There is nothing unproven about the "technology". It is just making a tunnel and putting train shuttles in them, like has been done in airports all over. They aren't doing what Musk was proposing: a series of interlocking tunnels with carts that hold passenger cars which descend from the surface on elevators. Now THAT is a dumb idea.
110010001000, dude, we all already know that you hate Musk. Let it go man, let it go...
we already have that, it's called the Blue Line. heh.
Really just need to make a set of express rails for Blue Line, no need for tunnels and no need for Musk. In some places the 2nd lines would be up in the air over grade track, which of course is how most the CTA train tracks are anyway, it's 125+ year old proven Chicago tech, we're good at it.
The stupidity and waste of this proposed project is unbelievable.
Clearly you have never taken the Blue Line. Widening that elevated track would be quite expensive, especially in Chicago and especially on the public dime. Think multiple times the cost of the big dig in Boston. While this might not be the best application/location of this type of transportation, if you are doing it in Chicago doing it privately this way might be the only possibility.
As for becoming ISP's, Google has already gone down that road and found out it's not so cheap or easy
https://gizmodo.com/what-happe...
"Part of the problem is simply that expanding fiber broadband was always going to be a massive undertaking, and was always going to face some big hurdles. Laying miles and miles of cables takes time and money—and as one Alphabet employee told the Wall Street Journal last year, “Everyone who has done fiber to the home has given up because it costs way too much money and takes way too much time.”
It was expensive when they were trying to make a new profitable business. Now however, they are protecting one of the most profitable businesses the world has ever seen. Now what is expensive before is now cheap.
Something tells me that someday, we will look back on this and say how much the ISPs fucked up by inviting (almost forcing) Alphabet and the other mega-cap tech companies to compete with them. Alphabet has more cash on hand than AT&T's market cap. Its like me picking a fight with a professional boxer.
I never understood why video specific autoencoders were not used instead of existing codecs. I understand the hardware side of this is difficult (hardware could be created that could handle autoencoders but they don't currently exist), but for laptops and cell phones, an autoencoder would likely work much more efficiently for when bandwidth was limited. Perhaps bandwidth is good enough and saving cell phone batteries is higher priority but general purpose codecs are a very heavy hammer with which to solve issues due to limited network bandwidth. Seems like mathematicians looking for a problem to solve rather than a real attempt to find the most efficient solution here.
Neither do crops when they are rotated properly. And we don't produce large amounts of ethanol anymore because that causes world-wide food prices to rise which triggers revolutions and civil wars (see Arab spring in 2011). Sorry but feeding hungry people comes before your pet green energy cause.
then why hasn't the price of oil collapse? It looks pretty steady to me. If the asset was already deemed worthless you'd expect it to be around $10 or $20 a barrel, It's pushing $60 as I write this. That's below it's peak of a $100, true. But that's more a correction than a crash. And that correction was mostly brought on by stabilization in the middle east due to the Iran deal and a decline in oil fired power plants as natural gas got cheap due to fracking.
First, oil is turned into a bunch of different products, not just gas and each serves a different set of markets (uses) and when the price of gas goes down, more oil goes into fuel for airplanes (for instance) or some other type of fuel. Second, the price of oil is actually pretty dependent upon political factors, mostly because the "price" of oil (the one you are looking at) is actually a future and not a spot price and so future risk is being priced in. So I wouldn't expect a crash as you are predicting. But a slow decline is something many people are expecting but as that happens its likely that fewer and fewer producers will continue to pump oil which will balance the drop in demand you are predicting. Just like a high oil price causes more production, a lower oil price causes less production which makes the price of oil tend to stay in a band and not drop to 0.
The more interesting thing to see is as this weakens the Petrodollar what does this do to US monetary policy? The real effect might be to weaken the US dollar which would cause US imports to get much more expensive, US exports to get much cheaper and more attractive and could spur a large wave of US automated manufacturing. Or it could just drop the US standard of living significantly. Its hard to know...
You Telsa nuts are...nuts. The top selling EV has been the Nissan Leaf (by far). Tesla is not likely to be the EV leader.
Damn 110010001000 is at it again. He posted 27 times on a Tesla article a couple of days ago, all critical of Elon or Tesla and mostly containing inaccurate claims and just plain falsehoods. Quit trolling, and haven't you lost enough money on Tesla to learn your lesson. I'm surprised your fund is even still solvent at this point. The Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US and not even in the top 5 worldwide. Quit posting things that are patently false.
Nissan makes the #1 selling LEAF all-electric car, Toyota makes the Prius Prime that has an all-electric mode along with improved hybrids using the lithium ion battery, and these manufacturers are not positions to make all-electric cars?
