321–330 of 533 posts
Most Silicon Valley “CRUD” startups have fraud baked in. It’s just whose holding the bag in the end that matters. Sometimes it’s the VC funds early in the stage, sometimes it’s the late stage investors ala WeWork SoftBank and usually it’s the retail bag holders post IPO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Con-artists will mimic the people that actually know their shit. Ah yes. A certain billionaire promises robo-taxis and full Level 5 autonomy by 2020, and then in 2021, admits self-driving is hard as FSD is still Level 2, after duping their own customers on buying ahead of their 'promises'. This billionaire in 2019, surely knew what he was talking about. /s > In order to tell the difference you need to actually look…
FSD was advertised as paying for something that would come in the future - I bought it under that assumption (and so did everyone I know that has it). That was and remains true. They've continued to make progress towards it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc Autopilot is different and isn't advertised as level 5 - 'autopilot' implies fancy lane keeping not turn by turn point to point autonomy. Elon's FSD ti…
So the software that is called 'FSD' (Full Self Driving) doesn't actually mean what is says or was advertised then? You're telling me that it doesn't mean 'Full Self Driving' or what was meant to be 'full Level 5 autonomy' which that was advertised for completion in 2019 and 2020? [0]
We are in 2021. Where are the robotaxis then? [0]
> If you can't tell the difference between...
Irrelevant. Stay on point. I have only criticized Tesla's deceptive advertising of FSD where that poses a great safety risk of life to both the driver of the car and other drivers on the road. No where did I mention anything generally about Tesla, SpaceX or anything else since the last sentence you said was completely irrelevant.
FSD does not work as advertised neither it is reliable to be used on the road and it puts the safety of the Tesla driver and others drivers at risk, even especially as it is beta software. I would not use such software in a car that confuses the moon as a yellow traffic light. [1]
> Your pejorative use of billionaire also suggests some political element.
?
I don't always listen to everything that they say whether if it is Milton or Musk.
[0] https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-autonomous-driving-lev...
[1] https://twitter.com/JordanTeslaTech/status/14184133078625853...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I browse through a lot of niche investing social media groups. One of the more liked posts on a Nikola investment group was, "If "they" cared about the future, the earth and the renewable energy issue, they would let whatever Trevor did slide." Surprisingly, I saw similar posts about Musk on the Thailand rescuer tweet and the price too high tweet. You are not betting against the fundamentals or the realities of the s…
I’ve learned to cast a more cynical eye towards companies claiming to be accomplishing grand, ethical aims. Sometimes they’re right, of course, but it’s also a phenomenal way to sweep abuse and fraud under a rug.
"The fraud triangle is a framework commonly used in auditing to explain the reason behind an individual’s decision to commit fraud. The fraud triangle outlines three components that contribute to increasing the risk of fraud: (1) opportunity, (2) incentive, and (3) rationalization."
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ac...
Companies that are "saving the world" are rife with people willing to rationalize their behavior. That's why it is imperative they are scrutinized properly so that the other elements don't also become rampant. We've failed completely with that on the latest wave of greentech companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This person is a troll. The Tesla semi is not “barely functional”. They have been spotted driving all over the place and doing real world testing on actual highways and in cold weather. Production was already to be started except for a shortage of battery cells (due to the extreme popularity of their existing cars and powerwalls/megapacks) which they are working to remedy.
The Tesla truck is vaporware https://youtu.be/56862W24HK8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the name screams transparent fraud, a ridiculously obvious attempt to associate with Tesla. Weren't there VCs who put money into this? What were they thinking? Were they being amoral and hoping to ride this pump and dump or did they actually buy into this shit?
My first thought when hearing of the company was the J. T. Marlin "brokerage" from the movie Boiler Room . And for those viewers that didn't get the joke, the movie helpfully provides a scene where other brokers in a bar make fun of the uncanny resemblance to "J. P. Morgan". Bonus point for the ethical similarities between J. T. Marlin and Nikola.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure creating a multibillion dollar vaporware fraud shell company and being a dick on Twitter are comparable sins.
