I'm am conflicted over the whole tesla thing. The model S is a truly great car but I can't stand Elon's hype about self driving cars etc, etc. The model 3 got off to a rocky start but it sounds like the quality issues are improving. On the one hand I want them to succeed as they have been real innovators but by the same token when musk goes around hyping things up to create interest and bump up the stock price I would be happy to see them crash and burn.
How difficult is it for BYD to clone his autopilot chip and will that stop the Chinese from exporting knockoffs because I'm certain they can close the data and software gap instantly by swapping out a harddrive or 10.
I think he's got 10 years before the chinese chip fabs catch up.
Musk's question how did Tesla build the best AI chip for driving in the world without being a chip designer was the far more interesting yet overlooked question.
Musk has a talent for framing problems appropriately so that optimum solutions emerge with a minimum deployment of capital. And he's not secretive about it, he applies his training in physics and phenomenal knowledge to make good bets and eventually identifies and acknowledges his mistakes.
Tesla doesn't have an advertising budget. Musk couldn't care less about it's shareprice but I think he will be a bit perturbed if identical technology emerges faster than he foresaw as was Apple when the Android ecosystem emerged.
As it stands with his chip and data it is game set and match for autonomous driving which is a software game and the leader takes all the data and a fully autonomous vehicle is worth significantly more than non-autonomous vehicle and if you are data scientist you probably want to work for the company with the best data-set and highest remuneration.
The data is the gold and Tesla owns it and no-one can steal it and use it for at least 10 years by which point battery vehicles will be cheaper than petrol vehicles which is the major problem with the model 3. It is currently uneconomic against a toyota corolla but gains ground with every piece of battery and energy storage research that musk does not pay for.
I really hope someone else eats their lunch soon. There are some genuine improvements to the status quo in their cars, but the unbelievably poor quality control and silicon valley user hostility (near impossibility of DIY repairs & parts acquisition) should not be part of the future of cars.
This is to say nothing about their quixotic attitude towards self-driving in the face of competitors using better methods.
I think the general tone about Tesla on HN is a bit strange. On the one hand, Musk is certainly guilty of creating "hype" around Tesla. He has a showman's aesthetic, and deploys it to great effect generating interest in his products. His timelines are always ambitious (or insane), and I never take them at face value. He boasts about capabilities that are presently out of reach and sound impossible.
On the other hand, what other company has yet brought such compelling EVs to market? Would Porsche have invested in the Taycan as soon/at all if not for Tesla? I think the years ahead will be filled with fantastic EVs, but Tesla should be given credit for showing what was possible. It's not like they've stop innovating, either. They just upped the range on the Model S to 370 miles.
A lot of the hand wringing on HN these days has to do with Tesla's self driving efforts and Musk's controversial statements about timeline and technology. I think it remains to be seen if he is correct that (1) Lidar is not required and (2) if his timeline is even remotely reasonable. On the other hand, which other car company is shipping a product as capable as the current 'navigate-on-autopilot' feature? Google is doing pretty limited testing in Arizona, Uber is doing so in Pittsburgh. GM has their cruise division. But none of these offerings are in customer hands. I really doubt there will be L4 self driving in a Tesla by the end of this year, but sometime next year? I don't think that is out of the question.
I don't like the narrative that they are responsible for what other companies are doing. My grandpa had an electric car back in the 90s. A toyota, I think, so it's not small no-name companies. People have been working on this since before tesla, and are still working on it outside tesla. But the time is right for the technology to take off now, so it is. Attributing that to tesla seems like a misguided belief in "great man theory" where it's usually just that the environment was finally right for an idea. If tesla hadn't, someone else would.
I get frustrated by instances of great man theory in general, though. It's not unique to tesla.
It’s unfortunate that the crowd sourced mobs can be unleashed the way they are being unleashed. Internet appears to be commoditizing takedowns and toxicity.
While Tesla deserves criticism, instead they are currently being bombarded with hate and FUD. It’s hard to tell who these people are and what are their motives.
FWIW - I recently bought a Model 3. And one thing you realize living with it is that it’s like living in the future. Some people don’t like the interior. That’s fine. I personally love the lack of all the buttons. FSD is another controversial topic. But it’s worth noting that people are getting real value out of Auto Pilot and NOA TODAY. It’s a very iterative delivery approach, which I find is quite practical vs the Big Bang delivery of 100% working FSD.
