Tesla glory/failure

[Sigmetnow]

...full of high-tech perceived/planned obsolescence...

Whoah.  You can gripe about car reviews not proving future market share superiority (although I tend to disagree), but with Tesla’s Over The Air updates, they are the least obsolescent of any vehicle on the road today.  Even the Computer Hardware for Full Self Driving was designed to be easily swapped out for the upgraded version — for free.

And with a motor and drive train good for a million miles, and battery packs headed in that direction, too, it beats any ICE car, hands down.

[Archimid]

How does this article relate to Tesla Glory/Failure?

I don't even know how to begin answering that question.

[Neven]

How does this article relate to Tesla Glory/Failure?

I don't even know how to begin answering that question.

We already know Tesla produces great luxury cars. They now need to start building affordable cars for the masses, which was the next step in their plan. Maybe after the Model Y.

If there is reduced demand, it may be because there are only so many 40K+ luxury EVs you can sell. Luxury cars will not be enough for Tesla Glory, and so the article tells us nothing.

they are the least obsolescent of any vehicle on the road today.

They are full of stuff that is expensive to repair (when your warranty has run out), because they are a continuation of consumer culture, and hardly innovative in that segment.

Even the Computer Hardware for Full Self Driving was designed to be easily swapped out for the upgraded version — for free.

And then the next upgrade, and the next upgrade, and the next, and the next. None of them free. Perceived obsolescence, as I said.

We need Tesla Glory until Tesla can be replaced by a handful of companies that are even more serious about sustainability (Sono Motors? Lightyear? Maybe a Chinese manufacturer?). Then it can safely fail, because greenifying the system we have, isn't sustainable and it will never be, because it's physically impossible.

[Sigmetnow]

...
If there is reduced demand, it may be because there are only so many 40K+ luxury EVs you can sell. Luxury cars will not be enough for Tesla Glory, and so the article tells us nothing.

Most  people buying the Model 3 are NOT luxury car buyers.  The top 3 Trade-ins are:
BMW 3 Series
Honda Accord
Honda Civic
Nissan Leaf
Toyota Prius

“Since introduction of Model 3 Standard Range and Standard Range Plus, 69% of trade-ins were non-premium vehicles, indicating that Model 3 is demonstrating appeal beyond the premium segment.”
- Tesla 1Q2019 update Letter

The average sale price of a new light vehicle in the U.S. is just over $35k — the Model 3 base price.

Even those for whom $35k is a stretch are willing to go the extra mile to get a Tesla, because it’s just that much better than the alternatives.
The "Tesla Stretch" — Proving Car Buyers Will Pay More For A Tesla Model 3
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/09/the-tesla-stretch-proving-car-buyers-will-pay-more-for-a-tesla-model-3

If upfront cost of 58k are too high for you, here’s another comparison: Over 10 yrs, a #Tesla #Model3 SR for 35k costs about the same as a gas-guzzler that was given to you for FREE!

https://twitter.com/ceo_plus_ch/status/1115305418547519488

Even the Computer Hardware for Full Self Driving was designed to be easily swapped out for the upgraded version — for free.

And then the next upgrade, and the next upgrade, and the next, and the next. None of them free. Perceived obsolescence, as I said.

What hardware upgrade is needed beyond FSD?  None. 
You don’t like paying for vehicle maintenance?  The Tesla ride-sharing network is for you.

They are full of stuff that is expensive to repair (when your warranty has run out), because they are a continuation of consumer culture, and hardly innovative in that segment

We need Tesla Glory until Tesla can be replaced by a handful of companies that are even more serious about sustainability (Sono Motors? Lightyear? Maybe a Chinese manufacturer?). Then it can safely fail, because greenifying the system we have, isn't sustainable and it will never be, because it's physically impossible.

You don’t want a car.  You want a horse.

[Sigmetnow]

Tesla Model S Review And Cost Analysis After 450,000 Miles

Tesloop released a very interesting review and summary of using "eHawk", the 2015 Tesla Model S over 450,000 miles (724,000 km), which is one of the highest mileages globally.

The car was used for 17,000 miles (27,000 km per month) at its peak, constantly using Supercharging as its primary charging method.

After such high mileage, the Model S has a noticeable amount of wear and tear inside and outside, but overall it's not bad and still drives well. ...

https://insideevs.com/reviews/350883/tesla-model-s-review-450000-miles/

[Neven]

Even those for whom $35k is a stretch are willing to go the extra mile to get a Tesla, because it’s just that much better than the alternatives.

I think there's a limit to that target group, never mind the question how large it actually is.

What hardware upgrade is needed beyond FSD?  None.

They'll think of something and then make people believe they need it. That's how it works, and Tesla is not about to change that.

You don’t like paying for vehicle maintenance?  The Tesla ride-sharing network is for you.

You don’t want a car.  You want a horse.

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first, and affordability second. It could probably be done by Tesla, but that's not what Tesla is interested in. Tesla is interested in making money off of Green BAU geeks who want to feel good about themselves, while obeying their consumer culture conditioning at the same time. Hence Model Y, Roadster 2 and the pick-up truck which will have to be better than Rivian, of course.

So, Tesla has to hold out until there are better alternatives. Hopefully, they'll come soon.

[GoSouthYoungins]

...full of high-tech perceived/planned obsolescence...

Whoah.  You can gripe about car reviews not proving future market share superiority (although I tend to disagree), but with Tesla’s Over The Air updates, they are the least obsolescent of any vehicle on the road today.  Even the Computer Hardware for Full Self Driving was designed to be easily swapped out for the upgraded version — for free.

And with a motor and drive train good for a million miles, and battery packs headed in that direction, too, it beats any ICE car, hands down.

All of that "least obsolescent" and million miles stuff sounds great in theory. In reality, more Tesla's are unusable than any other brand sold at the same time. They break down more often, and there is not an infrastructure to repair them, especially cuz Tesla can't afford parts. Although, they are now asking suppliers for 120 day payment terms, so that should help. Hands down.

[GoSouthYoungins]

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first...

Cars are not necessary. Most modern conveniences could remain without individuals driving themselves around daily in thousand kilo vehicles. Biking is to easy to anything within 5 miles. There really is no reason why people need to travel more than 5 miles more than once in a great while.

Anyways, if you are being honest about a sustainable car...

[GoSouthYoungins]

My prediction seems to be shaping up quite nicely: Tesla will be the poster child for this recession.

Specifically Tesla represents a huge number of companies valued in the billions of $, but who lose money every year and who have an upside down balance sheet. (Think Uber, Lyft, WeWork, Pinterest.) In fact, the percentage of companies going public who are unprofitable is the highest it has ever been. This is the result of governments printing money like crazy. And it is going to end very very badly.

Every recession needs a villian. Skilling and Madoff should be proud to welcome Musk to their elite club.

