Mike Smith
Active Member
Remember the made in China Model 3 price they quoted was higher than expected, so maybe they were figuring the cost of 0% leases into that.
-
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
Remember the made in China Model 3 price they quoted was higher than expected, so maybe they were figuring the cost of 0% leases into that.
Yeeech. I've been saying that Tesla's software development is actually one of their two weak points, with customer communications being the much weaker point. This is more evidence of that.
Wow. Failures of software and customer communications and internal communications. Par for the course with Tesla so far, but it really shouldn't be, and "growing pains" are not a sufficient excuse.
I believe he is rightfully making a point about how regressive copyright laws in a somewhat obtuse manner.
You know how ridiculous EU copyright law is now that memes are banned? Even more ridiculous because they will only enforce copyright of scumbag large companies like Disney and Sony with teams of lawyers working for them.
Why should Elon have to say who drew the picture? It's not like he was selling it or claiming he drew it. If someone was interested in who drew it, its pretty easy to reverse image search it. It's not like it wasn't already out in the public sphere. Calling Elon a dick for having a progressive opinion on copyright is a dick move imo.
Someone noticed that having thousands of inventory cars in Belgium wasn't right after less than a few hours , IIRC. Someone then hit the Panic Button and removed all cars from the web inventory pages until they at least sorted out how to show only local cars (which I think still included some cars that were later matched to orders for some time, but indeed after a few days even that was fixed.)
Fair enough. I'm not saying that I agree with DeBord's opinions, I'm saying he writes honest pieces based on the evidence he has -- he isn't making *sugar* up. There's no complete garbage there, the way there is with Linette Lopez or Mark Matousek or "Montana Skeptic", etc.
No, he's absolutely not. If he intended to make that point, he failed.
There is a HUGE difference between copyright (I support massive copyright reform, allow anyone to copy and distribute anything, only restrict profit-making) on the one hand, and on the other hand, *attribution*, which is an older concept which is very important in academia (and has nothing to do with the law).
Take a look at free software. The principle of most of the licenses is "use whatever you like, but FFS give credit to the author".
Take a look at what happens to academics who plagarize even when the plagarism is totally legal under copyright law today (for instance, plagarism from 19th century books).
My opinion is that some of it is and some of it isn't. I think the problem is that they have too few really good programmers and those are being used for creating the really high end stuff, and everything else is done by interns. I can't see any other reason for the V9 UI being the way it is right now. Those interns probably don't even drive, so they only know about cellphones. Originally, the UI was state of the art and really functional. Dollars to doughnuts their good programmers did that, but got moved to other projects.
That’s a pretty steep increase for one day, especially considering the low starting point. Shorts must have thrown a fair amount of ammo at it but even with the BI hit piece just barely kept the price in check.
@neroden: you are not obliged to react to everything that was posted today. Are you aware that half of the last 50 posts are yours?
It is not just those two reporters. I contacted the editorial team with this:
Hello editorial team
I think you are doing a disservice to your company having authors with such obvious anti-Tesla bias as Jonathan Gitlin. Ars Technica is meant to be tech-savy, but your reporters are blocking people who like Tesla, and consistently reporting negatively on Tesla, even when the car is the most loved by owners compared to other cars.
Personally I cannot trust what I read in Ars Technica anymore when it maintains such low editorial standards in regards to Tesla, and harbours such an obvious anti-Tesla bias.
And the managing editor Eric Bangeman surprisingly responded with this:
Just curious: what do you propose to do about the large number of Tesla owners displeased with his writing who harass him—including threats of violence—online via Twitter, email, and other forums?
Notice he does not address any bias, but rather just defends his reporters by equating my questions as part of a violent/harassing campaign against his reporters by crazy Tesla owners.
I think we can assume that the anti-Tesla sentiment is quite pervasive in much of them media by now and it's not just a few bad reporters.
Last edited:
Mike Smith
Active Member
SW2Fiddler
We Are Cognitive Dissidents
OK I will credit you with the phrase "Doo-Doo Diligence."
'cause I'm gonna use the F LI C K out of it now.
Also, showing off my new avatar (Original Content!)
Memes are not banned. There is a worry that internet providers would install overly aggressive upload filters to be "on the safe side" and might block the dissemination of content that should be usable under fair use just to cover their behinds, but a lot of water still has to flow under the bridges before "all memes are banned".
The directive is pointedly not overly prescriptive on the obligations of internet providers, which of course scares the hell out of them, which is why they made a fuss (rightly so, and the implementation details will matter and we have a chance to fight for a decent one).
If you want to look at "ridiculous" legislation in the same field, you should look no further than the DMCA in the US, which is older, more stupid (completely beholden to the interests of mass copyright holders) and much more prescriptive.
The original author just said it was "not cool" that she was not credited. I tend to agree. As for all the others specialising in third-person indignation, I think they shouldn't have tried to be more catholic than the pope and should have stuck with "not cool"' as well.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I agree - "opposing Tesla via any means possible that don't get prosecuted, for profits" is still enemies.
In related news, a big IMF study about fossil fuel subsidies has been released recently, and the numbers are staggering:
The United States still spends 10 times as much on fossil fuel subsidies as they do on education
"Nothing signifies how backwards our country’s priorities are more than what we spend our money on. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), not known as a bastion of socialist sentiment, has released a report on fossil fuel subsidies around the world. Analyzing costs around the globe, spent by governments on energy in general, the IMF found that the United States spent the second most, behind China and just ahead of Russia, on subsidies with $649 billion in 2015 alone."
Forbes points out that this number is more than the U.S. defense budget and “ten times the federal spending for education.” The IMF says “Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017.” And while the fossil fuel industry continues to argue that pulling back on fossil fuel subsidies would deal a devastating blow to the global economy, and we all need to slowly continue to poison our air and water and planet, while we move to renewables, the IMF’s Christine Lagarde says that this still has to happen.
"Nothing signifies how backwards our country’s priorities are more than what we spend our money on. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), not known as a bastion of socialist sentiment, has released a report on fossil fuel subsidies around the world. Analyzing costs around the globe, spent by governments on energy in general, the IMF found that the United States spent the second most, behind China and just ahead of Russia, on subsidies with $649 billion in 2015 alone."
Forbes points out that this number is more than the U.S. defense budget and “ten times the federal spending for education.” The IMF says “Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017.” And while the fossil fuel industry continues to argue that pulling back on fossil fuel subsidies would deal a devastating blow to the global economy, and we all need to slowly continue to poison our air and water and planet, while we move to renewables, the IMF’s Christine Lagarde says that this still has to happen.
(It's 2015 and 2017 data published in 2019 because it's very hard to systematically analyze these usually opaque and well hidden sources of fossil fuel subsidies.)
I.e. from the 2015 fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. alone Tesla could have built over 100 Gigafactories with the capacity of the Shanghai Gigafactory...
There were 5,200,000,000,000 good reasons in 2017 alone for various entities to oppose Tesla, based on economic self interest.
- It must be a U.S. company.
- The market cap must be $5.3 billion or more.
- The public float must consist of at least 50% of outstanding shares.
- It must have positive reported earnings in the most recent quarter, as well as over the four most recent quarters
- IN addition: Inclusion when meeting the first four items does NOT guarantee inclusion
My lowest buy in was 20 shares at 198. After that, I ran out of money to buy more. *shrug*
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
@neroden got many things right in the past that deviated from TMC investor thread orthodoxy, such as the ~$360 TSLA price ceiling in Q4'2018 and a really bad Q1'2019 ...
So while @neroden is certainly not obliged to comment here, his feedback and insight is "highly encouraged", from my point of view.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