Lastly, you can tell that Tesla is no fraud simply by looking at Model 3 hardware and software. Yes there are some rough edges, but those are minor. You can tell it’s being executed by extremely capable people and at extreme speed.
I dont have any shares, but if I had the money I would purchase a boat load of them.
1) He has a fleet of cars which is giving him a lot of data and edge cases. Of which is growing with every new car purchased and on the road.
2) He has a team developing the software, refining it with each new release and it's just getting better and better with more data.
3) He has a team developing the hardware, on the investor day he said that another chip will come out in 2 years and be 3x more capable. Going from memory on that one, so feel free to correct. But this point still stands. They aren't standing still. I do believe that vision trumps lidar and they'll get to level 5 automation with much more precision than waymo and get there a hell of a lot faster than uber.
4) It seems with every car that rolls off the assembly line, they are consistently making modifications and improving the battery tech and drive train. Again, they have the data to keep on improving their cars.
5) With the maxwell purchase I'm sure they'll start to develop their own batteries and get even better performance due to optimising the whole car.
So, Tesla owns the:
1) Data
2) Self Driving Software
3) Self Driving Hardware
4) Drive Train
5) Battery Tech
6) Power Grid Network
Also don't forget that the grid and charging stations keep improving over time. Imagine if we get to 5 minute charging, faster than the current paradigm? Game changer.
Can anyone suggest another vendor getting close to this? Once Telsa put out the robo-taxis it really is game set and match. They own the whole stack, end to end.
He even mentioned that the price could go down. Can you imagine a $25k robo-taxi and does 1k miles? The other car makers should be very afraid of this prospect.
This is assuming that level 5 automation is possible any time soon, while a growing number of people believe it isn't. If it turns out that we need another 2-3 decades to get there, Tesla will run out of money long before then.
The tech is nice and all but there is only so much market penetration to be done in the luxury car segment. I would put the Model 3 in the luxury segment as well since you can get a base BMW 3 series for almost the same money ($40k).
People that can afford luxury cars and aren't "in tune" with tech are likely looking at other brands too like Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, etc. If you think about it further, some of those brands have a following because they are fun cars to drive. Drive being the keyword there, BMW comes to mind. If those people don't care about autonomous driving and really like the brand they have, what would get them to switch?
In my opinion, they need to punch much lower than $35k for a lowest option. Ditch the auto-driving, sensors, etc. and come out with a base $25K four door sedan, nicely appointed but not luxury, that has the range of a model 3 (220 miles).
I took a quick glance at Consumer Reports car reviews for giggles. I would just dismiss them straight from that since I don't want higher chances of maintenance costs long term.
The issues they have are with the market, not the tech.
And if there are talking points about forgetting the cost of gas and oil changes, etc. when comparing costs ... how many consumers keep detailed track of those expenses to know what the monthly cost is over 5 years of payments to understand if a Tesla is actually cheaper?
1) Data is collected by others too (Waymo, Uber, etc...)
2) See above, software is simply being purchased by OEMs, the increasing importance of software will be shifting power so
3) Hardware, again Tesla is not the only one
4) Actually easier than ICEs as it is less complex, also in the automotive sector mass production and cost are king, Bosch for example is good at automotive and electric motors, the just need to mate theses two
5) Actually, that is Panasonic
6) Only the chargers, power grids are totally different story, and chargers are being built by others as well. Tesla has a head start so
One final point, I know of a company in Munich that is testing inductive loading with BMW i3s. If I remember well they achieve 80% loading in 15-20 minutes or so.
Robotaxis are a commodity, well the cars at least. For companies running these services based on large fleets the costs and availability are king. That means procurement cost but even more important operating costs and maintenance. The supplier of these fleets needs to offer fleet services, short maintenance periods and quick reaction times. Not sure if Tesla is up to it already.
Also, where are you taking your numbers from? $25k and 1k miles? Really?
There's always a ton of sentiment analysis to be done on "crowds" i.e. on twitter towards companies. If they worked well we'd see 10x numbers from the funds that figured out the methods, but we don't. The crowd means little beyond technical analysis.