[oren]

Neven, it's the age old Green BAU argument popping up again. You are not representative of most people. Most people don't care much about the environment, but do care about shiny new toys. If these toys help the environment, I call that a good thing. Yeah, these people are conditioned by consumer culture and by lack of education and other factors, but while railing against that didn't get us the whole way off GHGs, giving a shiny new toy that can last a million miles and is cheap to operate, could convince some of these masses to go cleaner on the environment without them caring much about it.
And some people care about the environment but not enough to give up a lot of modern life/consumer culture amenities. It's sad but it's true nevertheless. So while advocating for a simpler lifestyle, it's also quite useful to offer these people partial ways of getting off GHGs, rather than only allowing the purists to go clean.
Eventually economies of scale, widespread charging infrastructure, disappearance of ICE infrastructure, and mass adoption by your neighbors with some peer pressure, will cause EVs to be both affordable and desirable by most people. It will be too little and too slow to save the planet, but it's not as if the other solutions are really fast and have saved us already. No current real solution is good enough, and solutions should be judged by whether they are better than their immediate alternatives. It doesn't mean you need to stop advocating for deeper solutions - it just means that bad or mediocre is preferred over worse. The hated pragmatism.
Tesla's glory is currently decided by people who can afford shiny new toys. Some of them buy a Tesla for the right reasons, some for the wrong reasons, and some stick with their gas guzzlers. So if Tesla stacks up against expensive and shiny gas guzzlers, this helps improve its chances for glory.

[GoSouthYoungins]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-23/once-bullish-tesla-stock-analyst-reveals-his-inner-bear

Jonas also mused on Tesla perhaps being acquired, although he sounded skeptical about recently revived talk of Apple Inc. swooping in. Instead, he sketched out a scenario whereby Musk might somehow borrow billions of dollars against his other, privately held business Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, and use that to cobble together a take-private deal for the electric-vehicle maker. Two things to note there. One, this would be no $420 deal, but sub-$200 by Jonas’ reckoning. Second, he called this his “fantasy case.”

It really is amusing that the idea is being floated by "serious" analysts that Musk might be able once again say, "don't worry that this company is failing...my other failing company will acquire it." Hahahaha.

It is like a turducken where the chicken had avian flu, but don't worry it is going inside a duck which also had avian flu, but don't worry about that either because it will all go inside a turkey...which also had avian flu. Spatesolar we will call it.

[Sigmetnow]

Even those for whom $35k is a stretch are willing to go the extra mile to get a Tesla, because it’s just that much better than the alternatives.

I think there's a limit to that target group, never mind the question how large it actually is.

Musk has said a $25k Tesla should be available in about 3 years.  There are other cheaper EVs out there, and there will be more in the coming years — but there will be a limit to their capabilities, because of their limitation in price.  That’s the way things work today.

What hardware upgrade is needed beyond FSD?  None.

They'll think of something and then make people believe they need it. That's how it works, and Tesla is not about to change that.

You don’t like paying for vehicle maintenance?  The Tesla ride-sharing network is for you.

You don’t want a car.  You want a horse.

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first, and affordability second. It could probably be done by Tesla, but that's not what Tesla is interested in. Tesla is interested in making money off of Green BAU geeks who want to feel good about themselves, while obeying their consumer culture conditioning at the same time. Hence Model Y, Roadster 2 and the pick-up truck which will have to be better than Rivian, of course.

So, Tesla has to hold out until there are better alternatives. Hopefully, they'll come soon.

Neven, the Forum doesn’t run on Windows 98.  Progress happens, and that’s OK.  Sometimes, it really is given away for free.  Today, people can choose a zero emission vehicle that continually improves via OTA updates.  All other cars begin to depreciate the moment you drive it off the dealer’s lot.

I wish you would read Musk’s Master Plan 1 & 2 again.  There is no carmaker more driven to sustainability than Tesla.  Years ago, Musk put his entire personal fortune into keeping that dream alive.  And arguably, in doing that he changed an entire industry.

Today, it takes much more than any one person’s wealth to make that happen.  It takes a universe of customers willing to chip in their own money.  Tesla succeeded, and will continue to succeed, because their cars are better than most.

Progress doesn’t happen automatically; it takes time, and hard work, and it requires money.  Making and selling more expensive cars, in order to fund less expensive cars in the future, is a sustainable way to do business.

2006:  https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me

2016:  https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux

[zizek]

...full of high-tech perceived/planned obsolescence...

Whoah.  You can gripe about car reviews not proving future market share superiority (although I tend to disagree), but with Tesla’s Over The Air updates, they are the least obsolescent of any vehicle on the road today.  Even the Computer Hardware for Full Self Driving was designed to be easily swapped out for the upgraded version — for free.

And with a motor and drive train good for a million miles, and battery packs headed in that direction, too, it beats any ICE car, hands down.

The motor and drive train are not good for a million miles. There is a big difference between laboratory testing and practical implementation. Every single manufacturer can produce similar results.....

Tesla even had problems with their drive trains!

a new analysis of data provided to Plug-In America by 327 owners of early Tesla Model S cars suggests that as many as two-thirds of those early Model S drivetrains will need to be replaced within 60,000 miles.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101153_two-thirds-of-earliest-tesla-drive-trains-to-fail-Now

And lost their high Consumer Reports because of reliability!!!!

Owners report problems with paint, trim, and electronics in Consumer Reports' survey

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/tesla-model-3-loses-cr-recommendation-over-reliability-issues/


------

least obsolescent?!?! Because of..... Software!?!?!?! I do work similar to an industrial mechanic, I fix my own cars/motorcycles, and I help at a non-profit where I fix tools for the community.  There has never been a situation where software would have fixed anything, let alone something designed for obsolescence. And do you think that "traditional car manufacturers" don't use software? Like, do you even know how a modern ICE car operates? The entire fuel system is mapped through software, which can be updated!!!!!!!

I wish you would read Musk’s Master Plan 1 & 2 again.  There is no carmaker more driven to sustainability than Tesla.  Years ago, Musk put his entire personal fortune into keeping that dream alive.  And arguably, in doing that he changed an entire industry.

Musk flies around in his own personal private jet. Weird that someone who scarified his personal fortune still lives in a mansion(s)....




How much money have you lost on Tesla Stock?

[magnamentis]

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first...

Cars are not necessary. Most modern conveniences could remain without individuals driving themselves around daily in thousand kilo vehicles. Biking is to easy to anything within 5 miles. There really is no reason why people need to travel more than 5 miles more than once in a great while.

Anyways, if you are being honest about a sustainable car...

but the trees       [just kidding]

[GoSouthYoungins]

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first...

Cars are not necessary. Most modern conveniences could remain without individuals driving themselves around daily in thousand kilo vehicles. Biking is to easy to anything within 5 miles. There really is no reason why people need to travel more than 5 miles more than once in a great while.

Anyways, if you are being honest about a sustainable car...

but the trees       [just kidding]

Only made with wood from trees that met natural deaths. Of course.

