Its kinda cool that 'there is a disengagement every 200 miles' is seen as a criticism right now. Thats...pretty impressive.
It's quite impressive for an L2 ADAS. Teslas is, by far, the best one can buy here.
It's still abysmal for a driverless system however, which is the thing Tesla seems to be going all in on.
As I've said before, you dont need actual robotaxi reliability to see a HUGE boost to the company. Who in the world would use any other car than a tesla for working as an uber driver, when you are probably only having to touch the pedals or steering wheel 1 or 2 times a day? Insane to do ride hailing in a 'dumb' car.
I'm not sure "uber drivers who haven't already gone EV for fuel savings but WILL because they have to use the pedals less" is as much a company boosting market as you imply.
Who would buy any other car if they drive long distances?
Even EAP 5 years ago was already tremendously better than anything else out there for long highway trips- but again didn't seem to mean people stopped buying other cars (plus, again, this is a pretty small market of people anyway-- average American drives about 40 miles a day.
one engagement every 200 miles versus constantly hands on wheel and feet on pedals. Sometimes even (shudder) changing gears!
I agree with the sentiment that we might see a Tesla ride hailing service with safety drivers in the short term. Not a bad idea. And even if it was revenue-neutral, it means a constant parade of passengers getting to talk to a safety driver who explains how the Tesla is doing 99% of the work. Oh and BTW you can buy one for yourself...
Revenue neutral would be....a pleasant surprise... given the companies that've already had years and years of experience and a lot of volume running a human ride hail service (lyft and uber) have been losing money most of their existence.
People have the right, of course, to deny any existence or significance to the obviously high short interest that TSLA continues to experience. I was simply presenting irrefutable data.
You really weren't though.
You were presenting data by cherry picking a small window that refused to zoom out and recognize short interest is
vastly lower than it has been for most of the history of the company- and then trying to dismiss the actual irrefutable data showing that it was over 20% for more than a decade.... during which Tesla grew like crazy
despite SI over 20% of float
And then pretending that it being at under
4 percent today is some MASSIVE amount.
it's not. irrefutably.
If 3.9% short interest is, today, somehow killing the stock, how do you explain it thriving, including a HIGHER price than today, when SI was well into the double digits?
It's almost like actual financial performance is more much important to the stock price than % of float shorted or something.
Here's the since IPO chart-- with the current SI circled in red at the end.
You looking at that chart, and then claiming that is "high short interest that TSLA continues to experience" is the exact opposite of irrefutable.
Continually dismissing all the actual data debunking your thesis by just saying ok is...not a great look.
BTW-speaking of data
FSD safety data has got to be crushing it beyond this.
The only time Tesla published FSD accident rates (in their impact report) the FSD accident rate was
higher than the AP rate.
This is kind of expected though because accidents are more frequent on city streets than highways (though tend to be more severe on highways due to higher speeds).