Tesla is the most shorted company in the world, of course people are going to try to use whatever they can as evidence to prove it sucks; They have a vested interest in doing so, and Tesla rightly fights back against these kinds of claims, because it's in their shareholders interests.
This article provides some examples of people talking about speculative evidence that Tesla isn't doing well, but you can find that for almost any company. That's what a lot of investment articles are, actually. So it seems like mostly fluff to me.
It seems like they are a few moves away from checkmate on the car market. Electric SUV, with better self driving than the competition could do really well.
1. Share price has nothing to do with bankruptcy. Bankruptcy happens when a company can't meet its obligations and debts. If a company is profitable, then by definition, it met its obligations and debts so it cannot go into bankruptcy. You go to bankruptcy protection to ward off creditors. If you are profitable, you paid off your creditors and made money on top of that so there is nothing to protect you from.
2. Shorting involves borrowing shares. There are a finite number of shares that you can borrow. So you could have an infinite supply of money but your broker only allows X amount of shares available to short.
Shorting doesn't cause bankruptcy. It's a method of profiting when companies veer towards bankruptcy of their own accord.
Think of it as surfing. The surfer doesn't cause the wave, he just rides the wave.
The shorts are why the stock got to where it is in the first place. It was around $40 when there was a huge short squeeze, and that popped the price of the stock to like $180.
I was originally very pro Tesla, until about 18 months ago when a friend who works in finance gave me the heads up on TSLAQ,
Here's a few datapoints on what's convincing me that this is not a healthy company:
• Musk is constantly promising things that don't happen (full self driving, robotaxis, Model Y, Tesla Semi truck, Tesla Roadster, car with a rocket motor, 10k/wk production). This week it's an electric leafblower. Seems like everytime there's bad news, there's a distraction ready to go.
• The entire cult of Musk working 100 hours a week yet he shitposts more than I do.
• Funding secured, followed by funding not secured is a bit of a joke, but also, if the CEO of General Electric, or Chevron tried that, they'd be fired.
• The reports of people waiting months and months to get simple repairs done. If Vinod Khosla (1) can't have his car repaired quickly, where does that leave the average joe on the street?
• Enormous price decreases. The price of a Model S decreased $12k a few weeks ago, and the Model X decreased by $18k. This is horrific for your margins, especially if you're short on cash.
• Batteries exploding (2), and people dying in car accidents that they should have walked away in - the example here is someone who couldn't get out because the door handles didn't work (3).
• Enormous Health & Safety violations at the Freemont factory (4). Before we even get into the nonsense that was the factory operation (compare to say the efficiencies and tight tolerances of the Nissan operations in the UK).
• Simple errors meaning the Tesla factory is enormously inefficient by North American standards (the consensus being that Tesla made the same mistakes other American firms made in the 1980s)
• Panasonic freezing investment in Nevada and China (6)
But finally, the biggest thing that makes me skeptical is that none of what I've said matters. Because this isn't about facts, it's about faith. And I think Tesla is a fraud and that Elon Musk could give Elizabeth Homes a run for her money, which is a real shame because the Model S is a nice enough car, and electric cars are clearly something we'll have in the future. You can fudge the numbers a bit if you're a VC backed startup. You can't do that if you run a publicly traded company.
Totally agree, especially on production and servicing. All German manufacturers, I personally would never buy a car from by the way, are relying a lot on the corporate leasing business. In that market customers don't wait months to get a car repaired. Even more so if the customer is not just leasing them for employees but operating a business with these cars, e.g. Taxis.
Tesla produces vehicles in batches based on order statistics.
Vehicles are then matched with customers based on their selected options. Vehicles may be awaiting matching, or vehicles may be awaiting transport. International transport across the ocean happens when they can fill an entire ship to capacity.
If you think of the perspective of these people wanting to short Tesla they probably have no experience of how much inventory you need to sell stuff. Stuff being anything.
Think of a typical bicycle shop and how many hundreds of bicycles they have given the actual store footfall. They will also have a warehouse or stockroom with a similar or larger quantity of stock. Plus a lot of sales will be special order from the supplier. None of that inventory will be a year old and the product is far simpler than a car. Yet there is a mountain of it. Sure bicycles come in 3-4 sizes and that adds to the inventory requirements but colours, trim levels and options certainly add to the inventory requirements Tesla has.