[GoSouthYoungins]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-24/not-square-spare-tesla-cost-cuts-wipes-toilet-paper-some-facilities

https://electrek.co/2019/05/24/tesla-cost-cutting-effort-toilet-paper/

Maybe Musk's next project will be to make toilet paper 10X more effective. And green.

[Sigmetnow]

Matthias Fritz (@mattaut88) 5/23/19, 9:26 AM
Tesla dominating the new market in austria.

https://twitter.com/mattaut88/status/1131552039077588992
Image below.

[SteveMDFP]

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first, and affordability second. It could probably be done by Tesla, but that's not what Tesla is interested in.

I wouldn't be so sure.  A car that can go 400k miles with a low cost/mile is pretty sustainable.
 Any new manufacturer is going to focus first on producing in  volume, then in efficiency of production, and only then on supplying parts and repair.  It makes no financial sense to focus on parts and repair when there isn't much of a fleet out in the world to supply parts and repair services for. 

Early adopters of new tech need to be aware of this.  Cost-conscious, slow-adopters can expect better supply of parts and repair services.   So far, I don't see Tesla as being terribly far behind the requisite curve.

[zizek]

I wouldn't be so sure.  A car that can go 400k miles with a low cost/mile is pretty sustainable.

Building 7.5 billion cars is not sustainable jesus christ why is this so difficult to understand.

[NeilT]

No, I want a car where sustainability comes first, and affordability second. It could probably be done by Tesla, but that's not what Tesla is interested in. Tesla is interested in making money off of Green BAU geeks who want to feel good about themselves, while obeying their consumer culture conditioning at the same time. Hence Model Y, Roadster 2 and the pick-up truck which will have to be better than Rivian, of course.

Neven there never has (and probably never will be), a vehicle where sustainability comes first.  Mainly because nobody but the ultra climate aware geeks would ever be willing to pay for it.

If you produce a product that the mass market will never buy, then you might as well not bother in the first place, as all you did was waste more resources for no gain.

In the ranks of "most sustainable", the Model S comes right behind 3 hybrids.  At least in that ranking.

It is a perfect goal.  But we live in an imperfect world.

I watch the rise of EV models here in France.  Renault, Peugeot, Citroen.  These vehicles are so limited and so small that they fit the role of 2nd or even 3rd vehicle for people who don't really want to change their lives but want to feel they are "doing some good".  The main vehicle manufacturers are just playing with the trend.  Tesla?  They have bet the bank, Tesla owners are changing their main vehicle.  Many for the flash, the head turning and the reduction in fuel costs.

I don't see Tesla being pushed by the incumbents. Rather it is totally the other way around.  Tesla is driving the competition to step up.  The end result will be good for all of us, but let us never believe that the VAG's of this world would have ever done a Tesla without regulation and the very real threat of a Tesla as a top 3 vehicle manufacturer world wide.

[NeilT]

least obsolescent?!?! Because of..... Software!?!?!?! I do work similar to an industrial mechanic, I fix my own cars/motorcycles, and I help at a non-profit where I fix tools for the community.  There has never been a situation where software would have fixed anything, let alone something designed for obsolescence. And do you think that "traditional car manufacturers" don't use software? Like, do you even know how a modern ICE car operates? The entire fuel system is mapped through software, which can be updated!!!!!!!

Modern engines have at least 35 ASICS monitoring and managing the engine.  However the design performance is governed by the physical engineering which creates the stresses and strains on the engine.  The "software" can do little to tune that and save the engine.

On an EV, the entire drivetrain from the battery power source to the actual drive power output is governed and monitored by an array of sensors and ASICS all controlled by a very powerful, reprogrammable, CPU.  The comparison is facile.  It is entirely possible for a Tesla to have a software update that changes the power profile so that bearing damaging vibration does not happen in many acceleration profiles.

On an ICE, the way it burns fuel is governed by physical things like chamber shape, cam profiles and valve ports.  Software can only tune the timing and volume of fuel injected.  Modern vehicles can (and do), monitor oil quality in the engine and suggest changing it.  Vital for the ICE as the oil comes into contact with some of the burning gasses.  The Tesla electrical drivetrain is sealed and minimal maintenance.

I've been driven by a recovery truck with 1m KM on it and my son has been in a Peugeot 406 diesel taxi with 750,000 miles on it.  The truck was original.  The taxi had to have the gearbox changed every 2 years, although the engine was original and had not been rebuilt.

If you want to get into the serious parts of just why an EV would be good for 1m miles, you have to look at much more.  Automatic gearboxes require an oil which can be used to actuate the brake bands on the epicyclic gearbox, it is too thin to provide the level of protection required.  Manual gearboxes have moving gear cogs and the synchromesh units are designed to wear instead of the cog teeth.

Then there is the difference between a smooth and constantly accelerating EV motor and the constant on/off profile of an ICE which must work through the gears at radically changing torque values in order to get the vehicle moving and keep it moving.

So, yes, SOFTWARE, in an EV, can make a fundamental difference in the longevity of the vehicle.  Orders of magnitude more than it does in an ICE.

I was a mechanic, I am in IT.  I live both worlds.  Tesla is correct about their claims.

[NeilT]

It really is amusing that the idea is being floated by "serious" analysts that Musk might be able once again say, "don't worry that this company is failing...my other failing company will acquire it." Hahahaha.

Define failing?  Stock market valuation being ravaged by Bears?  Not mine.

Tesla is making cars at a profit.  In fact, in Q1, it made a profit, the profit was just less than the debt it had to pay back at that time.

Tesla borrowed from the markets in order to ensure that 2019 would not face any serious cash liquidity problems that might cripple operations.  Taking the pressure off.

So, failing?  Well we'll have to see about the Q2 results before we can talk any more about that and we have a while to go until then.

However, let's have a thought for a second.  There are more ways to burn shorts than Twitter.  The SEC cannot complain about internal memo's which are "leaked".  This is a private internal communication from the CEO to the workforce.  It doesn't even have to be accurate, no company could face that scrutiny.

So Musk can stay off Twitter and drag the markets around via internal memo's which are "leaked".  These are not formal communications to either shareholders or the government.  They are aspirational team communication tools.

Think about it for a while.  Whoops, sorry, I forgot, the possibility that Tesla might actually continue making a profit doesn't filter through...

[crandles]

Tesla is making cars at a profit.  In fact, in Q1, it made a profit, the profit was just less than the debt it had to pay back at that time.

Just not true. Paying back debt does not affect profit, just removes a liability from the balance sheet. There was a big loss in Q1, unaffected by debt repayment.

[Sigmetnow]

The “Tesla Effect”

Tesla Driver (@M_xalher) 5/24/19, 4:25 PM
Norway’s main Mercedes importer Bertel O. Steen to let almost 10% of staff go as sales “have largely collapsed”. 
Journalist asks if this is a “Kodak moment”.
Sales were down 40% in 2018.
So far in 2019 they are down “a further 50%”.

https://twitter.com/m_xalher/status/1132019931409715201
Image below.

