>You completely excluded (sg&a) operational and (r&d) research costs.
The grandparent ignored these, but didn't exclude them. Neither line item is included in gross profit.
>I don't see why gross margin is enough to judge profitability.
While you're right that it's insufficient to judge overall net profitability, it does make sense as a refutation of OP's claim:
>Around 40% of their cash in hand is from refundable deposits, many from people who thought they would get a $35k car
>Tesla cannot make $35k Model 3s at a profit(this is generally accepted, and even Tesla hinted at it), they'll probably lose money even making $42k cars.
They're not-so-subtly implying that Tesla's gross margin on vehicles under $42+k is negative so Tesla would lose money making each unit, and thus those reservation holders hoping for a $35k car will never receive it, depleting Tesla's cash position when they cancel their reservations. It's an erroneous conflation of net and gross margin - Tesla's marginal cost per unit is (presumably) significantly lower than when you factor in fixed costs. That's why we see them making expensive cars first, not because they're precluded from making cheaper cars once they have the spare production capacity by losses on each unit.
In other words, OP is claiming that Tesla's Model 3 strategy is "we lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume," when in fact it's a conventional scenario of increasing volume covering the fixed costs at scale with margin baked into each unit.