Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Or the business case changed and they were not needed. Could it be handled better, yes, but it's not like Telsa has a sprawling HR either.
Struggle to picture a business case changing so quickly that suddenly a 500 person team was redundant. Even if it changed with extraodrianr4y speed, we’re talking ok, you move 50 out. Then another 50...
And... normal management dictates you figure out which people are your least productive and let them go. That wasn’t done. This was something entirely different from good management.

And then there’s this:
According to Bloomberg, Musk privately expressed a desire to lay off at least 20 percent of the company because its quarterly vehicle deliveries fell by that much.

That’s not how you run a business. That is not how you derive your downsizing numbers, that’s what you get when you ask a middle school kid what to do.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, after a few decades in corporate America, I can say that never really happens. Heck, I've heard corporate leaders utter phrases like "we have no more planned reductions in force" while I was simultaneously being asked behind the scenes to provide names for the next RIF. Sure, there are times when business is going better and the risk is less, but it never goes away. During COVID at my most recent gig the company prospered and went on a hiring spree. I felt bad because I knew, as soon as the Covid money train dried up, it would be a blood bath. It did and it was (still is).
Agreed. The last ten years were "Will it be tomorrow"?
 
This huge round of layoffs may be the ultimate sign that robotaxis are upon us. For each fired employee, there had existed options that they lost and will never vest. Less future dilution. Sort of like a share buyback, but without the "buyback" - call it share retention perhaps.

Elon is getting cocky again, soliciting Buffett to buy the stock.

P.S. Just had a chance to use the "Actual Autopark" on MX and MY both with ultrasonic sensors. If A.S.S. (Actual Smart Summon) is even a fraction if the improvement over the past version, I believe we are "feature complete"

P.P.S. FSD saved me from a tragic accident over the weekend, for the 4th time now. A semi tried to merge into me while slightly in front of me and to the right. Instantaneously, MX edged to the berm and broke hard (no one behind me in the fast lane) to avoid the accident. Grateful to have had the wisdom to purchase a $12k accident/driving fatigue avoidance preinsurance package (FSD) that I could pay over the life of the 2% interest loan.

I open myself up to rebuttals from the usual suspects....
 
Last edited:
It’s good to see Tesla starting to do some of the things that are needed to boost sales-like the new Y long range. However, it’s interesting also that now the longest range Y is the cheapest and the most expensive version the shortest range. Surely indicates they weren’t through here.
The longest range is rear wheel drive rather than all wheel drive. You give up one to get the other. I don't see a problem here.
 
But either someone was asleep at the switch when the team was being built, or is making a huge mistake now.
That is exactly why the head of the department that built the team was let go. Elon had just made them a direct report and pulled back the curtain, and from everything we have heard the department was a complete mess. Yes, they were getting things done, but not efficiently. And not making the correct strategic decisions. Sure, he could have taken a little bit more time and been more strategic, but it comes back to the thought "that the longer you wait to fire the person, the longer it has been since you should have fired them."
 
Last edited:
Also, these are two of the conditions that cause employees to want unions.
Given that Unions are having a hard time penatrating Tesla after a decade and a half, it's probably safe to say they are friend zoned.

The type of people Tesla hire are not overweight white family men looking for a stable job. They all look like young kids who most likely are single and agile, jumping jobs to jobs. Musk wants it that way, wanting these young kids to always introduce new fresh ideas and not a bunch of "this is not how we usually do things" bunch of people. When he said that people needs to die for progress to happen for humanity when asked why he doesn't focus on tech that gives people longevity, he has applied that to Tesla. To me him laying off people is a must as he feels ideas and processes become stale over time.
 
Last edited:
This again???

In addition to hard-coding, they had to drive over 500 miles with very very frequent interventions (all documented in CA DMV records for self driving for the year)
It's called testing. Most of the miles were in October, but not all...
and then edit that down to splice together all the really short clips between interventions to make it appear that it did the full drive in a single take with NO interventions
Incorrect. If that were the case why were there zero disengagements in November?
SmartSelect_20240506_153640_Firefox.jpg



stating right in the video the human is only there because he's legally required to be (rather than because the system required human intervention over and over and over again through the many many many takes they had to do

For the released drive, they didn't intervene. Were a safety driver not legally required, they could have aborted from the passenger seat.