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 5/25/19, 3:23 AM
Given how many countries are limiting or setting an end date for combustion engine cars, their future resale value cars will be low. Consumers are starting to realize this.
< Especially with lack of upgradability concerning FSD...
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 5/25/19, 3:52 AM
Exactly. A car being electric & upgradable to full self-driving maximizes future resale value.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132192810088579072

[zizek]

least obsolescent?!?! Because of..... Software!?!?!?! I do work similar to an industrial mechanic, I fix my own cars/motorcycles, and I help at a non-profit where I fix tools for the community.  There has never been a situation where software would have fixed anything, let alone something designed for obsolescence. And do you think that "traditional car manufacturers" don't use software? Like, do you even know how a modern ICE car operates? The entire fuel system is mapped through software, which can be updated!!!!!!!

Modern engines have at least 35 ASICS monitoring and managing the engine.  However the design performance is governed by the physical engineering which creates the stresses and strains on the engine.  The "software" can do little to tune that and save the engine.

On an EV, the entire drivetrain from the battery power source to the actual drive power output is governed and monitored by an array of sensors and ASICS all controlled by a very powerful, reprogrammable, CPU.  The comparison is facile.  It is entirely possible for a Tesla to have a software update that changes the power profile so that bearing damaging vibration does not happen in many acceleration profiles.

On an ICE, the way it burns fuel is governed by physical things like chamber shape, cam profiles and valve ports.  Software can only tune the timing and volume of fuel injected.  Modern vehicles can (and do), monitor oil quality in the engine and suggest changing it.  Vital for the ICE as the oil comes into contact with some of the burning gasses.  The Tesla electrical drivetrain is sealed and minimal maintenance.

I've been driven by a recovery truck with 1m KM on it and my son has been in a Peugeot 406 diesel taxi with 750,000 miles on it.  The truck was original.  The taxi had to have the gearbox changed every 2 years, although the engine was original and had not been rebuilt.

If you want to get into the serious parts of just why an EV would be good for 1m miles, you have to look at much more.  Automatic gearboxes require an oil which can be used to actuate the brake bands on the epicyclic gearbox, it is too thin to provide the level of protection required.  Manual gearboxes have moving gear cogs and the synchromesh units are designed to wear instead of the cog teeth.

Then there is the difference between a smooth and constantly accelerating EV motor and the constant on/off profile of an ICE which must work through the gears at radically changing torque values in order to get the vehicle moving and keep it moving.

So, yes, SOFTWARE, in an EV, can make a fundamental difference in the longevity of the vehicle.  Orders of magnitude more than it does in an ICE.

I was a mechanic, I am in IT.  I live both worlds.  Tesla is correct about their claims.

Neil.... It would be ridiculous for me to argue against the inherent mechanical benefits of an electric power train over combustion.  But that's not what I was doing. Sigmetnow specifically stated that Tesla's vehicles were the least obsolescence because of over-the-air software updates. And you responded with a bunch of mechanical benefits of EV powertrains, which I agree with, but it is not what we are discussing. The only software related point you made was changing the profile of the motor to prevent vibration damage....Which.... Surprise surprise, same thing happens with combustion engines. vibration analysis (design and in the field) is a big deal for my line of work.

I don't even think over-the-air updates are a bad thing. But to suggest that Tesla's are in a class of their own because of the updates is completely unfounded. The only good examples of Tesla using over-the-air updates is when they tried to fix their existing software failures. Like spontaneously combusting, decapitating their driver, crashing into firetrucks, and the popular "bricking".  Things that should have been figured out in the early design stage..... That's why other car manufacturers don't need to use over-the-air updates, because they build cars that actually work out of the gate (for the most part, I guess).  Good Manufacturing Practices. Unlike Tesla, who relies on over-the-air updates because they've adopted the fast and loose development style of Silicon Valley: "let's rush it out, and fix it later".  That works fine for video games, but not safety critical applications like vehicles.

I know you are super smart Neil. And I know that you desperately want every word that drips out of your mouth taken seriously and factually. But unfortunately, more often than not, you are wrong. I posted evidence of reliability issues in Tesla's, you replied with a bunch of words trying to sound smart. It's meaningless. Try better next time please. 

[b_lumenkraft]

[Is] this is a “Kodak moment?

Yes.

[zizek]

Everyone please read this entire speech. Especially you Neil.

<It was a long read, hence the late approval. It's not on-topic either (social media thread or some such would be better), but I'll let it stand; N.>

I am only a small minnow in the technology ocean, but since it is my natural habitat, I want to make an effort to describe it to you.

As computer programmers, our formative intellectual experience is working with deterministic systems that have been designed by other human beings. These can be very complex, but the complexity is not the kind we find in the natural world. It is ultimately always tractable. Find the right abstractions, and the puzzle box opens before you.

The feeling of competence, control and delight in discovering a clever twist that solves a difficult problem is what makes being a computer programmer sometimes enjoyable.

But as anyone who's worked with tech people knows, this intellectual background can also lead to arrogance. People who excel at software design become convinced that they have a unique ability to understand any kind of system at all, from first principles, without prior training, thanks to their superior powers of analysis. Success in the artificially constructed world of software design promotes a dangerous confidence.

Today we are embarked on a great project to make computers a part of everyday life. As Marc Andreessen memorably frames it, "software is eating the world". And those of us writing the software expect to be greeted as liberators.

Our intentions are simple and clear. First we will instrument, then we will analyze, then we will optimize. And you will thank us.

But the real world is a stubborn place. It is complex in ways that resist abstraction and modeling. It notices and reacts to our attempts to affect it. Nor can we hope to examine it objectively from the outside, any more than we can step out of our own skin.

The connected world we're building may resemble a computer system, but really it's just the regular old world from before, with a bunch of microphones and keyboards and flat screens sticking out of it. And it has the same old problems.

Approaching the world as a software problem is a category error that has led us into some terrible habits of mind.

BAD MENTAL HABITS

First, programmers are trained to seek maximal and global solutions. Why solve a specific problem in one place when you can fix the general problem for everybody, and for all time? We don't think of this as hubris, but as a laudable economy of effort. And the startup funding culture of big risk, big reward encourages this grandiose mode of thinking. There is powerful social pressure to avoid incremental change, particularly any change that would require working with people outside tech and treating them as intellectual equals.

Second, treating the world as a software project gives us a rationale for being selfish. The old adage has it that if you are given ten minutes to cut down a tree, you should spend the first five sharpening your axe. We are used to the idea of bootstrapping ourselves into a position of maximum leverage before tackling a problem.

In the real world, this has led to a pathology where the tech sector maximizes its own comfort. You don't have to go far to see this. Hop on BART after the conference and take a look at Oakland, or take a stroll through downtown San Francisco and try to persuade yourself you're in the heart of a boom that has lasted for forty years. You'll see a residential theme park for tech workers, surrounded by areas of poverty and misery that have seen no benefit and ample harm from our presence. We pretend that by maximizing our convenience and productivity, we're hastening the day when we finally make life better for all those other people.

