Tesla Pulling Out of Supercharger Leases After Firing Entire Supercharger Team
futurism.com
futurism.com
---
The Supercharger program got heavily deprioritized.
> Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100% uptime and expansion of existing locations
> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1785406795814510785
Electric car charging stations exist only through subsidization.
Tesla got only 17% of the federal NVEI grants (which they were disappointed by, given that they sell more electric cars than every other automaker combined).
So rather than burn their own cash to build charging networks, Tesla will let the other interested actors do it, as Tesla focuses on building cars.
---
Musk had already announced that Tesla would be laying off 10% (so ~14,000 people), in a corresponding adjustment to year-over-year sales.
Musk said that he would not keep any executive "who retains more than three people who don’t obviously pass the excellent, necessary and trustworthy test." He and Rebecca Tinucci (supercharger lead) disagreed over what changes to make. Musk decided to clean slate rebuild the Supercharger program. (No, not every single person will be gone.)
They really don't care how incredulous their audience is, so long as there's someone more foolish than them. And if musk really failed, they could fixate on someone else. Thus they can't be influenced by the ethic of credibility. They're still going to put forth their 42-Dimensional Chess theories.
But all this ends up being entertaining, and less likely to trick the gullible. Therefore I propose it's better to encourage them to give the most outlandish take possible, rather than a more credible one, for the reason that the absurdist takes are funnier and less likely to convert non-supporters.
One does not have to be "Musk supporter" or even agree with this action in general to offer reasons for it.
Intellectually honest people can ask and answer these questions.
I don't think that it's intellectually honest to look for good reasons for musk's gaffes. That's what I'm criticizing - the boot licking rationalizations.
Looking for reasons, fine. There are reasons for every bad decision. But they might not be justifiable. When a decision of his is widely panned and hurts a bunch of folks, then giving him the benefit of the doubt and justifying/rationalizing for him is the same as being a credulous tool, and probably serves as part of the general infrastructure of enablement that helps Elon - and other powerful people - do social harm. We have to take a stand sometimes, and likewise those who justify harms should be considered less than honest.
I don't mind if I lose some social capital for saying so, since I don't value the credibility of anyone who would ding me over this or consider the statement at all controversial. I'm arguing against rationalizers and justifiers, not honest analyzers.
It's widely panned by people who know very little other than "ELECTRIC CAR GO VROOM, NEED CHARGE." Charging stations are neither a major limitations on Tesla's sales, not economically viable. They only happen with federal subsidies and Tesla recently got (from their perspective) very little.
> hurts a bunch of folks
Musk announced based on the company metrics, he was laying off 10% (14,000).
Supercharger team is 500, sounds like they will be making up a chunk of that.
https://electrek.co/2024/04/30/tesla-pulling-back-supercharg...
Pulling out of expanding the supercharger network is genuinely surprising to me. I’ve seen the supercharger network to be the equivalent of oil for Tesla, except they would have massive first mover advantages in being the oil suppliers.
Charging station networks are not some highly strategic play.
Charging stations rely on subsidies. Of which Tesla recently got a disproportionately low share.
Oil companies might, but gas stations do not.
Gas stations don't rely on federal subsidies to exist.
https://electrek.co/2024/04/30/tesla-pulling-back-supercharg...
My favourite was their “Elon Musk thinks Cannibals are Invading the United States” story which made it to the https://elonbad.com front page.
NBC Tweets (https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1768075901802066036)
> Elon Musk and conservative influencers have spread unverified claims to millions, smearing Haitian migrants as cannibals as they endure deep uncertainty about the future of their country and family members still there.
Elon Responds (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768172021580480967?s=20)
> What do you call this? https://x.com/RoeMasterNYC/s/RoeMasterNYC/status/17676699431...
Linking to a video that was removed by X itself that includes claims that Haitians practice cannibalism.
So half the claim is proven by Musk’s own words that he believes Haitians practice cannibalism.
The second, less important, half of the claim is whether he believes Haitians are “invading” the U.S.
I cannot find any evidence of him having used the term “invading” in this context but he himself in addition to the false claims of cannibalism is claiming that there is at the very least a likelihood that there are cannibals amongst the immigrants. (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768057534651269328)
> If wanting to screen immigrants for potential homicidal tendencies and cannibalism makes me “right wing”, then I would gladly accept such a label!
—————
So other than the use of the hyperbolic term “invading” (which Elon Musk has used for immigrants in general in the past so it’s not completely inapplicable), everything else about that article seems accurate based on Elon’s public tweets themselves.