-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
It looks like Chancellor McCormick of Delaware is trying to move the hearings forward in the musk compensation case to preempt the shareholder vote scheduled for June 8th:
The below dates in the Delaware case have changed
On or before May 8, 2024, Tesla will serve its expert reports.
On or before June 7, 2024, Tesla will file its answering brief to the Motion. [The judge is placing this new deadline on Tesla one day before their planned AGM and vote of shareholders]
On or before June 21, 2024, Plaintiff will file any reply brief to the Motion.
On or before June 26, 2024, the Parties will file a proposed Order and Final Judgment, either joint or disputed.
The hearing on the Motion will take place on July 8, 2024.
plainsite.org/dockets/downlo…
The below dates in the Delaware case have changed
On or before May 8, 2024, Tesla will serve its expert reports.
On or before June 7, 2024, Tesla will file its answering brief to the Motion. [The judge is placing this new deadline on Tesla one day before their planned AGM and vote of shareholders]
On or before June 21, 2024, Plaintiff will file any reply brief to the Motion.
On or before June 26, 2024, the Parties will file a proposed Order and Final Judgment, either joint or disputed.
The hearing on the Motion will take place on July 8, 2024.
plainsite.org/dockets/downlo…
Obviously this is a big thing. Has there been any communication from Tesla explaining what they are going to do beside the layoffs/firings?
And folks still defend Musk like he can do no wrong!
I agree there will be ownership for quite some time. Maybe, as we previously discussed, the "second car" could be avoided... I mean, if every day I go to work and then send the car home to my wife, society gets more traffic, but one less car built. Sustainability-wise, not sure is a great idea.
What still intrigues me about RTs is that it's "algorithmic transportation". Right now, taxi have incentives to single-customer rides. Taxi drivers actually prefer people not to share cabs, so the "profit cake" is bigger and shared among the whole taxi fleet. Maybe they are lucky and do a few trips. Every customer a cab, even if they go in the same direction: think about conferences, conventions, etc.
I've seen many times long lines to get a taxi outside a train station, even if most people go to the same convention center: this is actually some "game theory" in action. Taxi drivers don't really care to make people share the ride, as mentioned above. People self-organize and try to share... but rarely do that, with strangers. Maybe the taxi fare is paid by their company and they don't care to save the money. Maybe they are shy and don't want to talk to strangers and beg to share a ride. End result is inefficient transportation.
This could change dramatically with software-operated RTs. If FSD is solved, they can operate like an organized swarm. Tesla could have the data of all the booked trips, and know how much people want to go to X. If there is too much demand, they can ask people to share rides, offering discounts and proposing great value for cities (less traffic, less energy used, no emissions).
Tesla could do what they do best and have an AI working 24/7 on the best deploy and use of RTs, based on real-time data. If a RT sees an incident on a road and needs to deviate, all the fleet automatically will know instantly.
I'm quite sure there will be, in the future, many options: do you want to rent a vehicle for a few hours? just a trip from A to B? shared or not? only women? do you have a 5-10-30-minute window? are you willing to switch cabs for a discount? Real-time pricing based on current situation. Incentives and disincentives based on pricing.
I never took an Uber but I get they let people become "taxi drivers", taking care of the software side of the business, but they have to rely on humans who need the rides to get their money. Game theory applies.
But Tesla could manage a swarm of ants/cars/robots directed by their AI Queen. And they can deploy them at cost. And then it's just energy-used, cleaning and maintenance (done by Optimus? but humans could be ok anyway).
I see a path, in the medium-long term, in which Taas can actually eat a segment of car ownership in certain areas. It won't be quick but it can happen.
Last edited:
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
The California state legislature already passed a new law making autonomous semi trucks illegal, but the Governor vetoed it last September. This February teamsters and other members of the legislature brought the legislation back before the house.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
That superchargers are profitable? Is that a serious question?
You failed to express it clearly then, since I addressed what you actually wrote and pointed out it's contrary to known facts about the economics of the supercharging system.
Your claim:
But also you:
Having lived in Canada myself I can confirm even with the conversion rate, June 8th still comes a full month before July 8th.
Typically if you want to preempt something you need to schedule it before the thing.
Uber already does this. You can have others in the car and the ride is cheaper.
Yes I could see that happening ...I also think that's hard slow work but possible.
They are now, yes. But one of, if the biggest reason people are hesitant in buying BEV's from other manufacturers is charging. A lot of that reticence will disappear when they know they can refuel easily and reliably. Heck that's now one of Ford's big selling points in their current advertising.
So in 2 or 3 years when a substantial amount of BEV's fueling at an SC are other manufacturers, it makes much more sense to me for the expansion enabling it to be funded by some entity other than Tesla, yet at the same time Tesla would by default be the only charging solution in North America. That's a lot of power and leverage for Tesla... how they use it will be interesting that's for sure.
p.s., Mary must have thought of it!