Third, treating the world as software promotes fantasies of control. And the best kind of control is control without responsibility. Our unique position as authors of software used by millions gives us power, but we don't accept that this should make us accountable. We're programmers—who else is going to write the software that runs the world? To put it plainly, we are surprised that people seem to get mad at us for trying to help.

Fortunately we are smart people and have found a way out of this predicament. Instead of relying on algorithms, which we can be accused of manipulating for our benefit, we have turned to machine learning, an ingenious way of disclaiming responsibility for anything. Machine learning is like money laundering for bias. It's a clean, mathematical apparatus that gives the status quo the aura of logical inevitability. The numbers don't lie.

Of course, people obsessed with control have to eventually confront the fact of their own extinction. The response of the tech world to death has been enthusiastic. We are going to fix it. Google Ventures, for example, is seriously funding research into immortality. Their head VC will call you a "deathist" for pointing out that this is delusional.

Such fantasies of control come with a dark side. Witness the current anxieties about an artificial superintelligence, or Elon Musk's apparently sincere belief that we're living in a simulation. For a computer programmer, that's the ultimate loss of control. Instead of writing the software, you are the software.

We obsess over these fake problems while creating some real ones.

In our attempt to feed the world to software, techies have built the greatest surveillance apparatus the world has ever seen. Unlike earlier efforts, this one is fully mechanized and in a large sense autonomous. Its power is latent, lying in the vast amounts of permanently stored personal data about entire populations.

We started out collecting this information by accident, as part of our project to automate everything, but soon realized that it had economic value. We could use it to make the process self-funding. And so mechanized surveillance has become the economic basis of the modern tech industry.

SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM

Surveillance capitalism has some of the features of a zero-sum game. The actual value of the data collected is not clear, but it is definitely an advantage to collect more than your rivals do. Because human beings develop an immune response to new forms of tracking and manipulation, the only way to stay successful is to keep finding novel ways to peer into people's private lives. And because much of the surveillance economy is funded by speculators, there is an incentive to try flashy things that will capture the speculators' imagination, and attract their money.

This creates a ratcheting effect where the behavior of ever more people is tracked ever more closely, and the collected information retained, in the hopes that further dollars can be squeezed out of it.

Just like industrialized manufacturing changed the relationship between labor and capital, surveillance capitalism is changing the relationship between private citizens and the entities doing the tracking. Our old ideas about individual privacy and consent no longer hold in a world where personal data is harvested on an industrial scale.

Those who benefit from the death of privacy attempt to frame our subjugation in terms of freedom, just like early factory owners talked about the sanctity of contract law. They insisted that a worker should have the right to agree to anything, from sixteen-hour days to unsafe working conditions, as if factory owners and workers were on an equal footing.

Companies that perform surveillance are attempting the same mental trick. They assert that we freely share our data in return for valuable services. But opting out of surveillance capitalism is like opting out of electricity, or cooked foods—you are free to do it in theory. In practice, it will upend your life.

Many of you had to obtain a US visa to attend this conference. The customs service announced yesterday it wants to start asking people for their social media profiles. Imagine trying to attend your next conference without a LinkedIn profile, and explaining to the American authorities why you are so suspiciously off the grid.

The reality is, opting out of surveillance capitalism means opting out of much of modern life.

We're used to talking about the private and public sector in the real economy, but in the surveillance economy this boundary doesn't exist. Much of the day-to-day work of surveillance is done by telecommunications firms, which have a close relationship with government. The techniques and software of surveillance are freely shared between practitioners on both sides. All of the major players in the surveillance economy cooperate with their own country's intelligence agencies, and are spied on (very effectively) by all the others.

As a technologist, this state of affairs gives me the feeling of living in a forest that is filling up with dry, dead wood. The very personal, very potent information we're gathering about people never goes away, only accumulates. I don't want to see the fire come, but at the same time, I can't figure out a way to persuade other people of the great danger.

So I try to spin scenarios.

THE INEVITABLE LIST OF SCARY SCENARIOS

One of the candidates running for President this year has promised to deport eleven million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, as well as block Muslims from entering the country altogether. Try to imagine this policy enacted using the tools of modern technology. The FBI would subpoena Facebook for information on every user born abroad. Email and phone conversations would be monitored to check for the use of Arabic or Spanish, and sentiment analysis applied to see if the participants sounded "nervous". Social networks, phone metadata, and cell phone tracking would lead police to nests of hiding immigrants.

We could do a really good job deporting people if we put our minds to it.

Or consider the other candidate running for President, the one we consider the sane alternative, who has been a longtime promoter of a system of extrajudicial murder that uses blanket surveillance of cell phone traffic, email, and social media to create lists of people to be tracked and killed with autonomous aircraft. The system presumably includes points of human control (we don't know because it's secret), but there's no reason in principle it could not be automated. Get into the wrong person's car in Yemen, and you lose your life.

That this toolchain for eliminating enemies of the state is only allowed to operate in poor, remote places is a comfort to those of us who live elsewhere, but you can imagine scenarios where a mass panic would broaden its scope.

Or imagine what the British surveillance state, already the worst in Europe, is going to look like in two years, when it's no longer bound by the protections of European law, and economic crisis has driven the country further into xenophobia.

Or take an example from my home country, Poland. Abortion has been illegal in Poland for some time, but the governing party wants to tighten restrictions on abortion by investigating every miscarriage as a potential crime. Women will basically be murder suspects if they lose their baby. Imagine government agents combing your Twitter account, fitness tracker logs, credit card receipts and private communications for signs of potential pregnancy, with the results reported to the police to proactively protect your unborn baby.

We tend to imagine dystopian scenarios as one where a repressive government uses technology against its people. But what scares me in these scenarios is that each one would have broad social support, possibly majority support. Democratic societies sometimes adopt terrible policies.

When we talk about the moral economy of tech, we must confront the fact that we have created a powerful tool of social control. Those who run the surveillance apparatus understand its capabilities in a way the average citizen does not. My greatest fear is seeing the full might of the surveillance apparatus unleashed against a despised minority, in a democratic country.

What we've done as technologists is leave a loaded gun lying around, in the hopes that no one will ever pick it up and use it.

CONCLUSION

The first step towards a better tech economy is humility and recognition of limits. It's time to hold technology politically accountable for its promises. I am very suspicious of attempts to change the world that can't first work on a local scale. If after decades we can't improve quality of life in places where the tech élite actually lives, why would we possibly make life better anywhere else?

We should not listen to people who promise to make Mars safe for human habitation, until we have seen them make Oakland safe for human habitation. We should be skeptical of promises to revolutionize transportation from people who can't fix BART, or have never taken BART. And if Google offers to make us immortal, we should check first to make sure we'll have someplace to live.

