GBleck
Member
How exactly are they violating the LGPL or BSD license? Are you assuming they are modifying the library?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Spidy, I am missing the point you're trying to make. You showed a video of a slow car being passed by a very fast Porsche. In the Tesla's case, it wasn't being passed by a high-speed bus. Please explain.
i have seen thoughts elsewhere that folks doing the 2 year lease on an S60, the CPO will be more valuable when the software is "unlocked" and turned into an S75 CPO. would this help since it would be 2 years in the future and batteries may be larger? {tho not > than 100}
phigment
Member
GBleck
Member
So is the share price for tesla/sc down because of:
Shorts getting more ammo back.
New electric vehicles being introduced in Paris? Mercedes, Renault, VW?
FUD attack?
The bus autopilot thing?
Oil futures? This should drive it up but maybe not?
Random chaotic momentum trading?
Shorts getting more ammo back.
New electric vehicles being introduced in Paris? Mercedes, Renault, VW?
FUD attack?
The bus autopilot thing?
Oil futures? This should drive it up but maybe not?
Random chaotic momentum trading?
On discounts, there are a slew of different discounts offered by Tesla and it is important to sort this out.
1) algorithmic discounts applied to demo and loaner vehicles. The algorithm can be altered and therefore the discount amount can vary, but it is important that everyone has access to the same discounting of these vehicles
2) clearance discounts for model changeover, again access to everyone
2a) facelift refresh put pressure on Tesla to cycle out all classic nosecone vehicles out of their demo fleet, hence discounting of a slew of mostly P90D's
2b) P100D introduction also put some pressure to remove P90D+L demos out of the fleet
3) discounts for customer service problems - these should be the only individual discounts for when Tesla screwed something up
4) discounts on demo models that were still new... S75's and 75D's
5) discounts on an individual basis - we saw some possible reports of this, possibly delivery fee discounts that were not uniformly applied
The last 2 are problematic. The first 3 are likely sanctioned and well within the spirit that Musk put forth for Tesla, and it is definitely possible that Musk did not know of the additional problematic discounting on #4 and #5.
I would have assumed that #4, the S75's and 75D's was a corporate move to pull forward demand. It appeared that they chose to have a lot more base level vehicles made for the demo fleet to attract Model 3 reservation holders and the like. It also reduces the cost of the demo fleet, reducing the SG&A effect of discounting as one doesn't need to apply the same level of discounting on the cheaper models to move them relative to the $140k+ top of the line models when it comes time to refresh the demo fleet. I thought #4 was pretty smart as long as it was seen as very temporary. It likely was margin positive, not negative since it was the same vehicle as a S60 or 60D and they basically pulled forward the upgrade revenue.
Unclear at the moment the story on #4. I feel like the 60's were strange all the way around with the software limiting anyways. People didn't react well to it, which is very strange. Financially, I think #4 is not a problem and we may be seeing the effects of hyper growth and Musk's attention diverted elsewhere.
1) algorithmic discounts applied to demo and loaner vehicles. The algorithm can be altered and therefore the discount amount can vary, but it is important that everyone has access to the same discounting of these vehicles
2) clearance discounts for model changeover, again access to everyone
2a) facelift refresh put pressure on Tesla to cycle out all classic nosecone vehicles out of their demo fleet, hence discounting of a slew of mostly P90D's
2b) P100D introduction also put some pressure to remove P90D+L demos out of the fleet
3) discounts for customer service problems - these should be the only individual discounts for when Tesla screwed something up
4) discounts on demo models that were still new... S75's and 75D's
5) discounts on an individual basis - we saw some possible reports of this, possibly delivery fee discounts that were not uniformly applied
The last 2 are problematic. The first 3 are likely sanctioned and well within the spirit that Musk put forth for Tesla, and it is definitely possible that Musk did not know of the additional problematic discounting on #4 and #5.