I'm not sure you are following the Elon-Solar City case if you think Elon's only sin is being a dick on Twitter. Or the original $420 funding a share saga. Elon Musk's repeated fake-it-till-you-make-it behavior and the unwillingness of regulators to crack down on it spawns Trevor Miltons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I browse through a lot of niche investing social media groups. One of the more liked posts on a Nikola investment group was, "If "they" cared about the future, the earth and the renewable energy issue, they would let whatever Trevor did slide." Surprisingly, I saw similar posts about Musk on the Thailand rescuer tweet and the price too high tweet. You are not betting against the fundamentals or the realities of the s…
Something can be true in one case and not true in another. Nikola looked like fraud from the start (no Silicon Valley funds invested iirc - money came from Detroit). Elon Musk is obviously different.
How is this any different from what Elon Musk told his investors for the past decade?
I don’t think the lies are of the same type. Lying (or charitably, being unreasonably optimistic) about future timelines seems less egregious than faking a demo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Financial markets are not coupled to real economics anymore. They’re coupled to speculative gamesmanship. Whoever can generate statistics to captivate the masses who do not understand them, via press releases, and media blitzes. That sounds cynical, but I “hob nob” with people invited to Davos, and run depts at Ivy League schools. Behind closed doors these are the conversations I’ve been privy too. How to captivate t…
I'm usually a very negative person but another side of the coin here is that if you were good at this "speculative generation of statics to captivate" the best way to raise money was "gaming" big capital. With the risk profile of retail investors changing and more risky ways to trade on public markets becoming accepted comes a positive aspect of the naturalization of highly speculative single picks on the stock marke…
Is it easier to raise money for risky endeavors or for "hot" endeavors. I'm not sure this no structure to how a lot of people are now allocating capital is actually contributing anything positive, just pure malinvestment.
AMC is a perfect example. It's a company that raised hundreds of millions at valuations 10x of what it had months ago. Is AMC a "risky investment" we should be allocating capital too? Box office receipts and still down 50% and may never fully recover. Why is AMC a good use of that capital rather than institutions that can replace it completely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FSD was advertised as paying for something that would come in the future - I bought it under that assumption (and so did everyone I know that has it). That was and remains true. They've continued to make progress towards it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bOwQdCJrc Autopilot is different and isn't advertised as level 5 - 'autopilot' implies fancy lane keeping not turn by turn point to point autonomy. Elon's FSD ti…
> FSD was advertised as paying for something that would come in the future So the software that is called 'FSD' (Full Self Driving) doesn't actually mean what is says or was advertised then? You're telling me that it doesn't mean 'Full Self Driving' or what was meant to be 'full Level 5 autonomy' which that was advertised for completion in 2019 and 2020? [0] We are in 2021. Where are the robotaxis then? [0] > If you…
There is no FSD today the capability you're paying for is a future update, it used to be entirely that - now they include some extra features under FSD that aren't in base autopilot (lane changes, etc.).
They've always been pretty explicit about this - the language on the site today reads:
> The currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous. The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience, as well as regulatory approval, which may take longer in some jurisdictions. As these self-driving features evolve, your car will be continuously upgraded through over-the-air software updates.
They've also shipped more features toward this goal over time which is what they said they'd do (including a free hardware update if you had paid ahead for FSD).
> We are in 2021. Where are the robotaxis then? [0]
I already conceded he was wrong about timelines.
> Irrelevant. Stay on point.
Not irrelevant - this is the comparison we're talking about the nature of the difference between Trevor Milton and Elon Musk. If you ignore contradictory evidence because it doesn't support your position that's just cherry picking.
> So I am not allowed to say they are billionaires?
>> Ah yes. A certain billionaire promises...
>> This billionaire in 2019, surely...
Do the above quotes sound like some neutral descriptor to you?