Techies will complain that trivial problems of life in the Bay Area are hard because they involve politics. But they should involve politics. Politics is the thing we do to keep ourselves from murdering each other. In a world where everyone uses computers and software, we need to exercise democratic control over that software.

Second, the surveillance economy is way too dangerous. Even if you trust everyone spying on you right now, the data they're collecting will eventually be stolen or bought by people who scare you. We have no ability to secure large data collections over time.

The goal should be not to make the apparatus of surveillance politically accountable (though that is a great goal), but to dismantle it. Just like we don't let countries build reactors that produce plutonium, no matter how sincere their promises not to misuse it, we should not allow people to create and indefinitely store databases of personal information. The risks are too high.

I think a workable compromise will be to allow all kinds of surveillance, but limit what anyone is allowed to store or sell.

More broadly, we have to stop treating computer technology as something unprecedented in human history. Not every year is Year Zero. This is not the first time an enthusiastic group of nerds has decided to treat the rest of the world as a science experiment. Earlier attempts to create a rationalist Utopia failed for interesting reasons, and since we bought those lessons at a great price, it would be a shame not to learn them.

There is also prior art in attempts at achieving immortality, limitless wealth, and Galactic domination. We even know what happens if you try to keep dossiers on an entire country.

If we're going to try all these things again, let's at least learn from our past, so we can fail in interesting new ways, instead of failing in the same exasperating ways as last time.

https://idlewords.com/talks/sase_panel.htm

[GoSouthYoungins]

Define failing?

Continuously losing money.

Tesla is making cars at a profit.  In fact, in Q1, it made a profit, the profit was just less than the debt it had to pay back at that time.

No. Not even close. I don't know how you can claim to be a veteran/titan of corporate industry and not understand the basics of a financial statement, but don't worry..I'm here to help and I'll make the lesson grammar school simple.

Tesla's reported Q1:

Gross Profit $565m (12% margin)

-------------------------------------

Selling, General, Administrative $704m
Research and Development       $340m

-------------------------------------

Loss $479m

Most people don't think of losing over $5 million a day as profitable.

[GoSouthYoungins]

A car that can go 400k miles with a low cost/mile is pretty sustainable.

A car that can go 400K miles with a low cost/mile DOES NOT EXIST. But ya, I guess that would be kinda pretty sorta sustainable from a certain perspective.

A coal power plant is pretty green if the coal is mined sustainably and the smoke stacks don't emit anything.

[GoSouthYoungins]

It can be easy to get distracted on this thread by all the propaganda about software updates selling cars in norway or austria. Meanwhile the simple reality is that Tesla loses money rapidly and consistently.

Annual loses in Millions of US Dollars:

2015: 716
2016: 645
2017: 1606
2018: 252
2019: 479 (thru Q1; 1916 annualized)

Solar City was the same way:

2012: 91
2013: 149
2014: 335
2015: 648
2016: 594 (thru Q3; 792 annualized)


Talking about a Musk company and profitability just does not make sense. The private companies also bleed money. SpaceX, Boring, Neuralink.

Musk is a genius. Not for innovation anything, but for convincing other people to give him money so he can light it on fire. This is the problem with a fiat money system where "real" money can just be loaned into existence.

[Sigmetnow]

Mase Goslin (@masegoslin) 5/22/19, 4:12 PM
Was checking out the @InsideEVs data and was curious to see it in a moving bar chart so I threw this together. Running total of US plugin sales since 2012. Amazing how fast and far #tesla has come. ... https://twitter.com/masegoslin/status/1131291875346792448

Edit:  InsideEVs has a silent version here:
https://insideevs.com/news/351297/u-s-electric-car-sales-moving-chart/

But this one has GOT music!  https://twitter.com/mintotsai/status/1131929301723566080
Image below, but way-cool animation at the links.

[Archimid]

Tesla Dominates Sales Charts In California: Model 3 Is #3 Overall

https://insideevs.com/news/351285/tesla-dominates-sales-charts-california/

Honda Civic - 18,728
Toyota Camry - 15,891
Tesla Model 3 - 15,805
Honda Accord - 14,300
Toyota Corolla - 14,075

 And clear winner in terms of revenue:



https://twitter.com/kerooke/status/1132278818192920578

[magnamentis]

sales and market shares don't matter as long as they are achieved with losing money.

tesla glory can only happen with profits and fail will inevitably happen with permanent losses which up to this day is the case.

all the rest is propaganda, hence blahblah.... not even on topic because there is no direct relation between market share sales and profit. the only way profits can be made is once the costs are lower than the revenues.

all the nice links that are so important for some will never outweigh the correct unlinked reasoning.
it's almost like the catholic church where procedures have become more important than content.

[Sigmetnow]

sales and market shares don't matter as long as they are achieved with losing money.
...

You can’t make a profit if you don’t have sales.  Which OEM’s are experiencing, to their chagrin.

Edit:

Tesla New York (@TeslaNY) 5/24/19, 5:31 PM
#Nissan's credit rating downgraded by #Moody's over weak U.S. sales  “Hit by former Chairman Carlos Ghosn's arrest ... 45% plunge in annual operating profit in year ending March, & forecast a 28% drop in profit this fiscal year.” …  https://t.co/mPGYMfqNfP 

https://twitter.com/teslany/status/1132036379385450503

[Sigmetnow]

umop ap!sdn (@marshgre) 5/23/19, 6:11 PM
Dear @elonmusk,
I have just had the opportunity to drive a Model 3 for the first time.
Every other car I have ever driven sucks now.
Thank you.

https://twitter.com/marshgre/status/1131684159754313728

——
BMW Shareholders Concerned Over Tesla's Advantage

The premium automakers also have been threatened by the growth of Tesla. At BMW’s recent annual shareholders meeting, CEO Kreuger was criticized for his caution when expanding BMW’s electric-car range.

https://insideevs.com/news/351389/bmw-shareholders-concerned-tesla-advantage/amp/

——
Norway and the Netherlands, which account for about 50% of European Tesla deliveries so far, are seeing roughly twice as many deliveries in Q2 as Q1, so far.

Alp Soycengiz (@Alpsoy66) 5/22/19, 11:37 AM
In Both countries -together roughly 50% of total european deliveries so far- deliveries in Q2 r roughly twice as much as Q1 qtd. due to less number of ship schedules, quarter end is expected to be less skewed. There is significant increase of modelx sales in Norway

https://twitter.com/alpsoy66/status/1131222457455710208
Graphs with delivery numbers and ship arrivals for both countries at the link.

—-

Kelvin Yang (@KelvinYang7) 5/24/19, 4:43 PM
Panasonic is building a 30GWh battery factory in Jiang Yin, East China and nobody talks about it.
https://twitter.com/kelvinyang7/status/1132024436113252360
- Rumor suggest Tesla ordered 20GWh by 2020. Cylindrical 2170.
- EV mass production news aren't real unless cell factory being built at least 1 year earlier
- A photo from contract signing ceremony. Note Panasonic is in disguise…

[magnamentis]

sales and market shares don't matter as long as they are achieved with losing money.
...

