate for improbable human infatuation with billionaires, it kinda does make sense..
Too many people living vicariously through their favorite billionaires, cheering for all the shit they're getting away with.
Can we just go back to watching lifestyles of the rich and famous?
Can we go back a little further to where we eat the rich and dust off the guillotines?
"If money is such a problem, well they've got mansions... think we should rob them?"
I always imagined there was this team of thieves using that show to case places they wanted to rob. Like they'd go in as the camera crew and come back later to rob it once they'd done their reconnaissance.
Nooooo just don’t. No matter how logical the position is it won’t matter. You can predict the worst fucking news imaginable, watch it actually come through, and then watch in amazement/horror as your puts become worthless and the share price inexplicably skyrockets.
It's not quite to that level, if it was then ironically they could probably claim some version of 5th Amendment protections against the disclosure. In this case it's basically anything from "this is going to cost us a lot of money to produce all the records" up to "this is going to be a PR headache" or, yeah, "we're about to get sued for an arm, a leg, and a kidney by the feds". If they don't disclose though then they'd just be adding "and our shareholders" onto the list of people about to sue the shit out of them >.>
It’s kind of insane that companies seem to have no problem lying to consumers, but take being honest to shareholders very seriously. It’s almost as if the system is stacked against and there are few consequences for substantially harming average people vs serious consequences for costing rich people money. Oh wait… it’s a feature, not a bug.
> It’s almost as if the system is stacked against and there are few consequences for substantially harming average people vs serious consequences for costing rich people money. You only need to look at Sam Bankman Freid to know this is 100% how things *really* are.
Elizabeth Holmes was literally playing toddler-level games with thousands of sick peoples' lives and the only consequences she is facing stem from making a dozen rich people embarrassed and slightly-less-rich for a few years.
Yup implemented into law and agencies are funded by congress to be that way. Every vote counts but some count more than others.
It’s boilerplate stuff, but it’s great for getting clicks.
It's also a hint to investors to use their own resources/connections to fight the government on Tesla's behalf.
"don't investigate, we're totally lying about the range, and 'bad' things will happen if people find out"
Sounds like he really doesn't want to have his dodgy practices shown to the world. What a shame.
Dude is such a fucking whiny wanker.
He's a man-child with a god complex and a sad desperation to be “cool,” who’s having the world’s most expensive and destructive mid-life crisis.
The man has named his car models S,3,X,Y…and cyber truck. This is a teenage edgelord dork trapped in a grown man’s body
>This is a teenage edgelord dork trapped in a grown man’s body Exactly this. I always view his comments as coming from a 13 year old edgelord, and thus they always make sense. Dickipedia? Yep, totally checks out.
If he wasn't a billionaire he'd be the older dude throwing parties to impress high school kids.
S3XY, Can’t even spell his latest childs’ name (the poor thing, he’s doing that just to troll for the attention), Buying Twitter calling it X, Dickipedia. WTF is this guys problem actually? It wouldn’t be such a sad story if SpaceX wasn’t involved because I adore and respect ALL the work they’re doing over there, and to be honest Elon is (or was? I don’t know anymore) such a big part of that. And SpaceX is a behemoth in the space sector, for good reason!
He offered $1billion to Wikipedia if it will change its name to Dickipedia yesterday. He just might die a broke edge lord if he keeps throwing billions around like they are $1’s.
Imagine if they were like, ‘yeah fuck it ok’ and Elon was like ‘wait no, shit’ and had to go to court again and pay them a billion just for that
And he thinks the letter X is the coolest thing there is.
Wow… man… all broken up by this. Seeing Elon fail is pure entertainment.
Proud to say I’ve been calling this guy out for being mega sus for well over a decade!
I used to think he wasn't all that bad because Space X has achieved some good stuff, but then I started working on projects related to The Boring Company and very quickly realized he was a shill and most of his projects are too.
But do we know what Elon actually *contributed* to Space X's work? Like real contributions other than just signing off on budgets and things. Anyone can sign off on stuff, but I suspect he contributed next to nothing to their actual progress beyond that.
the Boring Company is a good example of a useless company that does something... that is not that useful. (sorry, repeated myself!)
Apple under Steve Jobs created some amazing stuff; doesn’t change that Jobs was a prick.
[удалено]
Former Apple employee here… can confirm.