Elon nor anybody said it was a single uninterrupted journey.
Yes, yes they did:
Q. Okay. So my statement was accurate, that the video that's marked as Exhibit 113 was not generated in a single take. True?
A. If you define "single take" as a single consistent video, then it is a single take in the sense that it is not stitched together, but it required some iteration get to a point where when the entire drive would be zero intervention.
Q. I'm sorry. I may just have misunderstood your answer. So I apologize.
A. Usually a single take -
Q. Were you asking me a question, or were you -- I couldn't tell if you answered the question. I apologize.
A. Usually a single take means that the video is continuous and it's not stitched together. My understanding is that this video is continuous, and it's not stitched together. In that sense, it is single take, but it was not the first iteration. It required a few iterations to get this.
 
That is exactly why the head of the department that built the team was let go. Elon had just made them a direct report and pulled back the current, and from everything we have heard the department was a complete mess. Yes, they were getting things done, but not efficiently. And not making the correct strategic decisions. Sure, he could have taken a little bit more time and been more strategic, but it comes back to the thought "that the longer you wait to fire the person, the longer it has been since you should have fired them."
And no one above her knew she had built a 500 person team? And then somehow someone assumed none of them were worth keeping.
Who was running the company? I know I’d have a reasonable idea what was going on with the Supercharger team
 
Saying you are confident of something ≠ lying. 0/1

Forward looking statement based on plans in progress ≠ lying. 0/2


That process exists for where mobile service is possible and available. He didn't say it would be the only option, and anybody who has ever worked on a car knows that some repairs require non-transportable equipment. Again, not lying. 0/3


The mayor subsequently asked to confer with Musk on what was already in the works to address the water crisis, and Elon thereafter funded filtration systems for schools ≠ not lying. 0/4


No evidence presented he did not receive verbal commitment ≠ lying. 0/5


Intent not yet carried out ≠ lying. 0/6.


For simplicity sake I think that's enough "evidence."
Zero is indeed simple.

Look, is he optimistic, and terrible with time tables: yup.

Does that make him a liar? No more than when you tell you wife you will always love her and then divorce her 3 yrs later. Things change... intent matters.
 
Last edited:
Yes, yes they did:


Q. Okay. So my statement was accurate, that the video that's marked as Exhibit 113 was not generated in a single take. True?
A. If you define "single take" as a single consistent video, then it is a single take in the sense that it is not stitched together, but it required some iteration get to a point where when the entire drive would be zero intervention.
Q. I'm sorry. I may just have misunderstood your answer. So I apologize.
A. Usually a single take -
Q. Were you asking me a question, or were you -- I couldn't tell if you answered the question. I apologize.
A. Usually a single take means that the video is continuous and it's not stitched together. My understanding is that this video is continuous, and it's not stitched together. In that sense, it is single take, but it was not the first iteration. It required a few iterations to get this.

My point is that that's not what was being said when presented to folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: replicant
I strongly agree that the words lie/lied/lying are inappropriate in the case that @scaesare and @DarkandStormy currently are arguing.
I ALSO am using this situation to buttress my roundly blackthumbed position of about two weeks back that it was inappropriate to so label Reuters for its coverage of Tesla and Mr Musk.

Takeaway: I urge all to eschew that wording when at all possible…which is for all intents and purposes just about always. One can say an actor has changed his position. One can say he dissembled, or has gone back on his word, or grossly over- or understated the risks, market factors and so forth. One can say he tergiversated but unless your name’s Audie it’s probably better you don’t because then you run the risk of being called him that anyway.
 
I strongly agree that the words lie/lied/lying are inappropriate in the case that @scaesare and @DarkandStormy currently are arguing.
I ALSO am using this situation to buttress my roundly blackthumbed position of about two weeks back that it was inappropriate to so label Reuters for its coverage of Tesla and Mr Musk.

Takeaway: I urge all to eschew that wording when at all possible…which is for all intents and purposes just about always. One can say an actor has changed his position. One can say he dissembled, or has gone back on his word, or grossly over- or understated the risks, market factors and so forth. One can say he tergiversated but unless your name’s Audie it’s probably better you don’t because then you run the risk of being called him that anyway.
Another day, another new vocabulary word.
 
...

P.P.S. FSD saved me from a tragic accident over the weekend, for the 4th time now. A semi tried to merge into me while slightly in front of me and to the right. Instantaneously, MX edged to the berm and broke hard (no one behind me in the fast lane) to avoid the accident. Grateful to have had the wisdom to purchase a $12k accident/driving fatigue avoidance preinsurance package (FSD) that I could pay over the life of the 2% interest loan.

...

Do you by chance remember if the MX horn was activated during this incident? This seems like the perfect time for FSD to lay on the horn to (try to) alert the semi driver that something was going wrong...I'm just not sure if FSD has that capability.