Yes, it is so huge that, if anyone has a photo of a prismatic cylinder I would like to see it
This tweet thread and others like it is just ugly. Destination chargers/apartment charger installers getting emails bounced back from Tesla. L2 charging accessibility is a huge weakness for EVs and this does not help. WTF is going on with Tesla Charging? Did Elon really fire everyone? Why didn't he just fire the Exec who pushed back against layoffs?
IMO the staff cuts were never about 10% across the board.
Elon was looking for duplicated or unnecessary functions, and under performing staff,
Not what others consider duplicated, unnecessary or under performing - his opinion.
So it is possible that the cuts to the charging team were significantly more than 10%, and that Elon had already formed an opinion on many of the staff and many of the functions.
Regardless of what actually happened, all mangers now have got the message that if their team contains 3 members that Elon considers to be under performing, they are heading for the exit. I think this is a case of "the end justifies the means", the priority is to get rid of underperforming staff, and charging was an expendable way of underlying the message.
Regardless of whether Elon is right or wrong, he is typically first.
The most recent similar example is EV price cuts, first many claimed Tesla was wrong to cut prices, then many copied, or stopped making EVs and pivoted to hybrids.
Stellantis has already laid off a lot of staff, these Tesla layoffs are the perfect excuse for any other carmaker wanting to lay off staff.
Job losses typically come before interest rate cuts, that is the way the blunt instruments work,
Elon was looking for duplicated or unnecessary functions, and under performing staff,
Not what others consider duplicated, unnecessary or under performing - his opinion.
So it is possible that the cuts to the charging team were significantly more than 10%, and that Elon had already formed an opinion on many of the staff and many of the functions.
Regardless of what actually happened, all mangers now have got the message that if their team contains 3 members that Elon considers to be under performing, they are heading for the exit. I think this is a case of "the end justifies the means", the priority is to get rid of underperforming staff, and charging was an expendable way of underlying the message.
Regardless of whether Elon is right or wrong, he is typically first.
The most recent similar example is EV price cuts, first many claimed Tesla was wrong to cut prices, then many copied, or stopped making EVs and pivoted to hybrids.
Stellantis has already laid off a lot of staff, these Tesla layoffs are the perfect excuse for any other carmaker wanting to lay off staff.
Job losses typically come before interest rate cuts, that is the way the blunt instruments work,
Are you telling me you know all the places you will go all the time when you head out? Honestly that type of scenario we do all of the time. When people go shopping is it always to the store and then home. Then to another business and then home. Then to another and then home.
Urban city centers consistently have the best mass transit, the best taxi and ride share and will have most of Robitaxi if mapping and directions are good enough. Those will be certainly geofenced to some extent.
Those who forecast epochal change are really dreaming.with enough vehicle variety and commute support services included it might just create an entirely new market.
Elon may well have overstated the consequences of this one. He does have a record of making impossible things happen, so I can imagine that I might overstate impediments.
Then there are the countries in which >95% of all banking transactions and even street artists and beggars have smartphone money transfer for their benefactors to use. Those in such places as Kenya, Brazil and, notably, Afghanistan where government employees have been paid via smartphone for quite some time.
Our relevant point is whether RT could act in a way closely analogous to smartphones. The complexity of RT adoption is significantly more difficult that was that of smartphones.
All the seemingly useful analogues end out being quite limited.
Yes, and they have now required Tesla to file their motion on June 7 before the vote. So Tesla cannot use the results of the vote in their motion and likely cannot reference it in the hearing which will be based on the filings.
I don’t know why we wittingly or unwittingly keep repeating this FUD. Giga Mexico is paused because Tesla are trying out the unboxed manufacturing method in Giga Texas first. This is a logical, rational, financially & technologically sound reason to pause Giga Mexico.
Also, the second statement is also incorrect as Elon clarified in the recent CC - Tesla has existing capacity that can be boasted up to 3 million EVs, maintaining the 50% growth run rate.
I feel like banging my head against a wall when I see this FUD repeated.
What's the inverse of FUD? Hype?
Because we need to call a spade a spade here.
Either you are not paying attention, or willingly misleading.
The capacity will be boosted over some time, not over the next year. There is no 50% YoY growth being maintained.
It's 50%... over a few years.
For you to point this out as FUD, and then go and make fallacious statements, is an indictment of what this message board has become.
What's wrong with just trying to understand the truth?
Smart phones need towers, networks, sim cards, regulatory approval. etc.
Robotaxis need - charging, cleaning, a fleet, insurance, maintenance, regulatory approval. etc
I think the complexity level is similar, but Robotaxis require less infrastructure. Due to the fleet size requirements, Robotaxis may require more capex.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