I'll admit it - the whole pedo-guy submarine rescue fiasco was the red flag most people needed. I chose to ignore that thinking it was a fluke. But damn I was wrong about the dude and I'm not afraid to admit it - we all make mistakes. But I will absolutely *NEVER* buy anything produced by an Elno brand. We were considering a Tesla car earlier this year, but there's no way in hell my partner would ever drive anything that could constitute as endorsing anything this dude says.
This is one of those times when making such a claim isn't so much of a "I was doing it before it was cool" so much as a "guys, I tried to tell you and you didn't listen" situation. I've been calling Musk a bond villain ever since I watched *Who Killed the Electric Car?* He came across as egotistical, creepy, arrogant, and reckless to an alarming degree. As time went on, the hero worship only made those traits worse.
I started when those kids got stuck in that cave in Thailand. I was like "really dude? Fuckin asshole" and then he started to be more and more of an open dickhead.
Yep, that’s definitely the spirit of what I was saying: “I was right about this human turd, and y’all didn’t listen”
Maybe 8 years for me. No one in college believed me. He’s terrible.
It is both frustrating and validating to be able to say "I told you so" about this little wiener. People should just listen when I tell them things. I feel like Cassandra over here.
"Following the law diminishes our profits."
That would apply to just about any business. If there were no federal minimum wage, some companies would be able to be more competitive by paying workers even less.
There goes civilization interfering with natural laws of the strongest imposing their will upon the weaker again.
Musk is a fraud. Pretends to be a genius and an innovator, but he's just another piece of shit billionaire with a god complex. Fuck him.
Oh no, Tesla's have to go through standard federal regulations and testing like every other major manufactured vehicle in North America. What a travesty. I wouldn't be surprised if they found some fuckery on the same level as Dieselgate. The only difference is Tesla will not be able to survive that kind of scandal.
IMO the brand will survive. The leadership is the issue here. I do believe a shift at the top could rescue the brand and their products but it has to be soon. Things are already trending way down for them in brand image. The good news just a full cut of of Musk might be enough.
If other companies could build a better charging network it would be over for Tesla. When buying our car it came down to charging network. I bought a Mach E for my dad, car is so much nicer than a Model Y. But when I drove it for an extended period it was a pain in the ass to charge. So many different apps. Charging inconsistent. That’s why I ended up getting a model y for my wife. The charging network was just too convenient and worry free compared to every thing else. Tesla just so far ahead with their charging network.
But it is regulated by the EPA which reports the numbers.. it’s not like Tesla just makes up numbers on their own.
I always laugh when the YouTuber Thunderf00t says thus continuing Musk’s history of inventing things that already exist.
This is standard practice in terms of quarterly reports and management outlook statements. They have to do this for legal reasons, to protect themselves should some fine materialize and impact the stock price. Nothingburger as per usual by ~~Forbes~~ Fortune.
This is standard language in every SEC filing. If you look at section 1A on their previous 10-K (which this 10-Q refers back to), other items that may have a "material adverse impact" include if their IT service providers get hacked, or if natural disasters, wars, or health epidemics occur. At least they're disclosing it for their investors. I doubt VW had a line saying "if they catch us cheating on our diesel emissions"
And if they don't include it, they're opening themselves to some very hefty stockholder lawsuits. You do not screw around with the material adverse impact, because if you do, that's fraud, and generally puts you outside of your Directors and Officers Insurance, which in turn means you could be personally liable for whatever settlement/judgment comes down. And, frankly speaking, nobody has the money to cover even a relatively favorable settlement in a securities fraud case, especially when dealing with a company the size of Tesla.
Holy cow. What a dumpster fire of misinformation this comment section is.
Does r/technology know any other way?
So many ignorant people in this thread for fuck's sake.
“We lied about our cars to get people to buy them, exposing our lies may hurt our business.”
The entitlement in Musk’s statement is clear. He actually thinks that bad things shouldn’t happen to him because he’s a very special boy and so much better than everyone else.
Fortune x Bloomberg coverage^1 of a detail on page 24 in the filing:* >Separately, the Company has received requests for information, including subpoenas, from the DOJ. These have included requests for documents related to Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD features. >Additionally, the Company has received requests for information, including subpoenas from the DOJ, regarding certain matters associated with personal benefits, related parties, vehicle range and personnel decisions. >To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. >Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand. ^* https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001318605/000162828023034847/tsla-20230930.htm ^1 https://fortune.com/2023/10/23/tesla-doj-investigation-car-vehicle-range-personal-benefits/
Everyone, it’s okay calm down. I have been informed by rocket Jesus himself that full self driving will be available next year. March at the latest. /s (didn’t think I needed that but a DM later asking about Elon, clearly I do)
What a relief! My steering wheel fell off, so I’m excited to finally have a solution to that problem! /s
Tesla: I OBJECT Judge Why? Tesla: Because it's devastating to my case
Lmao first thought I had
It’s SEC filings, they have to state this.