You can’t make a profit if you don’t have sales.  Which OEM’s are experiencing, to their chagrin.

Edit:

Tesla New York (@TeslaNY) 5/24/19, 5:31 PM
#Nissan's credit rating downgraded by #Moody's over weak U.S. sales  “Hit by former Chairman Carlos Ghosn's arrest ... 45% plunge in annual operating profit in year ending March, & forecast a 28% drop in profit this fiscal year.” …  https://t.co/mPGYMfqNfP 

https://twitter.com/teslany/status/1132036379385450503

that does not negate my point and you know it and if we really wanna go there, there are not only few companies that make more profit in other fields than there ore business. so impossible is definitely not the right term.

however, we talk about fail or glory and you know why i think we're looking at a fail, it's because of management style and trying to go against basic economic rules and if you sell half the cars like tesla does but calculate growth and all other parameters well, you can make a profit.

there are small manufacturers who sell a few cars only or a few hundred and are profitable. hence again, impossible is not true, not much else can be said.

don't forget that chrysler and GM were selling cars in millions and filed at the end of the last decade.

so i think proof that sales mean not much (not everything) is there and proof that small number sales when managed well can be profitable is there as well.

[Sigmetnow]

Mase Goslin (@masegoslin) 5/22/19, 4:12 PM
Was checking out the @InsideEVs data and was curious to see it in a moving bar chart so I threw this together. Running total of US plugin sales since 2012. Amazing how fast and far #tesla has come. ... https://twitter.com/masegoslin/status/1131291875346792448

Edit:  InsideEVs has a silent version here:
https://insideevs.com/news/351297/u-s-electric-car-sales-moving-chart/

But this one has GOT music!  https://twitter.com/mintotsai/status/1131929301723566080
Image below, but way-cool animation at the links.

New version of the data animation, this time by Brand.  Direct links for non-Twitter users below.

Mase Goslin (@masegoslin) 5/25/19, 4:53 PM
Some have been requesting this by brand instead of by model. Also sped up the animation. ...

https://twitter.com/masegoslin/status/1132389324140343297
New GIF at the link — by brand.

US Plug In EV Sales 2012 - Present | Flourish
Direct link to the By Brand visualization:
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/381024/

Direct link to By Model visualization: 
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/374245/

[Sigmetnow]

Rumors:

Alex (@alex_avoigt) 5/24/19, 8:43 AM
1/ A Tesla employee in Germany told me today he drove 45 minutes in a "special area" with Full Self Driving FSD and is completely blown away how good, reliable and flawless the system works.
"I did not expect that" he said. He worked 19 years for Audi or BMW & since a year for Tesla.
https://twitter.com/alex_avoigt/status/1131903437380247554
2/ Tesla develops together with a Canadian company solid state batteries he continued.
Expect huge further innovation leaps as well as more range & faster charging.
Maxwell technology will likely not be ready yet but once used clearly initiate another innovation cycle.
3/ The Roadster 2 will be launched in 2 different versions
Pickup truck will be at the price point of the Model 3 and officially called Model P

—-
Not rumor:  Tesla’s competition trying to shore up their strained finances.
Fiat Chrysler and Renault are in advanced talks to merge the automakers

   •   Sources say the talks, which have been happening over the last several weeks, have picked up speed in recent days and could lead to an announcement regarding a merger or partnership as soon as tomorrow.
   •   The CEOs of both automakers have made it clear they are open to partnerships with other automakers that would give them the economies of scale to further cut costs both in terms of manufacturing as well as in developing vehicles.
   •   A partnership between Fiat Chrysler and Renault would also help the automakers pool resources for the development of electric and autonomous vehicles. ...

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/05/26/fiat-chrysler-and-renault-are-in-advanced-talks-to-merge-the-automakers.html

[rboyd]

$TESLA broke through the $200 barrier to close at $190. Two points of price support just below the current price and at $150. With a big gap between the moving average and a quite oversold level, there could be a bounce back to $200 (or the moving average) from anywhere between here and $150. Then again, sometimes share prices just keep getting more and more oversold as they drop like a rock.

Longer-term the chart looks awful, so if it just rallies back to $200 (or perhaps higher to the moving average) that will just be getting ready for the next big plunge below $150 and much, much lower. At least Blackberry was profitable for quite a while, this one will go down in the history books to mark the ridiculousness of the bubble (with Uber and Lyft probably). I see that the press is now starting to fully turn on the company (lots of negative stories about the hyperloop bullshit and the implosion of the solar company and the sudden cost cutting measures), so this could get very bad, very fast - accelerated by any Musk equity-backed loan unwinds.

It possibly gets bought out for a few dollars a share for the technology - although the Chinese manufacturers and others will be rapidly reducing the value of that technology.

Very sad for the US, as they have given away the EV leadership completely to the Chinese (helped by the stubborn Germans).

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla/charts

[GoSouthYoungins]

It possibly gets bought out for a few dollars a share for the technology...

What technology? Genuinely curious what tech Tesla has that ppl think is valuable to other companies.

The tech question aside, I have to say that I think there is almost no chance of a low dollar buyout. The balance sheet is too upside down. The accounts payable is larger than combined accounts receivable and cash. There is $10B of bonds outstanding. And huge litigation risk and warranty liabilities. No one will want to take on the risk and debt to get to some theoretical tech (maybe it actually exist, but I don't know what it is). Any piece of the company of value will likely get bought on the super cheaper during auction.

[Archimid]

What technology? Genuinely curious what tech Tesla has that ppl think is valuable to other companies.

I refer this as evidence to Neven that some people do not know the superiority of Tesla EV, thus the Motor Trend article declaring Model 3 the best luxury sedan was on topic.

[magnamentis]

What technology? Genuinely curious what tech Tesla has that ppl think is valuable to other companies.

I refer this as evidence to Neven that some people do not know the superiority of Tesla EV, thus the Motor Trend article declaring Model 3 the best luxury sedan was on topic.

those are illusions, sorry, the last 30 "cars of the year" i remember were nowhere to be the real best in the market.

further best luxury sedan without the word "electric" is ridiculous" go and try a few and you'll know (feel) the difference.

as to best electric sedan, that's easy because there are not that many yet,  in numbers anyway not.

the motor, haha... nothing is new or special, it's all common knowledge for those who look over the plate's edge without tesla-focals on the nose.

as i understand we all want that electric vehicles prevail soon and grow in numbers fast.

that means for you tesla fanboys that truth will reveal itself very soon. once real carmakers bring EVs to the market in big numbers tesla will be gone for good or play a tiny niche role with new hyped stuff.

that's not meant to take away the merits of tesla of the last view years, it's about he future and it's about REAL tech-level and quality.