I would have assumed that #4, the S75's and 75D's was a corporate move to pull forward demand. It appeared that they chose to have a lot more base level vehicles made for the demo fleet to attract Model 3 reservation holders and the like. It also reduces the cost of the demo fleet, reducing the SG&A effect of discounting as one doesn't need to apply the same level of discounting on the cheaper models to move them relative to the $140k+ top of the line models when it comes time to refresh the demo fleet. I thought #4 was pretty smart as long as it was seen as very temporary. It likely was margin positive, not negative since it was the same vehicle as a S60 or 60D and they basically pulled forward the upgrade revenue.
Unclear at the moment the story on #4. I feel like the 60's were strange all the way around with the software limiting anyways. People didn't react well to it, which is very strange. Financially, I think #4 is not a problem and we may be seeing the effects of hyper growth and Musk's attention diverted elsewhere.
Gerardf
Active Member
Niedermeyer worked on the article for "the better part of a month"
Twitter
(Unfortunatly Bonaire's next tweet was not so much about defending truth)
I have a hard time believing Niedermeyer did that without being paid.
As they state themselves :
Edward Niedermeyer and Bertel Schmitt are available to work for hire, but not for $25 a post. Interested outlets and companies, please use the contact box.
(Unfortunatly Bonaire's next tweet was not so much about defending truth)
I have a hard time believing Niedermeyer did that without being paid.
As they state themselves :
Edward Niedermeyer and Bertel Schmitt are available to work for hire, but not for $25 a post. Interested outlets and companies, please use the contact box.
In response to the BS hit piece published today.
California may waive environmental rules for Tesla battery factory
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=etd_projects
California may waive environmental rules for Tesla battery factory
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=etd_projects
The answer depends upon who you talk to. This week I've noticed a pretty direct correlation between shares available to short and the movement of the stock price. Today IB introduced hundreds of thousands of shares to short and the dip is not surprising. I would ask myself this question: who is selling? Longs are unlikely to be selling two days before the release of Q3 numbers, particularly after Musk's recent comments about the quarter. Certainly some longs are buying at these prices, but many are waiting because of concern about large numbers of short shares being made available today. Take a look at the volume for a clue. A huge portion of the selling may in fact be shorts establishing new positions because the volume doesn't indicate that widespread selling is taking place by the longs. Often, you see FUD timed to coincide with a short-selling event. One of the likely candidates such as Daily Kanban publishes FUD at exactly the right time and date to coincide with more short selling, which camouflages the real cause of the dip.
I just put in an order for a Nov. $220 call. Will buy another after delivery numbers come out if they're good. I know that's a small bet for most here, but for me, it represents a significant belief that numbers will be good, including earnings numbers.
Edit: Paid $5.50 for it
Edit: Paid $5.50 for it
Another follow up from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District BoD Regular Meeting, Nov 18, 2015:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-directors/2015/brd_agenda_111815-pdf.pdf?la=en
Has a line that says:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-directors/2015/brd_agenda_111815-pdf.pdf?la=en
Has a line that says:
GBleck
Member
It looks like a publication date of 2014.
Did it come up in your google news feed? Always wondered why that happens. Perhaps the metadata was updated? I can't see why it would be intentional as there are better FUD articles to zombie post.
hockeythug
Active Member
I'll find the most recent link I can find. It might take a bit of time. The point is that the argument that Tesla is lying about 500,000 vehicles in 2018 because of current permits is very misleading and likely wrong.
It is interesting to note that the 50 mile inventory cars shown on https://ev-cpo.com/ no longer have any significant discounts, probably confirming that Elon was unaware of the discounts on inventory vehicles, not just the discounts on the destination and doc fee. On the other hand, they may have planned to remove the large discounts now anyway, as 2 days probably isn't enough time for delivery by the end of the quarter.
Another update
Update: A Tesla spokesperson sent us the following statement
We have spoken to our customer, who confirmed that Autopilot was functioning properly and that his use of Autopilot was unrelated to the accident. We’re glad that he’s safe.
Amazing how much BS Niedermeyer is pushing today. He basically proved he is a paid shill when he made the comment about Autopilot.
Wow. I wonder how much one charges for one's dignity.
What a slimy way to make a living.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