You could look at your typical bicycle store and decide to 'short' them somehow. If you had no idea of the practicalities of how sales works you could assume the warehouse was full of the broken ones or the ones returned from customers. You could also look around the showroom and find that quite a few were dusty and not setup correctly. There would be no confirmed buyer for any of them.
You could go back a week later and still see pretty much the same. Yet if you didn't work there you would not realise a huge amount had made it to customers. This is the problem of the information these Tesla short people are working with, they don't understand how the business really works and they jump to conclusions.
I can throw my additional anecdote into the mix: I live in the boston area and have noticed a ton more Tesla cars on the street. I remember previously thinking it was cool Tesla car every now and then, but now I see multiple a day.
I wonder how many people the established auto industry pays to write negative Tesla opinions. I can't help but think my kids will look on this like I do Tuckers' efforts.
[+] [-] ozmaverick72|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meekstro|6 years ago|reply
How difficult is it for BYD to clone his autopilot chip and will that stop the Chinese from exporting knockoffs because I'm certain they can close the data and software gap instantly by swapping out a harddrive or 10.
I think he's got 10 years before the chinese chip fabs catch up.
Musk's question how did Tesla build the best AI chip for driving in the world without being a chip designer was the far more interesting yet overlooked question.
Musk has a talent for framing problems appropriately so that optimum solutions emerge with a minimum deployment of capital. And he's not secretive about it, he applies his training in physics and phenomenal knowledge to make good bets and eventually identifies and acknowledges his mistakes.
Tesla doesn't have an advertising budget. Musk couldn't care less about it's shareprice but I think he will be a bit perturbed if identical technology emerges faster than he foresaw as was Apple when the Android ecosystem emerged.
As it stands with his chip and data it is game set and match for autonomous driving which is a software game and the leader takes all the data and a fully autonomous vehicle is worth significantly more than non-autonomous vehicle and if you are data scientist you probably want to work for the company with the best data-set and highest remuneration.
The data is the gold and Tesla owns it and no-one can steal it and use it for at least 10 years by which point battery vehicles will be cheaper than petrol vehicles which is the major problem with the model 3. It is currently uneconomic against a toyota corolla but gains ground with every piece of battery and energy storage research that musk does not pay for.
[+] [-] jessewmc|6 years ago|reply
This is to say nothing about their quixotic attitude towards self-driving in the face of competitors using better methods.
[+] [-] Turbots|6 years ago|reply
Heck, Jaguar boasted endlessly about their i-Pace being a great Tesla competitor, while in practice it disappointed in range (https://insideevs.com/news/340027/jaguar-i-pace-range-test-y...)
[+] [-] elisharobinson|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] torpfactory|6 years ago|reply
On the other hand, what other company has yet brought such compelling EVs to market? Would Porsche have invested in the Taycan as soon/at all if not for Tesla? I think the years ahead will be filled with fantastic EVs, but Tesla should be given credit for showing what was possible. It's not like they've stop innovating, either. They just upped the range on the Model S to 370 miles.
A lot of the hand wringing on HN these days has to do with Tesla's self driving efforts and Musk's controversial statements about timeline and technology. I think it remains to be seen if he is correct that (1) Lidar is not required and (2) if his timeline is even remotely reasonable. On the other hand, which other car company is shipping a product as capable as the current 'navigate-on-autopilot' feature? Google is doing pretty limited testing in Arizona, Uber is doing so in Pittsburgh. GM has their cruise division. But none of these offerings are in customer hands. I really doubt there will be L4 self driving in a Tesla by the end of this year, but sometime next year? I don't think that is out of the question.
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|6 years ago|reply
I get frustrated by instances of great man theory in general, though. It's not unique to tesla.
[+] [-] vgchh|6 years ago|reply
While Tesla deserves criticism, instead they are currently being bombarded with hate and FUD. It’s hard to tell who these people are and what are their motives.
FWIW - I recently bought a Model 3. And one thing you realize living with it is that it’s like living in the future. Some people don’t like the interior. That’s fine. I personally love the lack of all the buttons. FSD is another controversial topic. But it’s worth noting that people are getting real value out of Auto Pilot and NOA TODAY. It’s a very iterative delivery approach, which I find is quite practical vs the Big Bang delivery of 100% working FSD.
