Musk seems to want to exist in a perpetual “start up” mode. He’s fixated on unlimited growth, “sleeping on the factory floor”, “up all night coding”, etc. He doesn’t seem to understand that for a company to survive in the long run it has to transition away from “start up” to a more stable management and operational…

I’ve always had my doubts about how much supercharging would really be worth as a stand alone business. Unless Tesla produces all of the electricity that feeds the supercharging stations, they are ultimately price takers from the local utilities; which essentially levels the field for any potential competitors. Tesla…

I didn’t say it was true. He just wants everyone to believe that it is. If you repeat the lie often enough…

The supercharger team cuts are quite frankly baffling, but we shouldn’t gloss over the “new vehicle” team cuts either. Tesla already has an aging line up. A lot of the current valuation is tied up in new products launching (“cheaper” mass produced Cybertrucks, the “cold rocket thruster” Roadster, the “yes we will/no…

Maybe this is just Musk doubling down on the “Tesla is not a car company” line that he vomited up during the last earnings call. Maybe he’s just trying to prove that point by firing the people who actually work on the cars and the chargers that the cars need in order to function.

Apparently it was peer reviewed and published; which suggests that either CBC didn’t do a good job of translating the science and just ran with a sensationalist story; or the peer review process for that journal is shit. Both of which, unfortunately, happen fairly regularly. 

This is the answer. The sample in the study was too small and too narrow to make any inferences about larger populations. I’m a bit surprised this passed peer review; but then I do see a lot of garbage that gets published these days.

So what we have here is a social scientist, someone we would expect to understand concepts like “sample size” and “sampling bias”, who decided to do a study on a subject that she has a personal vendetta against where the outcome just happens to support her narrative? And this work has passed peer review and been…

This is one aspect that I’m starting to hate about EVs. Everything now makes crazy amounts of power, and honestly the average driver has no business being near that kind of performance capability.

I guess it’s different strokes for different folks, but you won’t see me spending $84k on a Tahoe. 

Or buy a gigantic vehicle with a large displacement motor, then add some heavy chunky “off road” tires and then complain about gas prices going up.

Of all time?

I’m a bit surprised he hasn’t fired 55% of the employees already, seeing as that’s how much profits dropped in Q1. But let’s give it until Friday, we’re only half way through the week after all.

Just learned today that the new G-class EV weighs in at 6,800+ lbs (1,300 lbs more than the ICE)… I guess that’s skewing my perceptions. <eek!>

I hate to say it… but only 4800 lbs? That seems light for an SUV these days.

He’s laying off 20% of the company because sales dropped by 20%… it’s a linear relationship apparently…

What new model? No, seriously… what new model? The high-priced limited production Roadster? (Did they even mention it?) The cheaper trims of the Cybertruck? (Any timeline or pricing updates on those presented?) The “you will make untold millions with your new robo-taxi while you sleep” model? Is Optimus going to…

I agree with you 100%.

I’m not a G-class buyer (I think they are ridiculously overpriced), but I think it was wise for MB to keep the exterior design mostly the same as the ICE version. Hopefully this means Mercedes has learned their lesson from the EQS and EQE design debacle. Just give us EVs that look like normal vehicles. 

When you add the bonus of what an electric vehicle gets you in terms of cost savings…