241–250 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what does that even mean ?
The people buying Tesla stock buy it because it just goes up, regardless of the health or future of the underlying company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
American cars, especially trucks, have a great reputation. What are you talking about?
You've never heard the joke that FORD stands for "Fix It Again, Tony" (and, unrelatedly, FIAT stands for "Found On Roadside, Dead")?
https://archive.org/details/king-of-the-hill13seasons/King+o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what does that even mean ?
The people buying Tesla stock buy it because it just goes up, regardless of the health or future of the underlying company.
Also - one defect means absolutely nothing. They make solid cars, everyone that owns one knows that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One cracked casting will not move the stock. One million, maybe. $TSLA is a big company.
Musk surely seems more interested in pumping up the stock than actually addressing quality issues.
Keeping it high is another.
Electrification of human transport is another.
I suspect he wants it all, and having a higher market cap right now is a way to get the other two - TSLA raised a massive amount of capital off of their high valuation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but you get what parent post is saying. This particular example might have a technical answer but the overall point is that emails tend to lack context and are composed for brevity / convenience. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." - Cardinal Richelieu
it sounded like the overall point was that, by avoiding retained communications, they could get away with something they otherwise would not be able to get away with, and should not be able to get away with (patenting something obvious) what sort of context could be added which exonerates that behavior? if the context exonerates it, why not have a policy of including context? if it's somehow benign, but cited out of…
> why not just provide the context?
Because lawyers might find ways to dismiss/challenge it?
There's a learning curve parable about the fastest way to learn how to make quality clay pots. Team A focuses on making 1 perfect pot. Specifications, research, process, testing, verification, etc. They get pretty close with their initial pots, but they struggle to scale up. Team B just starts making pots. As fast they can. Make incremental tiny improvements. Most pots are total losses. But they do manage to start ma…
The second approach is better but… you need a system of continuous improvement in place and production stability to capture and hold the improvements. Tesla just doesn’t have to culture of capturing or embracing quality
Which could maybe be fine, if Tesla had also adopted the Bezos Amazon obsession with customer satisfaction. Bezos knew that given Amazon's growth there would be a lot of errors (defects). So they built out superior customer service infra, gave CSRs wide autonomy/authority to fix stuff, try to make every customer whole.
And Amazon's customers loved them for it, have high tolerance for mistakes, which would harm most other CPG brands.
Instead, Tesla adopted the Page Google antipathy towards customers. So dumb.
At some point, Musk will have spent all of his goodwill. Then Tesla's brand will suffer accordingly. And that kind of soft equity is wicked hard to rebuild.
These lawsuits are going to hurt Tesla's brand. Celebrity is a two-edged sword. The media that fawned over him for so long will now gleefully tear him to shreds.
{1} IIRC, Tesla's defect rate is %10 vs %3 for other "luxury" auto brands, however that's measured.
{2} Noting that defect rate varies across subsystems. IIRC, Tesla motors and batteries remain best in class; Whereas body, paint, interior, and trim suffer.