-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Agreed. Any technology that is shown to reduce accidents and deaths should be implemented as soon as possible.
In theory it really should go further than that, once it is proven that one manufacturer can produce an autonomous vehicle they should be forced to licence the to all other automakers. Every person driving when there is a safer option increases the risk to society.
This is a solid point, there should be a genuine resale price step between vehicles with AP1 hardware and with AP2 hardware assuming Tesla mobility gets off the ground. One vehicle makes you money, the other doesn't.
I'm sure people will be crunching the numbers to see whether a used vehicle can be purchased as an investment and pay for itself.
Krugerrand
Meow
Meh. Moment in (past) time. That's one of the many beauties of Tesla, constantly improving their products every day.
For those that post on here more than 15-20x a day - perhaps you can consider consolidating your thoughts and post more meaningful and less frequently. Would like to follow and hear balanced arguments but currently - the quality and quantity of your posts make it difficult to keep you of my ignore list. I know tesla has a lot of things coming down the pipe which perhaps keep you posting a lot but c'mon - this is getting silly.
Dot-11
Member
Delta neutral -- the best way to trade, even though most people prefer to take a side.
Yowza. As flawed as the ZEV credit model is, at least it provides a modicum of a market. I hope your use of the term "...forced to license..." was a quick response to another's thought, and not a deeply-held belief of yours. Such a Deus ex machina ukase would horrifically skew and pervert the best development of autonomous vehicles.
Interesting that at this point in the day, SCTY has traded ~900k shares, and TSLA has traded almost 600k shares.
Well i haven't done a peer reviewed study or anything. But if we get to a point where one automaker (lets say Tesla because they are awesome) has the technology to save 20-30k lives per year then it would be morally difficult yo justify the sale of non autonomous vehicles to the general public. So with that base assumption I can only think of two ways to force the tech on every new vehicle sale. Ban every manufacturer that isn't first to market or force Tesla to licence their technology for an interim period (at a price high enough to compel other automakers to create their own systems) to other automakers for a period of time until they can create their own systems.
Doesn't work that way, since there's no guarantee that even with the same number of sensors and cameras, that the system would work in another car/truck/suv, unless Tesla expends engineering resources to validate that it works with other cars (in a supplier/OEM relationship). That would be a negative scenario in my view.
We can moot this discussion fairly quickly, I would say, if both of us agree to fall back on Mr Musk's now several-year-ago proclamation: "All our patents are belong to you".
Although there can be very, very many slips between cups and lips....
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Delta neutral insures that you make zero profit from the underlying share price? How is that the best way to trade?
Tesla Motors: Let Confusion Reign?
bdy0627
Active Member
Opinions about the cash needs of TSLA after the merger appear to be all over the map. The high is about $12.5 billion via Oppenheimer. I'm not sure what the low is, perhaps $2 billion if SCTY's contracts can be further monetized. Many don't think SCTYs contracts can be monetized further. SBenson is adamant about that. I have read a lot about SCTY but I remain confused about the reality of its financials and how much of a drag it will be on TSLA, at least over the next year. I can't make much sense of its contracts. Any consensus here about a realistic high and low? Is it impossible to say until we know more about SCTY's financials? The financial drag of SCTY on Tesla will have a lot to do with TSLA's SP over the next year it seems.
Dot-11
Member
You collect the premium on the sold options (as a retail investor). If you are making markets, the bid-ask spread helps, but I don't have any experience on that side.
TSLA is a good example for collecting premium - it has a relatively high volatility, and lately has been range bound. Somebody that bought around 210 and didn't sell would be underwater right now, but somebody who sold the (lets say) 240 Calls and 160 Puts would be collecting premium based on time decay. As the price goes up towards 240, you become 'short', and as it goes towards 160, you become 'long'. The risk is if your strikes are breached, you are short TSLA at 240 or long TSLA at 160.
You probably think too much. I am not trying to and I don't need to convince anyone.
stealthology
Member
It's official. Uber and Tesla are in an attention/ego war to be first for self driving matters:
Uber’s Otto completes first shipment by self-driving truck: an autonomous beer run with Budweiser
I wonder if Travis Kalanick will still buy 100K+ of Tesla's self driving Model 3's.
Uber’s Otto completes first shipment by self-driving truck: an autonomous beer run with Budweiser
I wonder if Travis Kalanick will still buy 100K+ of Tesla's self driving Model 3's.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
