Ex-SolarCity employees: We were fired after reporting millions in fake sales

Post by shafyy » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 6:36 AM UTC

mistercow wrote: post #36

shafyy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. So it could be either $40M or $400M - that's a huge range. Let's assume something in the middle, like $200m. Does it seem credible to you guys that nobody except the three plaintiffs noticed that SolarCity faked half of their 2016 revenue?

Well first off, I don’t see a time range here. This could easily be stretched over multiple years. Secondly, if someone says “tens or hundreds of millions”, I assume that they’re giving a rough estimate based on incomplete information. If I’m evaluating the credibility of such an estimate, then I’ll consider the most conservative end of the range, which in this case is $20M. If we suppose that that was spread over th…

Post by mikeash » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 11:43 AM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #177

mikeash wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t the updated title suggest that?

Nothing on the front page suggests that anything has been updated. Title is still “Ex-SolarCity employees: We were fired after reporting millions in fake sales.”

Post by linuxftw » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 1:35 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #168

linuxftw wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shouldn't that industry have to pay? The US government says they shouldn't have to pay. I doubt there is enough data to state empirically that storm 'intensity' has increased substantially over the last 50 years relative to the last 1000. We don't have a system in place to account for every environmental impact made by people. Is everyone that has ever dug a hole in the ground responsible in some small way for soil…

So which is it? Do we have to carefully consider "subsidy" of some activities, or are we throwing up our hands and saying "we don't have a system in place to account for environmental impacts"? I would say economic impacts (instead of environmental) made by political decisions? > The cost of homes is not necessarily rising but being more fairly distributed to those who choose to live in high-insurance areas. I would…

Post by dv_dt » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #186

dv_dt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which is it? Do we have to carefully consider "subsidy" of some activities, or are we throwing up our hands and saying "we don't have a system in place to account for environmental impacts"? I would say economic impacts (instead of environmental) made by political decisions? > The cost of homes is not necessarily rising but being more fairly distributed to those who choose to live in high-insurance areas. I would…

The future always holds some level of uncertainty. At this point, most people believe climate change is a certainty, so they have to operate based on those assumptions. I don't think anyone had this information 50 years ago, so who are we going to hold accountable?

Post by ameister14 » Wed, Aug 01, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

topmonk wrote: post #187

ameister14 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, you found them. Two of those were written by PR consultants, all of them are opinion pieces, and one was written by a republican speechwriter. How about something written by a person on staff as a writer representing a journalistic organization? You know, like these: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-z... https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/trump-tweet-putin/in... https://ww…

No true Scotsman, eh? I didn't know the author mattered, but now it does. What's next? Written at the wrong time? Then at the wrong place? Not long enough? Too obscure? Sigh... I'm done with your treasure hunt. Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel rather dirty and I need to go take a shower.