bjl

Not if you want the $35K version, which was supposed to be available in mass quantities last year.

Of course not. You're giving an unsecured, interest-free loan, why would you expect that to be safe?

>The argument seems to be that it is simply impossible to produce the vehicles for Tesla.

This is a complete straw man. The argument is that its impossible for TSLA to produce cars in the volume necessary, at the margins necessary, in the time frame necessary to both pay down their massive amounts of debt and justify their enormous valuation. And, looking at the numbers, that seems like a pretty solid argument.

Large, stable investors don't buy gold, so why would they buy BTC? Especially now that the blockchain hype is derided rather than celebrated on Wall Street.

It doesn't matter whether his $8 was in the form of BTC or not, all he did was make an $8 loan. Sure, the loan contract might have stated he could've accepted BTC instead of cash at withdrawel, but that's completely irrelevant once the loan issuer entered default. At that point OP is obliged to accept JPY as restitution, per the bankruptcy laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

That's not how bankruptcy works. He effectively made an unsecured, interest-free loan to Mt Gox for $8. The only thing he's entitled to in the event of default is that $8, what the company used his loan for is irrelevant.

Do people still really believe that cases like this are the result of ignorance? It's been years since GDPR was made into law, seems to me the only explanations are severe negligence or malevolence.

> Would you also consider Waymo, Cruise, et al, negligent?

Absolutely. We know from centuries of evidence that humans are profoundly bad at monitoring 'mostly autonomous' systems. Waymo/Uber know this as well, they just employ the driver as a convenient way to offload legal liability while they test unproven and unsafe technology on the public without consent.

Well, as of yesterday at least, the PD said on Twitter that no reports had been made.

Or, and here's an idea, we can enact sane regulations like licensing requirements to prevent the negative externalities from happening in the first place.

A lot of the shorts are probably long the broader market (which vastly overperformed compared to TSLA over the last few years), which makes these kind of fluctuations much easier to stomach.

So if you lose your private keys you're out all your shares? Or maybe you get hacked and lose your retirement savings?

The reason IPOs cost money is because the solutions to problems like the above cost money, and crypto-tokens don't change that simple fact.

Where do people get this from? Their filings clearly state they spend millions a quarter on marketing.

I don't understand why people keep repeating this story. Bain Capital had to provide huge amounts of collateral (upwards of a billion dollars), all of which was lost in the bankruptcy. Do people really believe that PE firms will write of a loss of hundreds of millions in order to make a few million in management fees?

My point is, for anything like a crypto-security, you have to integrate with meatspace, which requires the introduction of legal agreements (because there's nothing about 0s and 1s in ledger that can compel company representatives to act in a certain way). At that point you've completely gotten rid of decentralization, and you might as well use a more robust, faster, and environmentally friendly centralized option.

Explain how crypto-tokens are going to enable the vast amount of rights shareholders get in a company. Can crypto holders vote on the direction of the company, compel changes in the board, etc? If not, there's no reason for them to exist, because those rights are the entire reason one buys stock.

[1] Under 'Selling, General, and Administrative Expenses', you can easily see that Tesla spends around 2.5B a year on expenses relating to 'personnel and facilities costs related to our stores, marketing, sales, executive, finance, human resources, information technology and legal organizations'. They don't give more detailed breakdown, but they only have to include the marketing term in the overview if its a material amount (which is obviously at least millions per quarter given that the total is in the billions).

[1] http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1564590-18-2956&C...

You can find Tesla's' advertising spend easily in their quarterly findings. As for using it to have people monitor/post on social media, you'll regularly see job postings from them that explicitly list this as part of the job, like [1].

[1] https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=e0d97bcb4da6ad04&tk=1ce4ru...

Beware it from both sides. Tesla spends millions a quarter on advertising, including hiring people to monitor and post on social media.

Actually 'my business model depends on it' isn't a legitimate interest. That clause only applies when the service itself relies on it (a real-time maps service requiring location data, for example).

That's all well and good until someone steals my private keys and and now I'm out a house.

That's only according to Coinbase. Those companies never said it was their fault, and I know I'd trust Visa not to lie over CB.

Felt very reminiscent to Skilling's infamous earnings call. I'd have to imagine any TSLA investors are very concerned after that performance.

Sure, and why in the world would you trust him? He's literally never met his guidances.

> As far as safety and health, I have seen no objective evidence that Tesla is worse than the industry standard range, although certainly they can improve.

You mean, apart from the investigative reporting at Reason that uncovered systematic under reporting of injuries.

What are you taking about? Tesla spends millions a quarter on advertising and PR.

Why is it insane? Its like winning the power ball and then blowing it all on scratchers. You owe taxes on the win but can't necessarily deduct the losses.

Which, tbh, seems perfectly fine to me.

> I like the fact I can go to any gas station and not have to worry about which nozzle fits my car, why cant all these guys just agree on something, I thought Tesla had open-sourced its patents for this so anyone could make the supercharger adapter or was that just BS from Tesla?

It was just BS from Tesla. All Musk said that they had no current plans to enforce the patent, but never actually licensed any of them to competing companies. Of course, that didn't stop his marketing department from trying to confuse people into thinking they actually open sourced the patents.

Misleading title. Tesla was forcibly kicked off the investigation by the NTST.

Not to mention the fact that the marketing around it strongly encourages that interpretation (showing people driving without touching the steering wheel, etc.)