It is this kind of over-the-top bragging that has serious people shorting the Tesla stock?
Stop lying. The Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US. Its not in the top 5 worldwide (check inside EV). Meanwhile Tesla has 3 of the top 4 EVs by sales in the US. And that's before the model 3 really ramps up. Not even sure why the TSLA shorts are even still standing, have you not lost enough money on Tesla yet?
Huh? All the major ICE manufacturers currently also make EVs (maybe not Ford). How do they not have experience?
Cause most of them have only made about 2000 EVs each. Those are compliance cars which are produced so they can sell cars in CA without huge fines. They are only doing this BTW because Tesla won't sell them the extra credits to try to force other auto makers to start making EVs. Even this doesn't really get them to make EVs in any serious number. Not that it matters as the dealership networks hate EVs with an intensity that's hard to describe and will do pretty much anything to prevent EVs from taking off (ignoring culture issues, maintenance is a big money maker for dealerships). And since going to a car lot is about as pleasant as getting a trip to the dentist, I'm guessing that Tesla's direct to customer model will start to look more and more effective as time passes.
Tesla has been buying their batteries from the open market for a very long time, nothing prevents a new entrant in the electric car market from doing the same. Might not be an ideal vehicle design but it will at least buy them some time and gain them experience for the future. Given that a battery maker could gain a lot of future sales by helping out a car maker I'd imagine a battery maker might offer some engineering expertise to such a car maker.
Tesla doesn't buy batteries and haven't done so in some time. In fact, they have produced 1 Gwh of batteries themselves (with Panasonic's machines and their own chemistry). The gigafactory produces about half the world's EV batteries right now and will be increasing its production 400% over the next 12 months. Of the existing auto makers, only VW has even discussed a realistic EV strategy but its on paper today. They haven't even picked where the battery factories will go. They haven't signed contracts to buy the lithium. In short, they haven't done shit yet and they are the only ones even sort of moving that direction while I see model 3s everyday.
Does my prediction of natural gas replacing electric cars sound implausible? I'm guessing that it's more plausible than claiming Ford or GM having financial troubles because they can't figure out how to make an electric car to compete with Tesla. Think about that for a second. If Ford can't figure out how to compete with Tesla in the electric car market then why would they not simply take on the task of trying to compete with natural gas? What else have they got to lose at that point? If they make it work then they can take Teslas lunch with a car that fills up at home from the same natural gas people use to cook with. I've seen a lot of garages with natural gas heaters in them, it won't take much to hook up a spigot to fill up a car. The selling point for electric cars is never having to visit a filling station again, well natural gas offers that too.
First, Ford and GM can make EVs just fine. The problem for them is that they can't make batteries and can't acquire them at a price point that allows them to make EVs profitably. This is unlikely to change much in the next few years unless they start making EV batteries themselves which probably won't happen.
NG cars combine all the problems with gas with all of the problems of EVs without any of the benefits. You have to build a new energy distribution system (EV's problem) but its still a highly explosive material (gas's problem). Also, NGs were popular mods to make in the 1970s during the energy crisis. My GF's father built such a system himself and he was a soldier and not an engineer. So the issue isn't technology, its a combination of all the scale problems EVs have without the will that comes from "going green" that powers EVs to some extent.
Mechanic shops have switched long time ago. Almost all cars today, as well as their problems, are filled with electronics and cables.
Not to mention that the "EVs are maintenance free" pundits continually forget that EVs still have hydraulic brakes, suspensions, air conditioners, etc which all will still need repairs and maintenance. Even in my ICE car the only actual engine work that's been needed is the oil changes (up to 10,000 mile intervals these days), spark plugs (around 100,000 miles), and the alternator and coolant pump (both wear items typically replaced around 130,000 miles.) At 160,000 miles I'm in need of new struts and some suspension bushings. Brakes and tires have probably been my biggest recurring cost but those are wear items and I do drive "aggressively."
I've owned 2 EVs over the last 6 years as my daily drivers. The only time I had any maintenance done on either car was when the infotainment system failed on the second car about about a month of owning it. It was replaced for free. These were both Chevy Volts and GM isn't exactly the top of the heap for quality. The Tesla owners I know have even less issues with their cars than I have. Don't kid yourself, EVs and ICEs require drastically different amounts of maintenance.
Nonsense. Requiring quarterly profit statements brings much needed accountability to organizations. If you feel you need a pass for a number of quarters, discuss it with your shareholders (eg Musk).
The pressure for companies to deliver regular results is one of the things driving our economies (read: quality of life) so much higher. If you were smart, you'd demand the same thing of your software projects and force a regular production deployment.