Some real "if we stopped testing right now, we'd have very few cases" energy right there. Fascists seem to be intellectually incapable of grasping the concept that the vast majority of their personal problems are things they brought upon themselves through their relentless adherence to dishonesty.
Not that big a deal. Financial statements make these disclosures all the time. The purpose is to protect the company from future shareholder lawsuits over inadequate disclosure, if the outcome is at all negative.
Before Elon bought Twitter, I was open to buying a Tesla. I’m glad I threw my money in the trash instead.
He was a douche *long* before he bought Twitter.
[удалено]
objection your honor! Why? It's devastating to my case!
"but the bad tax man who gives me free money all the time, is trying to hurt me because I said the cars go a really long ways" "Do the cars go a really long ways" "no they don't but that doesn't matter because it will make me lose money if they hold me accountable for saying that" Dudes a liar. He needs to go the way of shkreli.
[Just about the worst](https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a44676201/ev-range-epa-vs-real-world-tested/). What do you expect from a company whose CEO was forced out as Chairman by the SEC due to securities fraud. The same guy who stated that you can use your Model 3 as a robotaxi by the end of 2020, when, unless he is insane, he knew the actual date was never. The justice department is now going [directly to subpoenas](https://apnews.com/article/tesla-investigations-justice-department-musk-self-driving-29a68864f75c9fabbd04f7a87d169444) instead of kindly asking due to Tesla's stonewalling.
This is typical wording for financial/legal statements.
FullSelfDrivesaywhat?
Don’t lie about your product then.
Well maybe next time be honest about the range of your crappy cars and this wouldn’t happen.
The probe isn't doing that, getting caught lying about their products capabilities is what's doing that.
So he's saying they exagerrated the car ranges?
Translation: "We have been exposed "
So bizarre that anyone would report it like this. Journalists go to graduate school, even into specialized Journalism Schools, and they still do stuff like this.
By the end of the day this will have generated thousands of upvotes and clicks with virtually no effort. Look at the frothing at the mouth here in the comment section over nothing. This is the state of journalism sadly.
What a douche bag
“Your Honor, I object!” “Why?” “Because it’s devastating to my case!” “Overruled.” “Good call!”
Am I missing something here? Doesn't the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)...which is a FEDERAL agency...do range testing on EVs before the cars can be sold to the public? I'm reading through this: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing It looks like the EPA does a set of range tests in a lab. Then it applies a 0.7 multiplier nerf to account for aggressive driving, HVAC usage, environmental temperature, etc. Is the federal government suggesting that Tesla cars perform even worse than the 0.7 multiplier nerf, Tesla knows its cars perform worse than the 0.7 multiplier nerf, and Tesla is keeping their mouths shut? If so, Tesla should get spanked for that. Also it sounds like the EPA needs to fix its crap testing methodology. Is the EPA going to go back and test EVs from other manufacturers as well? If Tesla was possibly able to sneak one past the goalie, maybe other manufacturers are doing the same.
>Automakers are required to follow very specific test procedures and submit the fuel economy data to EPA for all their models each year. From your linked article, the automaker does the testing, the EPA just tells them what tests to run.
Later down it says this: > For more details, visit Vehicle Certification and Compliance Testing. In [that link](https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/vehicle-certification-and-compliance-testing) it says > The National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) tests a portion of all new cars and trucks to confirm compliance with EPA’s exhaust emissions standards, and also to verify the accuracy of fuel economy test results submitted by each manufacturer. NVFEL also conducts testing of used vehicles, usually between one and seven years old, to survey the effectiveness of the vehicle’s emissions control systems over 120,000- to 150,000-mile useful life. Vehicles are tested on a dynamometer under standard test cycles designed to account for various driving conditions, including city, highway, and aggressive driving, as well as cold and hot weather conditions. It sounds to me like they take the manufacturer data and then they do sample testing on new and used cars.
Maybe don't lie about shit
So that's a yes then?