N5329K
Active Member
This article explores why some people reject facts and become even more entrenched in their ignorance when confronted with facts.
Health Facts Aren’t Enough. Should Persuasion Become a Priority?
Robin
-
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
Health Facts Aren’t Enough. Should Persuasion Become a Priority?
Robin
Stars aligned
Member
There have been and there will be disruptive companies in the US market. Lot of shorting and FUD was going on back then. AAPL in 1999 and NVDA in 2016 have been two of them. Interestingly in the case of NVDA, institutions and insiders owned at one point 108% of the shares, than add some non-institutional owners, and a very huge short interest. And it's no secret that the SP of both companies has done very well since.
The scheme you mentioned is quite usual for disruptive companies who fight their way up.
Just thought you knew what you are writing about and would at least know if there is a case this happened before. Ok, obviously not, fine with me.
As far as I know, it didn't happen before. And if this is correct, I believe no one, not even the guys you mentioned, will try to create precedence here.
Stars aligned
Member
Written down by some 60m in Q1. If there were 4000 left, that's 15k. Bottom line, already taken care of in Q1.
Liquid hydrogen & oxygen makes great rocket fuel. It just doesn’t fit spacex’s budget.
OT
It's not impossible though. The Mars refueling system is going to be CO2 + 2×H2O + energy -> CH4 + 2×O2. No reason they can't do that on Earth, just more costly. Reclaim CO2 from existing sources and use electrolysis on the H2O.
It's not impossible though. The Mars refueling system is going to be CO2 + 2×H2O + energy -> CH4 + 2×O2. No reason they can't do that on Earth, just more costly. Reclaim CO2 from existing sources and use electrolysis on the H2O.
it means rockets you can fly without cleaning it. I am sure you have seen pre-flown F9s with soot and all. But cars have to be cleaned. Otherwise it gives a dirty unpleasant look for drivers and passengers and everyone that is sharing the road with you
That's amazing. I'd forgotten how conservative their early G3 guidance was. I just searched through each of their subsequent quarterly update letters, and not once did they get "more Elon" about the timeline. In fact, they made no further comments. Pretty sure they'll rectify that in the Q2 update.
OT: True it can be net carbon neutral, but CH4 is still a greenhouse gas left in the atmosphere. And potentially significantly more impactful for global warming when in the upper atmosphere .
OT
Yes, CH4 is a worse GHG by 30x. So to be the most green, they should run a little lean and ensure piping integrity. A Starship going to the moon or Mars can be net carbon negative due to combustion (or venting) outside the gravity well.
Yes, CH4 is a worse GHG by 30x. So to be the most green, they should run a little lean and ensure piping integrity. A Starship going to the moon or Mars can be net carbon negative due to combustion (or venting) outside the gravity well.
I used to think that way, but now I'm not so sure. The Fermi Paradox looms large for me. I disagree on the last part. It's not about there being a goal, just awareness.
Stock starts to rise to even for the day and what do ya know......a large sell order comes in(likely a short position/order) to cap the rise and sink it back down. I'm sure none of us saw that coming
Interesting price action today. I did not expect red. I have a lot of Jan 2020 250 calls that are down 72% right now. I was going to sell half of them before earnings if we got to the 280-300 range. But at 255, I'm taking my chances and holding them through earnings. I have been wrong too many times to count, but I can't imagine we don't climb above 255 after the ER.
Tesla reveals revolutionary new wiring architecture to help robots build upcoming cars like Model Y - Electrek
More automation "should" lead to higher quality, lower unit costs, more production, higher profits and higher stock price. Should.
With the one stamping machine replace several robots and now more automation, could explain how Tesla was able to find space at Freemont. The Y production line may be shorter than the 3's.
More automation "should" lead to higher quality, lower unit costs, more production, higher profits and higher stock price. Should.
With the one stamping machine replace several robots and now more automation, could explain how Tesla was able to find space at Freemont. The Y production line may be shorter than the 3's.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
meh. just some patent documents. May never amount to anything.
I could guess by the title alone without even reading the article that it was going to be about patents. lol
I could guess by the title alone without even reading the article that it was going to be about patents. lol
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
OT
Actually, it's not about the budget, SpaceX is using methane because CH4 is the densest molecular storage of hydrogen (!). This allows a reusable launch system with the best mass ratio. (Liquid hydrogen tanks are too large, much of what you win in efficiency you lose in tank mass and drag.)
Methane also has a couple of other advantages over H2:
(This is why Blue Origin is using methane too.)
Actually, it's not about the budget, SpaceX is using methane because CH4 is the densest molecular storage of hydrogen (!). This allows a reusable launch system with the best mass ratio. (Liquid hydrogen tanks are too large, much of what you win in efficiency you lose in tank mass and drag.)
Methane also has a couple of other advantages over H2:
- Methane can be stored indefinitely during deep space coasting (such as months of flight time to Mars) - while hydrogen will permeate everything.
- Methane is much safer to handle on the ground.
- Economics of intercontinental flights via Starship ("Earth to Earth" suborbital transportation) is primarily dictated by the price of fuel (LOX is very cheap), which methane wins hands down: it's even cheaper than kerosene (RP-1)
(This is why Blue Origin is using methane too.)
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
It's quite possible I think: Wall Street consensus is a -$320m GAAP loss, which is in line with @luvb2b's and @EVNow's estimates in the finance thread.
I've seen some uberbull GAAP profit expectations here on TMC and on Reddit as well, based on the fact that it was a quarter with record deliveries - which expectations don't consider the costs of the pre-Raven inventory flush, nor of the Model 3 price cuts and SR+ take rate increase.
There are some wildcards in Q2, but if the current share price is based on GAAP profit expectations and short term speculation, then there might be a post ER price correction if Tesla "disappoints", or issues bearish guidance.
I do think cash flow will be robust - which is what matters to growth. They might also issue bullish guidance or other bullish news.
Anyway, not advice.
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Half the usual volume - I think most "Q2 ER bets" are in place already, and there might have been some profit taking today.
Institutional investors are probably waiting for the ER and updated guidance for 2019-2020.
price action might've been driven by the Apple hire with the Tesla VP who had experience in vehicle interiors. kinda reinforces their car plans are for real
Weird that so much hay is being made of this crash in SF. Nothing about it sounds like autopilot was on(she was reportedly going 45 in a 30mph zone, which should be impossible on autopilot). Even had it been, autopilot doesn’t handle red lights, so it’s not different than plowing through a red light with cruise control on. It’s just some person that ran a red light and hit people...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
