eduah

This is false. No member of the NRA has executed a mass shooting.

This is not repurposed Tesla hardware, they are using actual Tesla backup battery product.

That is the point. He only violated it if you take the obviously wrong interpretation that the 500k was a new material statement. It was not. The agreement only covered new, material information, not repeating a previously given the high-end estimate.

Also, note that the market was closed at the time of the tweet and the second tweet clearing up any possible confusion, thus, having no impact on the stock.

Actual government legal agency going after someone on a stupid immaterial technicality about requiring approval for disclosing material information that might affect stock: The tweet didn't have material information. The 500k number was public and discussed on a public investor call.

vs.

Crazy guy that bankrupted himself trying to build a rocket company and a car company simultaneously is less than overly cautious about his tweeting and how it could be used in bad faith by a government legal agency in the USA to persecute him.

Guidance for this year was 350k - 500k. Elon said several times on the call that he thought they could beat the 500k. This is a technicality on not getting approval for a tweet that could unreasonably be interpreted as saying they are definitely hitting 500k 8 months from now. This is stupid.

https://twitter.com/_jameshatfield_/status/11001772987230945...

Not misinformation, guidance was 350 - 500. This is a technicality of not getting approval for a tweet that could be interpreted as saying they are definitely hitting 500k 8 months from now. This is stupid.

https://twitter.com/_jameshatfield_/status/11001772987230945...

> Publishing in a magazine that’s not peer reviewed doesn’t matter if they’re reporting on their research

This framing should tell you the bad faith in which the statement is being made. The authors didn't call it a research, critics rightly pointed out that it wasn't an academic research when they first revealed the hoax, and that nobody should take it seriously. Now that it is convenient to attack them by saying otherwise, now all of the sudden it is an academic research

The hell are you talking about, none of the cliamed in any way that this was an academic research affiliated with any university, only one of them is affiliated with one. In their quillete article they even talk about how this is not an academic study, but rather a hoax like the Sokal hoax before it

I find it interesting you can read this negative article about him and choose to believe the bad things, but dismiss the parts you think some might consider a positive

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

> Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/11/tesla-seeks-167-million-in-d...

FYI, his whistle blower case has fallen apart and he is now having to represent himself on that since his lawyers have abandoned him on that

That's literally the accusation, that he doctored information he then gave to jurnalist to harm the company

Saying you do not plan to do something, does not mean that you won't change your mind if circumstances change in the future

His own lawyers have abandoned him on these claims and he is now having to represent himself in the whistle blower case

His lawyers have abandoned him and he is now defending himself on the supposed whistleblower case.

Ahead of the job numbers he promised https://www.wgrz.com/mobile/article/news/tesla-shares-new-jo... . I will say that project is going very well.

Again, That Tesla under reported injuries, which a 4 month OSHA investigation proved wasn't true. Is that enough of a lie to mistrust Reveal? You must surely know this.

That Tesla under reported injuries, which a 4 month OSHA investigation proved wasn't true. Is that enough of a lie to mistrust Reveal?

Are you really willing to believe that if the medical doctor thought and ambulance was required for the supposed injury, they will choose to have someone die on their watch, with full legal liability for the death. What do you think the doctor has to gain by arranging other no ambulance medical transport here.

Or, believe the org just proven liars after publishing similar accusations by disgruntled ex employees by an OSHA investigation.

Just posting this here. Choose who to believe. The medical professional who will lose his lincence and be in legal trouble if he lying, or the "news“ org with a bone to pick with Tesla who have are been proven liars by OSHA, whose investigation proved thier story about under reporting of injuries false. "I spent nearly one hour with Reveal detailing Tesla’s decision earlier this year to bring me and my medical team on site at Fremont, providing its employees with state-of-the-art occupational and musculoskeletal health care. I detailed our vision for exemplary patient care and I gave specific examples of protocol improvements and subsequent successes in outcomes in only four short months, including accurate diagnoses and reducing needless delays for advanced testing and treatment. I patiently educated Will Evans on how Tesla allowed me to give the same care to Tesla employees that I do to my private patients including ones who are professional athletes, with the ability to get necessary testing and treatment in a timely manner without being hindered by an often cumbersome California Worker’s Compensation System that sometimes negatively effects injured workers.