BTW most of the stuff that is talked about like REAL self-driving is legally as well as technically years out, also for tesla once looked at globally (we fight global warming don't we so we have to look at things globally) in europe i.e. there won't be level 5 SD for years to come and once there starting only very limited.

the fact that mister EM talks/tweets like it would be a matter of days/weeks or that the fact that test-runs are successful does not change that fact.

BTW i've seen videos from audi merceded as well as volkswagen with self-driving cars on german autobahns fully working, but still that does not mean that the systems are ready for mass distribution, neither technologically nor legally.

EDIT: at least you forgot to dispute the possibility that there will could/will be a time when the value
of parts of tesla plays a role upon auctions (just a little teaser) spass muss sein LOL

[Sigmetnow]

Tech is proprietary, and not always put into production.  Let’s compare the results of Tesla tech to the best results from others.  “They could have done better if they wanted” is not a valid argument here.

Kevin Rooke (@kerooke) 4/26/19, 3:56 PM
The *2012* Tesla Model S did 265 miles on a single charge.
No (non-Tesla) EV sold in America has ever reached that mark.
7 YEARS LATER

https://twitter.com/kerooke/status/1121865763441324032
Graph below.
—-
Battery efficiency.
Chart data below.
—-
Best safety performance of all cars tested by NHTSA.
Graph below.
——

Nafnlaus (@enn_nafnlaus) 4/27/19, 5:56 PM
All major passenger EVs by market (US vs. EU), plotted by price, range, acceleration, top speed, and charge curves. ...

Large, busy chart below.  Click to embiggen.
Original here: https://mobile.twitter.com/enn_nafnlaus/status/1122288143674355712

—-
How about the tech to mass-produce (and sell) electric cars? 

EV Sales: Global Sales by Automotive Group - Q1 2019
http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2019/05/global-sales-by-automotive-group-q1-2019.html

Looking just at BEVs, the ranking goes like this:

1. Tesla (63.000, +105%);[/b]

2. Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance (46.768, +16%);
3. BYD Group (45.758, +758%);
4. BAIC (26.106, +21%);
5. Hyundai-Kia (19.632, +132%).

[Sigmetnow]

Some Thoughts On Elon Musk’s Emails To Employees — & The Media + Wall Street’s Response
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/27/some-thoughts-on-elon-musks-emails-to-employees-the-media-wall-streets-response/

Elon’s Twitter reply:  “Yup”.

Edit:
“Tesla Killers”?  LOL.  You can barely see their numbers on the (US) graphs.
It took 10 years for Toyota to sell 280,000 Prius.
It took Tesla 2 years to sell 280,000 Model 3.

The Data Proving Tesla's Success YouTube

[oren]

Q2 forecasts (90k-100k guidance):
Andreas Hopf - 64,000 M3, 16,000 S/X, 80,000 Total
Anthon Wahlman (May 17th) - 61,750 M3, 12,250 S/X, 74,000 Total
Adam Jonas 82,000 Total
Troy Teslike 74,000 Total

https://twitter.com/TroyTeslike/status/1129597053036826624

[oren]

https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/teslas-chinamade-model-3-may-be-priced-in-4340050700-range-bloomberg-1879956

Tesla's China-made Model 3 may be priced in $43,400-$50,700 range: Bloomberg

Tesla is considering pricing its China-manufactured Model 3 vehicles between 300,000 yuan and 350,000 yuan ($43,431-$50,670) before subsidies, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The final price is still being worked out, Bloomberg said citing a source.

The electric carmaker currently ships Model 3 vehicles from the United States to sell in China.

Tesla is counting on its Shanghai factory, which is scheduled to begin production this year, to manufacture Model 3 cars as it seeks to expand its lineup and boost sales in the world's biggest EV market.

Tesla was not immediately available for a comment on the pricing, but an announcement is expected on May 31, according to a social media post by the company.

This is probably the "surprise announcement".

[oren]

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/05/26/why-tesla-should-abandon-solar-energy-right-now.aspx
Why Tesla Should Abandon Solar Energy
Solar energy hasn't worked out as planned for Tesla, and the company needs to remove the distraction from the business.

Solar no longer makes sense at Tesla
When Tesla bought SolarCity, it did so on a few assumptions. One was that moving solar sales into Tesla showrooms would lower sales costs, allowing Tesla to either generate more profit or lower prices to grow the business. Tesla also said that EV buyers would be highly likely to go solar, especially with SolarCity's no-money-down financing options. Under the Tesla brand, solar would easily thrive, and Elon Musk promised that building an integrated clean energy company was part of the master plan.

Not only was Tesla supposed to be good for solar, the combination of solar, EVs, and energy storage were supposed to create the energy company of the future. Energy storage was the product that tied everything together, smartly optimizing when solar energy would be used and ensuring that the Tesla in the garage was always full of electrons.

Last but not least was the solar roof, which was announced just before the SolarCity acquisition closed. This was supposed to be the futuristic roofing product that would attract a whole new generation of customers to Tesla's solar products. Who wouldn't want a roof that was more durable than one made of standard material, cost less over the long term, and generated electricity?

The problem is, none of those ideas have worked out for Tesla. Sales in showrooms have been a disaster, as evidenced by Tesla's shrinking installations and market share. EV customers haven't adopted solar or energy storage at a clip to build a sustainable business. And the solar roof has installations that can be measured in the dozens nearly three years after the product was announced. Nothing about solar under Tesla's umbrella has worked out, and it no longer makes sense for the company to continue down a failing path.

[Archimid]

It is foolish to abandon such an important part of the Master plan because "it hasn't worked out as planned". 

[Sigmetnow]

...Sales in showrooms have been a disaster, as evidenced by Tesla's shrinking installations and market share. ...

But internet orders are “through the roof.” 

If a company revealed a product with a lifetime guarantee, then installed it without years of testing first, that’s when it would be right to question the process.  Tesla installed the solar roof on a few homes so it could gather real-life learnings on improving the installation process and assuring a long-life product.  Giga 2 has recently markedly increased production of Version 3 of the solar roof.

Tesla Redoubles Efforts To Expand Its Energy Business In 2019
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/26/tesla-redoubles-efforts-to-expand-its-energy-business-in-2019/

[NeilT]

Everyone please read this entire speech. Especially you Neil.

That would be the part where the author talks about computer programmers having some fantasy life about being able to understand everything, instantly, just because they're, well, wizards or something?

Got it.

Funny I started out with 100% recognition of the people the Author was talking about and actually agreed with some of it.  There are far too many people in IT that live a very dark life in very dark rooms and focus to infinite levels on "perfection".

By half way through I was strongly reminded why I moved out of programming after only 4 years.  I never managed to get all the way through the introspective, backbiting and intensely bitter article.  I differ so much from the opinions expressed that it was simply not worth it.

As some kind of message to me, about the person I am, it falls so far wide of the mark that it's not worth even discussing.

Anyway, other things to discuss.