gringotuanis
Member
I think it's about 26.4999 million fewer these days!You have exactly as many followers as Elon Musk, just 21 million fewer?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it's about 26.4999 million fewer these days!You have exactly as many followers as Elon Musk, just 21 million fewer?
Perhaps it's worth remembering that in the early days of SpaceX, Musk intensely studied lots of old Soviet-era engineering manuals for rockets and spacecraft. He's very much inclined to use the "Russian way" of cost engineering. And I think this is a good thing.Similarly, the USA developed (for a lot of money) a pen that could work in zero gravity. The Russians just used a pencil.
Reminds me of the flufferbot issue. Removing the fluff altogether is a very Russian way of dealing with the problem.
Makes some sense- could be why Tesla just wants to procure cells locally.I'm going to repeat my theory, since everyone missed it the first time.
We know China factory is only making *SR* cars (maybe SR+).
We know that there's a lot of worry about theft of IP in China.
My theory is that the SR cars coming out of China will use inferior battery cell technology -- always one generation back from Tesla's cutting edge which will be used at the Gigafactory. For the purposes of protecting IP. Each time the cutting edge moves forward, China will get the older tech.
I could be totally wrong but it's a theory.
I would say generally yes CUVs sit higher and often have a little more ground clearance as well I think. Plus many CUVs are larger than the pic posted and would not look so close in size to a hatchback.I'm not seeing the difference. Crossover == station wagon.
Are you saying that it's a higher seating position, basically?
Would Tesla owners be outraged if Tesla pushed an alert to the Tesla app and car screen advising of the FSD deal currently available? Would seem like an obvious way to inform owners.
Will Tesla allow Model Y reservation at stores like they did with Model 3? Starts at Thursday morning? I haven't heard anything about this.
Interesting to dig into this further:It's a myth. A pencil would produce large amount of tiny graphite particles floating everywhere (due to zero G) which is a hazard to the health of astronaut, and to the electrical system (random shorts).
Cruise across the Evergreen Point floating bridge or I 90 to Mercer Island and beyond and you are literally swimming in Teslas. Well, almost swimming.
I'm hearing that some large institutional investors have been given leaked info that Q1 will be slightly profitable. The last two crazy rumors that I posted here came out to be true, but still not an advice.
I'm not sure SEC disagrees. They may have brought this case in order to lose, but warn Elon, before he screws up something bad.Ok after hours SEC talk. I have reviewed the pleadings so far and I was about to post that the Judge will permit a Reply Brief by the SEC when someone posted the Order. You guys are incredible. The Local Rules govern the proceeding here. I believe Rule 83 covers civil contempt. Basically there will be wide open briefing and exchange of legal and factual arguments. In Federal Court affidavits are called declarations and they set forth the facts and the briefs argue the application to and of the law. I was surprised by the burden of proof, clear and convincing. This is a much higher obligation on the SEC.
Lets talk procedure first. The Judge has offered both parties the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. This is a right under the Local Rule. An evidentiary hearing is only necessary if the facts are in dispute. I am interested in whether the SEC points out disputed facts and asks for a hearing. EM may also request a hearing if the SEC alleges facts he believes are incorrect. Lets be clear facts are much different from opinion, interpretation and application of law. If no one requests an evidentiary hearing it is a sign that they all believe the facts are not in dispute significantly. I suspect that the tweets, the public disclosures the effect on the market, Tesla Policy and most other facts are not in dispute but the interpretation of them is as is the law.
I can also see a hearing in which evidence is not taken but each side argues the law. The Court has discretion to hear argument of counsel in order to ask questions and clarify the positions in the briefs.
I found EM's brief exceptional. I appreciated the way that the First Amendment argument was raised even though it can only be applied under a particular interpretation of the SEC's position. With all I have seen thus far I see a difficult hill to climb for the SEC on Tesla policy, prior release of information, materiality and motive. I think I said previously that I would never take a case before a Judge with this level of minimal level of potential contempt. So far I would not expect a dramatic victory for either party even though EM deserves it. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the Court said no contempt was shown but cautioned EM and Tesla about the seriousness of the Agreement. I could also see an interpretation that there was no harm but EM is lectured about tweeting. Both of these should be seen as victories for EM but saving face for the SEC. So far I have seen nothing that shows a clear and convincing proof of contempt but hey I am just one person and obviously the SEC disagrees
No, an cross-over/CUV looks like this:
Versus an estate car / break:
Would Tesla owners be outraged if Tesla pushed an alert to the Tesla app and car screen advising of the FSD deal currently available? Would seem like an obvious way to inform owners.
At least a year ago, at least in their software teams, every single hire has to be approved by him. The hiring manager has to give him the person's resume with the manager's pitch for the person.Leaked email reveals Elon Musk must approve every person Tesla hires - Business Insider Leaked email reveals Elon Musk must approve every person Tesla hires — Business Insider
The article talks about EM needing to approve every headcount, but the reporter interprets as he needs to actually approve the person being hired. Different things.
Wouldn’t it mean S&P inclusion?OK, guys, let's be clear on this: all guidance since last July or so has been that Q1 will be more or less breakeven on a GAAP basis. Does it really *matter* whether it's slightly above the line or slightly below it ? Either way free cash flow should be positive.
Unique. Yep. I’ll go with that. I would think that some of this is pent up demand. Otherwise Tesla should consider building a factory there. Wow.
OT -- I love some of the old customs case citations.After reading this https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.27.0.pdf 3-1 team EM!
I suspect Elon's attorneys maybe among us TMC??? all points were brought up here TMC.
Makes some sense- could be why Tesla just wants to procure cells locally.
One thing though is, if the newer tech is cheaper would Tesla still prefer to use older costlier cells in China ?
Yeah, I don't think your friend is right. I don't have a solid read on the judge, but it looks like the SEC did a bad and sloppy job, and the repeated points that this would set new precedent are designed to wake up the judge.Quite a celebratory mood from this group on Musk's SEC rebuttal letter. To add another data point for everyone, the summary view from a lawyer friend (financial rather than constitutional law) with no financial or emotional skin in the game: It's a nice try but pretty sure he'll be held in contempt. Resorting to the first amendment argument seems a bit desperate.
The First Amendment is one of the strongest enforced constitutional protections, it's one of the steepest constitutional barriers for a U.S. Government agency such as the SEC to cross. I believe the SEC is going to regret the day they filed the September lawsuit. Back then Tesla and Elon was essentially coerced into settling by the daunting prospect of 3-5 years of civil litigation which the SEC could have dragged out by a few more years once they realized that they were losing.