-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
Wiki Selling TSLA Options - Be the House
- Thread starter adiggs
- Start date
Maybe this is what you say, when you’re CLOSE to being de-listed? Maybe acquisition target? Even if they didn’t use them/it, they could probably sell the tech to someone else for more $$.
“This isn’t the first time that they’ve (Tesla) ordered lidars from us, but I would say its been more lumpy than recurring,” said Luminar CFO Tom Fennimore on the company’s earnings call Tuesday. “What exactly they’re doing with them, we can only speculate.”
They use them for validation.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Tesla has been known to put LIDAR on test vehicles to verify ground truth of what their "normal" sensors are doing--- basically seeing how well their vision stack is estimating speed/distance compared to what LIDAR measures.
I can't imagine how they'd possibly need >2.1 million dollars worth of such sensors in a single quarter though....that'd be a couple thousand sensors... seems way too many for ground-truth-testing, but not remotely enough for any useful "deployment" of anything.
I can't imagine how they'd possibly need >2.1 million dollars worth of such sensors in a single quarter though....that'd be a couple thousand sensors... seems way too many for ground-truth-testing, but not remotely enough for any useful "deployment" of anything.
Explains the rather ugly looking pre-market... maybe I'll stick with the -c175's again... Pfff
On the other hand, I do have some 5/24 -c170's, so guess I shouldn't complain too much
“Prosecutors scrutinizing Tesla’s autonomous-car claims are proceeding with caution, recognizing the legal hurdles they face, the people familiar with the inquiry said.
“They will need to demonstrate that Tesla’s claims crossed a line from legal salesmanship to material and knowingly false statements that unlawfully harmed consumers or investors, three legal experts uninvolved in the probe told Reuters.
“U.S. courts previously have ruled that “puffery” or “corporate optimism” regarding product claims do not amount to fraud. In 2008, a federal appeals court ruled that statements of corporate optimism alone do not demonstrate that a company official intentionally misled investors.”
Awful attack by Reuters nonetheless.
Shouldn't SEC be going after Reuters for securities fraud? I mean they do it on a daily basis...
Similar threads