I counseled Will on the difference between subjective complaints of pain, which cannot be proven and are often magnified, and objective signs found only on careful clinical examination by an experienced physician. I even mailed Will a copy of a relevant chapter from the American Medical Association Return to Work Guidelines and offered to make myself available for additional questions. Research and evidence-based medicine indicate that deconditioning injuries involving sore muscles should not be treated with inactivity as this only exacerbates the problem, but should instead be treated by proactive conditioning, ergonomic modifications and supportive care. Not all patients in pain should be off work, at home and on opioids. In fact, it is most often in these patients’ best interest to have supportive care that enhances their activity, their function, and their well-being.

As a physician, my foremost obligation is to perform a careful history and physical examination, order additional tests when clinically indicated, make an accurate diagnosis, and deliver the absolute best care possible. If patients are injured and continued work presents safety issues for the patient, myself and my fellow physicians prescribe the appropriate work restrictions. Any suggestion that myself or any of my medical team at AOC allow external factors to influence our medical care in any way is false and inaccurate.

I advised Will on why ambulances should be reserved for life or limb threatening injuries and that every ambulance that is thoughtlessly called for a non-life-threatening injury is one less ambulance that is available to actually save a life rather than be used as a convenience. Most importantly, all members of my team are empowered to call 911 for any limb or life-threatening condition.

Rather than deliver an informative and balanced piece of journalism, Reveal has instead chosen to hitch its wagon to Ms. Anna Watson, a provider with whom we severed ties after less than two weeks at our clinic and about whom I cannot provide any additional comment as she is currently the subject of an investigation by the California Medical Board. Instead of highlighting the tremendous progress being made in both patient safety and patient care at Tesla, this report uses poor sourcing to tell a story consistent with a predetermined agenda.”

26 PM_ME_UR_Definitions • 1h Maybe you don't believe this guy? Maybe you think he's a genius? It doesn't really matter, leaving out this kind of information from someone you interviewed is the definition of bias. The reporter was filtering out information not because it's inaccurate, but because it didn't fit with the narrative they wanted to tell."

Yeah, no.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/one-year-in-tesla-update

You don't pass a 4 month long safety inspection by California OSHA by making injured workers continue working.

"News organization" writes article about a company in California under reporting and hiding injuries, leading to a 4 month OSHA investigation that completely clears company of the accusation. Do they retract the accusation, write an article on why they made the previous accusations given we now know they were wrong?

No, they write a new article making new accusations about the company.

Which one are landing orbital class rockets again?

FYI, Blue Origin has been at it longer that spaceX has existed. But SpaceX, spending at least 5X less money is landing orbital class rockets and whilst Blue Origin is doing suborbital flights.

Yes, precisely what I am saying. That he has no reason, we can reasonably deduce from his statements, to think due diligence, etc might be the reason why the deal doesn't go through.

So again, just for clarity, he didn't say the only to be done is the vote, he said the only reason why he currently expects the deal might not happen is if rejected by share holders.

The only accusation here, then can be that he wrongly assumed the should be able to parse him saying "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured." to not mean Tesla the company has already finish due diligence and agreed to sell and that Tesla the company has secured funds from the buyers already.

The only reasonable interpretation of the above tweet, is to qualify the second sentence with the first, i.e he personally is only considering a buy offer and that he is secure in the funding ability of the buyer.

Choosing your interpretation, what he said in the second sentence, clearly contradicts the first sentence in the same tweet. So why are you choosing the clearly inaccurate, as due diligence is now taking place, narrowly legal interpretation of two words, over all the other context that suggests your narrow legal reading of those 2 words are not what could possibly have been meant by him.

If I offer you money for a thing, you have a board you know agrees with a deal to sell, you do no anticipate any due diligence hiccups, isn't the only uncertainty about the sale the vote of you other co-owners of the thing I am trying to buy? Note he didn't say the only step, he said the only uncertain thing that could stop the deal are the share holders.