691–700 of 1000 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Elon is margin called by year end is roughly 40% according to option prices The margin loans will almost certainly be replaced with outside equity prior to closing.
I am wondering what is in it for those people lining up - they are paying 20% over the market value to be locked in with musk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People constantly attempt to pretend Tesla didn't spark the EV revolution, because they can't stand to give Musk and or a US company credit. It's the same reason they aggressively pretend Apple didn't spark the smartphone revolution (when it all very obviously derived from the iPhone and its dramatic impact, right down to the design of the phone and interface being copied by everyone else). It's the same reason if yo…
So what? It's still a business and it is tiny compared to the big players. Tesla is only a slightly better value than crypto given how insanely overvalued the stock is. If the company had an $80B market cap, it would still be vastly overvalued.
It’s currently undervalued at 10x that price.
Re being small: its operating income was greater than Toyota in Q1, and it has two new factories that are yet to ramp production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I don't like a world where the only way to assess someone is by how much money they make for investors. That's a bleak reality, so I prefer to act as though a person's behavior matters in the hopes I might create it by force of will. You can recognize the negative with the positive. Anything else is revisionism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term originally referred to an adult gradually influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching children progressive values, which I think is hateful. It's also generally used in extremely low signal comments. For example, a person might talk on Twitter about how they think teachers putting up posters saying they support gay students is helpful. They'd then…
>The term originally referred to an adult gradually influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching children progressive values, which I think is hateful. The problem is, you seem to be intentionally misconstruing the definition of the word "hateful" in order to categorize words you don't like as "hate speech". There is no other way that the thing you described…
That's hateful. (I deliberely didn't say hate speech)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are competitive cars vs tesla for electric It is my belief that those "competitive cars" wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for Tesla.
But why? Did tesla open source key scientific innovations in the scaling of batteries? Don't think so. See e.g. The seres f5 from Huawei. I don't know wether it's great but about the main metric, it has a higher range than teslas (1000km)
As to why - ICE dealers didn't want to lose recurring revenue streams and ICE manufacturers didn't want to disrupt the means through which they would service the loans that they took out to build out their present ability to manufacture at scale. The incentives were perverse and in some cases still are perverse enough that the ICE industry has to be forced to help kill itself off, rather than dying willingly because it is right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla produced the first ICE-equivalent EV sedan that was not merely a "compliance vehicle" in decades. Then, it turned out, people bought them by the hundreds of thousands, single-handedly recreating the market for EVs. Then, other manufacturers noticed, and started realizing they might be left behind if they didn't take EVs seriously. Now, sure, there are many competitors, but even still they have only been built i…
The real ace was releasing an EV sports car , the Tesla Roadster. That's what caught people's attention. They were able to see how EV drivetrains were actually better than their ICE counterparts and that electric motors can do much more than drive golf carts – despite having powered everything from submarines to locomotives, people still thought they were weak. Otherwise, Nissan would have been Tesla. They have produ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked at a big company that was being acquired. The bigger acquiring company needed our company to sell off some divisions to avoid regulatory issues. So we were in this "going to be acquired.. one day" phase for like 18 months. In the meantime our company actually had to tell the a subsidiary of bigger acquiring company.... to sort of shove off on a partnership we had with them. This subsidiary was crap and they…
so what happened?
Never heard about the subsidiary again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the most influential nation in the world This aspect of the discussion around Twitter constantly baffles me. They have no obligation to offer service to anyone, and they have no obligation to ensure freedom of speech, balanced representation, or any other thing you can think of that would ensure everyone gets a voice. General, universal freedom of speech in the US…
You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're arguing against points I never made which makes me believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as well. Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their platform a place for free speech.
You start by drawing a line between moderation and what Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You then point out that he was democratically elected and that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication being that he should not have been).
You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can continue to post, instead.
You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for moderation.
So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't understand what you're trying to say, or even that I don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Job offer or not, $42 million for doing almost nothing is a great deal.
$42 million is a pittance for a man at his level. VCs with a tenth of the risk have taken home more money than that over the years from several deals. He has also been at the company for a very long time. I’d be enraged at a $42 million exit when I’m a child prodigy who has worked his ass off to finally helm one of the most publicly visibly corporations on the planet.