top | item 33760318

(no title)

windlep | 3 years ago

He added some context specifically about that note:

https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/1596605162294218753

It would be interesting to see the % of profit over time from regulatory credits, which appears to be what the author is focusing on.

discuss

bryanlarsen|3 years ago

Is that context or just an admission that he's wrong?

windlep|3 years ago

Not sure, it depends on what the numbers look like going back to the founding of the company. Tesla probably wouldn't have survived in the past without the credits, but as others in the comments noted the point of the credits is to enable companies selling EV's to survive and grow during their difficulties in the switch to EV's. So I definitely wouldn't consider this a mark against Tesla, the credits are doing what they're supposed to, to an extent.

cscurmudgeon|3 years ago

> Listen, weird nerds and $8 blue checks, I don't care about the 3rd Quarter of this year. I'm talking about the history of the company, its foundations and how it arrived where it is now. Which is a story most people clearly didn't know.

Wow, does he seem salty when called out. You can't untangle these profits from the car business. The credits won't exist without the cars.

The credits are not a magical widget that they are selling independent of the cars.

belltaco|3 years ago

He's lying.

The first tweet reads:

> Here's the thing about @tesla It's not a car company. Tesla is a company that has to make cars in order to sell its real product: Emissions Credits.

Nothing in the past tense or about history. He's claiming that Tesla is such and such right now.

He's hiding tweets in the replies that call him out. And is saying:

>My first "Added context" on any tweet is of course from Elon stans.