It's important FOR ME to focus on the blue, because the red anecdotally does not even comprehend in my mind as possible where I'm from. I see probably at minimum 20x more Ford's on the road than Tesla's. I'm sure it's much more than 20x. I should count both for a week or something to get a decent sample size. Obviously there's a lot more to it than what you see on the road, which is why I need to focus on the blue when trying to evaluate Tesla versus a traditional auto manufacturer.
Ford and Tesla are two different animals. Tesla makes a lot more of their vehicles than Ford and is far, far more vertically integrated. For several years, Tesla was the only manufacturer that made it's own seats. Seats for the 3/Y are outsourced. Ford doesn't make their own electric motors or even all of the components that a combustion engine is comprised of. In this way, Tesla building 1M cars is a bigger deal than Ford building 1M cars (last stat I saw showed Ford building 3.9M units... I'm not trying to suggest Tesla is larger than Ford). On the other hand, Tesla's largest two markets are China and Europe. At the moment, it is costly for Tesla to support European consumption of their product. Fortunately, European car manufacturers are not cost competitive and European charging networks (other than the SuperCharger network) are under maintained and sadly lacking.
BTW, in terms of the significance of Giga Berlin, the last I read they were producing 350 units per week with a goal of ramping to 1000 units per week by about now. It's not all that significant, despite what the YouTube analysts suggest. If they have achieved 1K units per week, that would be 52K unit annualized production but we have to consider 6 weeks of down time per year, bringing it to 46K units per year of forward looking production (ignoring the ramp). It is just starting to be a bit more than a rounding error and that assumes the ramp is progressing as planned.
I understand all this, my comment more was about what is seen on the road which is why I have to think about it differently, which is why I color-coded the quote of yours that I posted to remind myself and others it has to be thought about differently. For most businesses, you think "huh everyone I know shops at Lowe's and not home depot" or "everyone I know has verizon and not AT&T". For me, it's hard to get past "I see maybe 1-2 tesla's a day at most". You get the idea.
My family live in the frozen tundra of Western Canada. That is surely not a Tesla strong hold or even a good place to own an EV. There are plenty of Teslas running around Saskatchewan and even more in Alberta and BC. Seeing a Tesla is no longer a curiosity or even a memorable event in the day.
Wow. That is a terrible attitude to have in life. That's like saying if face Racial Injustice that you should just go back to Africa. No, Freedom of Speech SHOULD be protected online and in life. There should never be limits of expression. If you have a problem with someones expression, it should be dispelled through conversation and dialogue. By proving the person wrong, not by shutting them down. As you may have seen, even during this most recent event, The Pandemic, these Social Media companies decided for themselves what the "Truth," was and they were wrong just about every single time. Russia-gate with Trump? Hunter Bidens Laptop that proved to be very real? Vaccines? remember at first when you couldnt even suggest that the vaccine did not stop contraction or spread of the Virus. You would have been permanently banned for saying information that was scientifically and medically accurate, all because some suits decide they dont like what you say, it doesnt fit their agenda. If you think censorship of speech is a good thing then we just have to agree to disagree. The psychological issues that censorship brings are far worse than allowing speech. When you begin censoring people, other people automatically self-censor out of fear. This leads to radicalization as those with extreme views are forced into underground, echo-chambers where their beliefs only get deeper and more radical. You take an individual, who maybe over time and through negative feedback would have realized their views we're flawed and push them directly to people who will champion their views and give them some additional ones to consider also. Please, tell me more about why business owners should be allowed to pick and choose which content they allow? If you have a problem with opinions that are different from yours, then you shouldnt start a social media business.
Sorry, I did not mean to drag up an old post. It took me to my first unread post and I did not see the date.
I am going to assume you have a job. Take all of the above to your HR and see how fast they laugh you out of their office. As an employee, you represent them. You spout off on social media some crazy shit, you are gone! You are a liability to them. No due process. And as a business, FB and Twitter can do whatever the hell they want if you do not follow their TOS. That is private industry. Teachers have the same rules regarding being a nutjob on social media as well. You need to read up on the 1st Amendment. We need to start with this silly idea that somehow FB and Twitter are extensions of the government and are therefore bound to uphold all speech. They are not and will not. You do not like how FB and Twitter does things? Beat them at their own game. People claim to like capitalism until it works against them. The right is guilty of this right now big time. I personally hate FB and Twitter (they are cancers to society), but let's be objective here.
So long Tesla. Made lunch money again after taxes. Cash is always safe, losing positions are not my style. Back to the 600s.
I can't see the Twitter's lawyers/the court agreeing to let him out. Although he's wealthy so who knows
They will hold him to the $1B, he will take it to court. 5yrs later they will settle for some smaller amount.
Funny you say that. It is actually states in our company Handbook that you CAN NOT be disciplined or fired for what you do on your personal time and on social media as long as you are not promoting, talking about or representing your company. That is so sad that you think people should lose their jobs if they hurt youre feelings online. That is literally what youre talking about. Someone posting some words on the internet that made you sad. And you think youre feelings are the equivalent of their employment. Thats the problem with Liberal Privilege. You think youre feelings are more important than everyone elses. I am glad YOU dont run any companies or HR departments. So woke youre suffering from sleep deprivation.
Lets try stay on topic here, but he is not completely wrong. These days more than ever a person who is employed is seen as a representative of that company, on the clock or not. Again, not directing this at you, but getting caught being an asshole on social media has ended careers. The handbook may say one thing, but if a persons personal life brings negative repercussions to a company and threatens their bottom line, they will find a reason to fire you.
You are projecting quite a lot onto me. So much so, that I think you would rather argue than stick to reality. I could not care less about what your handbook says. You represent your company on the clock and off the clock. That's the fun part of social media: It's 24/7 and for everyone to see. If your employer feels like you are misrepresenting them and/or attracting them negative attention, you are gone. Try it, you'll see. Get back to me when you are ready to keep your emotions out of this. Ciao.