Lastly, you can tell that Tesla is no fraud simply by looking at Model 3 hardware and software. Yes there are some rough edges, but those are minor. You can tell it’s being executed by extremely capable people and at extreme speed.
[+] [-] no1youknowz|6 years ago|reply
1) He has a fleet of cars which is giving him a lot of data and edge cases. Of which is growing with every new car purchased and on the road.
2) He has a team developing the software, refining it with each new release and it's just getting better and better with more data.
3) He has a team developing the hardware, on the investor day he said that another chip will come out in 2 years and be 3x more capable. Going from memory on that one, so feel free to correct. But this point still stands. They aren't standing still. I do believe that vision trumps lidar and they'll get to level 5 automation with much more precision than waymo and get there a hell of a lot faster than uber.
4) It seems with every car that rolls off the assembly line, they are consistently making modifications and improving the battery tech and drive train. Again, they have the data to keep on improving their cars.
5) With the maxwell purchase I'm sure they'll start to develop their own batteries and get even better performance due to optimising the whole car.
So, Tesla owns the:
1) Data
2) Self Driving Software
3) Self Driving Hardware
4) Drive Train
5) Battery Tech
6) Power Grid Network
Also don't forget that the grid and charging stations keep improving over time. Imagine if we get to 5 minute charging, faster than the current paradigm? Game changer.
Can anyone suggest another vendor getting close to this? Once Telsa put out the robo-taxis it really is game set and match. They own the whole stack, end to end.
He even mentioned that the price could go down. Can you imagine a $25k robo-taxi and does 1k miles? The other car makers should be very afraid of this prospect.
[+] [-] codexon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt_s|6 years ago|reply
People that can afford luxury cars and aren't "in tune" with tech are likely looking at other brands too like Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, etc. If you think about it further, some of those brands have a following because they are fun cars to drive. Drive being the keyword there, BMW comes to mind. If those people don't care about autonomous driving and really like the brand they have, what would get them to switch?
In my opinion, they need to punch much lower than $35k for a lowest option. Ditch the auto-driving, sensors, etc. and come out with a base $25K four door sedan, nicely appointed but not luxury, that has the range of a model 3 (220 miles).
I took a quick glance at Consumer Reports car reviews for giggles. I would just dismiss them straight from that since I don't want higher chances of maintenance costs long term.
The issues they have are with the market, not the tech.
And if there are talking points about forgetting the cost of gas and oil changes, etc. when comparing costs ... how many consumers keep detailed track of those expenses to know what the monthly cost is over 5 years of payments to understand if a Tesla is actually cheaper?
[+] [-] hef19898|6 years ago|reply
1) Data is collected by others too (Waymo, Uber, etc...)
2) See above, software is simply being purchased by OEMs, the increasing importance of software will be shifting power so
3) Hardware, again Tesla is not the only one
4) Actually easier than ICEs as it is less complex, also in the automotive sector mass production and cost are king, Bosch for example is good at automotive and electric motors, the just need to mate theses two
5) Actually, that is Panasonic
6) Only the chargers, power grids are totally different story, and chargers are being built by others as well. Tesla has a head start so
One final point, I know of a company in Munich that is testing inductive loading with BMW i3s. If I remember well they achieve 80% loading in 15-20 minutes or so.
Robotaxis are a commodity, well the cars at least. For companies running these services based on large fleets the costs and availability are king. That means procurement cost but even more important operating costs and maintenance. The supplier of these fleets needs to offer fleet services, short maintenance periods and quick reaction times. Not sure if Tesla is up to it already.
Also, where are you taking your numbers from? $25k and 1k miles? Really?
[+] [-] hi5eyes|6 years ago|reply
everything you assume and hope for costs a lot of money
>I do believe that vision trumps lidar and they'll get to level 5 automation and the robotaxi meme are just dreams for elon to sell to pump the stock
[+] [-] personjerry|6 years ago|reply
Tesla is the most shorted company in the world, of course people are going to try to use whatever they can as evidence to prove it sucks; They have a vested interest in doing so, and Tesla rightly fights back against these kinds of claims, because it's in their shareholders interests.