If you're just going to complain about how things aren't fantastic for those living in North America, or that things are getting worse, well... probably means you can't see the forest from the trees. Objectively compare standard of living at the end of each decade over the last century and there is only one logical conclusion.
Not according to Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon. "When companies get where they're sort of living by so-called making the numbers, they do a lot of things that really are counter to the long-term interests of the business," Buffett said.
What do you do with countries which are beyond the tipping point such as Burundi? Where overpopulation already makes any chance of developing a decent economy a pipe dream and TFR is 6?
I see only three solutions for a country like Burundi, mass displacement of people which risks destabilizing any country they move to and setting it on the same path, Malthusian collapse or some kind of top down imposed limit on their population growth. The last one seems to me it would cause the least human suffering, shame "human rights" make it a non option.
A Rhonda like genocide is a possibility as those are the same conditions that caused that tragedy. Does that count of a Malthusian collapse?
That's a short seller or a troll for a short seller. They have gotten crushed lately on their TSLA shorts but at the time still had a chance of not being completely destroyed. Hey 110010001000, how's that TSLA short doing for you today, or are your PUTs worthless instead? Probably didn't realize an option's price could go negative did you...
Generally speaking, I'd say the one benefit agile tends to bring is that it officially discourages developers from hunkering down into a huge project and simply "going dark" for a year, at least if done correct. Those types of going dark periods often don't end well. I've always thought that was common sense anyhow, but it's probably better for leads and producers to be able get a bit more visibility into those sorts of projects.
Your teams probably do very easy work (oh right, videogames). To do really difficult designs and very fast/efficient implementations, "going dark" is the only way I've ever seen it work. I seriously doubt anything of any real difficulty has ever been implemented by almost anybody without "going dark". Even in bad hacking movies, this is how it works. You don't fatten a hog by weighting it (old educational aphorism). And what's in your manager's head, rarely has any resemblance to reality. Code is reality when delivering software, everything else is BS.
It's important to remember that there are an order of magnitude more programmers now than there were in the days cobol was popular, and they write a lot of code. Java is the new COBOL, and has been for 15 years.
Java is about 27 years old. By 2003 (15 years ago) Java had been the dominate language for almost a decade.
That is the amusing this: you are wrong and you don't even know it. Tesla is NOT the largest battery manufacturer for EVs (by far) and is not the largest EV manufacturer (Nissan is). You Musk fanboys are so delusional! You believe the marketing.
Nissan's Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Also, Tesla has manufactured and deployed a Gwh of batteries from the gigafactory which is about half of the worlds deployed batteries (which includes categories of batteries that Tesla doesn't make). Enjoy your losses sucker.
What new technology? Do you even know what company is the largest manufacturer of EVs??? Why aren't you investing in them? Musk is all about ego. That is why all those rich tech guys are building rocket companies.
Because its very likely that EV maker in China is lying. Also, people in other countries actually want Tesla's cars. And that EV maker doesn't make their own battery manufacturing either which is really why Tesla has such a high stock price. And Tesla will be the largest EV maker in the world in a couple of quarters anyway.
The Nissan Leaf is the best selling EV on the market today and starts at $29k and is actually available. THAT is a real EV for the masses. Tesla is just promising a $38k car while delivering cars for the 1%. The truth is exactly opposite of what you have said.
What is it with you fanbois always moving the goalposts? Original claim was there were a bunch of guaranteed sales therefore everything is rosey, citation proves that the premise isn't quite so true, and you come back with something completely unrelated to guaranteed sales.
Those people could also go buy a bolt or a redesigned leaf (which is also selling faster than factory capacity, but they are turning out way more of them than tesla is). 6-12 months down the road the competition landscape is going to be even worse for tesla and that backlog is still going to be in the hundreds of thousands.
Tesla themselves said they will exhaust the current model 3 backlog over the next 12 months. The real question is how quickly does that backlog fill back up afterwards. Also, Tesla sells 3 models of car with higher sales than the Bolt or Volt and that's before they increase their sales by a factor of 4 to consume the current backlog.
The real fantasy here is that GM could make 100,000 EVs in a year...that's the thing that's not possible right now. Where would they get that many batteries? None of the other auto makers has their own a large scale battery factory. Also, GM looses $9,000 on each Volt and Bolt they sell while Tesla can make better types of EVs for about $17,000 less per car (compared to GM).
It does not matter what the stock price was a 12 months ago
It does if that's when they shorted the stock. If you want to say they lost a billion dollars, the change in price of shares times the number of shares shorted has to be a billion dollars If the stock moved down between when they sold and bought the stock back, they've made money.
