Patently obvious? I think there are multiple plausible explanations. Building things people want gives credibility.
I find it more bizarre people have such passionate anger towards others.
I find it more bizarre people have such passionate anger towards others.
nope, it generates hype. That's all there is.
Up until very very recently they were losing money on every car they made and only a pandemic killing enough factory workers worldwide to create shortages have they managed to break even. What Tesla made money on is regulatory credits.
A year ago
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36266673/teslas-q1-2021-e...
> The company had an income of $438 million, including a $101 million "positive impact" from the sale of Bitcoin, and $518 million from selling zero-emission regulatory credits to other automakers. That means Tesla continues to lose money making and selling vehicles.
The Boring Tunnel Company barely have built anything and what they did build is a deathtrap.
Hyperloop is completely impossible.
SpaceX's Starlink satellites are involved in about 1,600 close encounters between two spacecraft every week, ~50 % of all such.
Also, Elon Musk already committed a federal felony as a twitter user and it is beyond bizarre he is a) not in jail b) allowed to bid on it.
For others in the crowd, this phrase is extremely useful for spotting a short seller (or someone who was primarily influenced by the short-n-distort crowd from 2016-2019).
This statement is a lie, and was never true. Every car Tesla made was produced and sold at a profit. Their high margins fed crazy growth. You can only get to these bullshit statements by counting their reinvestment into factories as "loss".
For example:
-Make car for $40k
-Sell for $50k
-$10k/per car profit
-Make $xM in profit from cars for that quarter
-Raise $1B to grow based on the above
-Spend some of that $1B on factories, such that the total spent of that $1B is more than $xM
-Short n Distort campaigners argue that because you spent more than you made, you are "losing money on every car".
Surely he is innocent until found guilty. Just because you think he committed a crime doesn't mean he actually did.
At the time Tesla was in a "precarious" financial position with the Model 3 ramp up. The banks told Elon they would suspend his lines of credit/hold loans if he did not immediately settle with the SEC.
He chose to settle with the SEC and admit to lying when he did not in order to save Tesla from going bankrupt. All of this aligns with publicly known information.
If we lived in a functional open society this claim would result in a special counsel investigation into the SEC and the responsible banks, with multiple bureaucrats ending up behind bars.
> a special counsel investigation into the SEC and the responsible banks, with multiple bureaucrats ending up behind bars.
lol
Speculation. What's not speculation however is that the company suffered material harm as a byproduct of malicious prosecution.
If I, as a government employee, open a public investigation into someone whom I know to be innocent and cause that entity harm I have incurred liability. The SEC knew Elon had the funding, they used weasel words to imply he did not. The SEC would have lost in court. _All_ contracts have contingencies, this was no different. Saying that because a contingency existed the funds were "not secure" is horsecrap.
Do you have proof - or even evidence - that Musk had funding, let alone that the SEC knew he had funding, other than Musk's own statements?
Reuters today disgraced themselves, it’s beyond embarrassing.
Of course, I'm also baffled that people credit him as being a 'builder' rather than an extremely successful marketer and financial engineer, especially at the expense of all the people who, you know, actually do the building...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
There is no way browserman's point was legitimately something not contradicted by the quotes I linked.
> “He’s not afraid to get his hands dirty,” Mueller said. “He’s out there with his nice Italian shoes and clothes and has epoxy all over him. They were there all night and tested it again and it broke anyway.”
I don't think he is a good marketer - he is more middle of the road. I think people say that to discredit him. Have you watched any of his full length presentations. He is terrible. What he is good at is having a vision he believes in. He sells that well.
I'm on the other hand baffled that so many here are willing to spout off opinions like this without even so much as having listened to the man talk. He is _clearly_ an engineer's engineer.
This topic really highlights the people who form their entire mental model of reality around news headlines.