This article provides some examples of people talking about speculative evidence that Tesla isn't doing well, but you can find that for almost any company. That's what a lot of investment articles are, actually. So it seems like mostly fluff to me.
[+] [-] neonate|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tschellenbach|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShorsHammer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] basetop|6 years ago|reply
1. Share price has nothing to do with bankruptcy. Bankruptcy happens when a company can't meet its obligations and debts. If a company is profitable, then by definition, it met its obligations and debts so it cannot go into bankruptcy. You go to bankruptcy protection to ward off creditors. If you are profitable, you paid off your creditors and made money on top of that so there is nothing to protect you from.
2. Shorting involves borrowing shares. There are a finite number of shares that you can borrow. So you could have an infinite supply of money but your broker only allows X amount of shares available to short.
Shorting doesn't cause bankruptcy. It's a method of profiting when companies veer towards bankruptcy of their own accord.
Think of it as surfing. The surfer doesn't cause the wave, he just rides the wave.
[+] [-] qubex|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soperj|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seem_2211|6 years ago|reply
Here's a few datapoints on what's convincing me that this is not a healthy company:
• Musk is constantly promising things that don't happen (full self driving, robotaxis, Model Y, Tesla Semi truck, Tesla Roadster, car with a rocket motor, 10k/wk production). This week it's an electric leafblower. Seems like everytime there's bad news, there's a distraction ready to go.
• The entire cult of Musk working 100 hours a week yet he shitposts more than I do.
• Funding secured, followed by funding not secured is a bit of a joke, but also, if the CEO of General Electric, or Chevron tried that, they'd be fired.
• The reports of people waiting months and months to get simple repairs done. If Vinod Khosla (1) can't have his car repaired quickly, where does that leave the average joe on the street?
• Enormous price decreases. The price of a Model S decreased $12k a few weeks ago, and the Model X decreased by $18k. This is horrific for your margins, especially if you're short on cash.
• Batteries exploding (2), and people dying in car accidents that they should have walked away in - the example here is someone who couldn't get out because the door handles didn't work (3).
• Enormous Health & Safety violations at the Freemont factory (4). Before we even get into the nonsense that was the factory operation (compare to say the efficiencies and tight tolerances of the Nissan operations in the UK).
• Simple errors meaning the Tesla factory is enormously inefficient by North American standards (the consensus being that Tesla made the same mistakes other American firms made in the 1980s)
• Panasonic freezing investment in Nevada and China (6)
But finally, the biggest thing that makes me skeptical is that none of what I've said matters. Because this isn't about facts, it's about faith. And I think Tesla is a fraud and that Elon Musk could give Elizabeth Homes a run for her money, which is a real shame because the Model S is a nice enough car, and electric cars are clearly something we'll have in the future. You can fudge the numbers a bit if you're a VC backed startup. You can't do that if you run a publicly traded company.
1: https://twitter.com/vkhosla/status/1085931446542290944?s=20
2: https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/article/teslas-china-inroa...
3: https://futurism.com/tesla-driver-killed-burning-model-s
4: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/03/01/tesla-sa...
5: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/experts-say-tesla-has-r...
6: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Tesla-and-Panason...
[+] [-] hef19898|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrQuincle|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pseudometa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|6 years ago|reply
Think of a typical bicycle shop and how many hundreds of bicycles they have given the actual store footfall. They will also have a warehouse or stockroom with a similar or larger quantity of stock. Plus a lot of sales will be special order from the supplier. None of that inventory will be a year old and the product is far simpler than a car. Yet there is a mountain of it. Sure bicycles come in 3-4 sizes and that adds to the inventory requirements but colours, trim levels and options certainly add to the inventory requirements Tesla has.
You could look at your typical bicycle store and decide to 'short' them somehow. If you had no idea of the practicalities of how sales works you could assume the warehouse was full of the broken ones or the ones returned from customers. You could also look around the showroom and find that quite a few were dusty and not setup correctly. There would be no confirmed buyer for any of them.
You could go back a week later and still see pretty much the same. Yet if you didn't work there you would not realise a huge amount had made it to customers. This is the problem of the information these Tesla short people are working with, they don't understand how the business really works and they jump to conclusions.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zepearl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newsoul2019|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] doctoboggan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] h2odragon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mml|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]