*Fees and interest complicate things
But they didn't. Most of the current set of short positions were opened about 3 months ago when the idea was floated by hedge fund managers at an investment conference in NYC. At that point, TSLA was trading between $275 and $305 most of the time. So those are the price ranges in which most of those positions were opened. Its trading over $315 now in a range that likely is between $305 and $325 or $330.
The smart money who sorted Tesla have decided to cut their loses and have already bought enough stock to cover their short positions, only the pathological-gambler-in-denial type of investor will wait to break even 'till the end. Also, how do you plan to codify in law a ban on short selling that cannot be circumvented trivially and can be enforced? Many lawmakers have tried and failed.
No they didn't. There were more than 40 million shares shorted. At average daily volume (7M a day for TSLA) that's over a week of nothing but buying from short sellers to exit. So in reality it will take more than a month to unwind those positions and to do so at that rate would cause the price to spike by a very large amount (by increasing the buying interest over that period). The shorts are still very far in and very much in a bad position. In fact, to defend the $325 price on Thursday, its likely they had to get in even deeper in new positions (to replace short positions that were stopped out between $315 and $325) as the price was spiking at that point and a large volume of (apparently institutional) sales pushed the price lower before close on Thursday. While we won't know if those were new shorts or longs getting out for two weeks (till the block trade reports for this week are released), its a reasonable assumption to think they were new shorts as they looked to be large, institutional trades (and not many smaller trades which would indicate profit taking by long, retail investors).
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing unproven about the "technology". It is just making a tunnel and putting train shuttles in them, like has been done in airports all over. They aren't doing what Musk was proposing: a series of interlocking tunnels with carts that hold passenger cars which descend from the surface on elevators. Now THAT is a dumb idea.
110010001000, dude, we all already know that you hate Musk. Let it go man, let it go...
we already have that, it's called the Blue Line. heh.
Really just need to make a set of express rails for Blue Line, no need for tunnels and no need for Musk. In some places the 2nd lines would be up in the air over grade track, which of course is how most the CTA train tracks are anyway, it's 125+ year old proven Chicago tech, we're good at it.
The stupidity and waste of this proposed project is unbelievable.
Clearly you have never taken the Blue Line. Widening that elevated track would be quite expensive, especially in Chicago and especially on the public dime. Think multiple times the cost of the big dig in Boston. While this might not be the best application/location of this type of transportation, if you are doing it in Chicago doing it privately this way might be the only possibility.
They are major players with deep pockets.
As for becoming ISP's, Google has already gone down that road and found out it's not so cheap or easy https://gizmodo.com/what-happe...
"Part of the problem is simply that expanding fiber broadband was always going to be a massive undertaking, and was always going to face some big hurdles. Laying miles and miles of cables takes time and money—and as one Alphabet employee told the Wall Street Journal last year, “Everyone who has done fiber to the home has given up because it costs way too much money and takes way too much time.”
It was expensive when they were trying to make a new profitable business. Now however, they are protecting one of the most profitable businesses the world has ever seen. Now what is expensive before is now cheap.
Something tells me that someday, we will look back on this and say how much the ISPs fucked up by inviting (almost forcing) Alphabet and the other mega-cap tech companies to compete with them. Alphabet has more cash on hand than AT&T's market cap. Its like me picking a fight with a professional boxer.
I never understood why video specific autoencoders were not used instead of existing codecs. I understand the hardware side of this is difficult (hardware could be created that could handle autoencoders but they don't currently exist), but for laptops and cell phones, an autoencoder would likely work much more efficiently for when bandwidth was limited. Perhaps bandwidth is good enough and saving cell phone batteries is higher priority but general purpose codecs are a very heavy hammer with which to solve issues due to limited network bandwidth. Seems like mathematicians looking for a problem to solve rather than a real attempt to find the most efficient solution here.
That is why Tesla will be making GF around the planet.
Tesla is doing that because Li and other metals are cheaper to ship than finished cars.
Except that solar panels don't deplete soil...
Neither do crops when they are rotated properly. And we don't produce large amounts of ethanol anymore because that causes world-wide food prices to rise which triggers revolutions and civil wars (see Arab spring in 2011). Sorry but feeding hungry people comes before your pet green energy cause.
then why hasn't the price of oil collapse? It looks pretty steady to me. If the asset was already deemed worthless you'd expect it to be around $10 or $20 a barrel, It's pushing $60 as I write this. That's below it's peak of a $100, true. But that's more a correction than a crash. And that correction was mostly brought on by stabilization in the middle east due to the Iran deal and a decline in oil fired power plants as natural gas got cheap due to fracking.
First, oil is turned into a bunch of different products, not just gas and each serves a different set of markets (uses) and when the price of gas goes down, more oil goes into fuel for airplanes (for instance) or some other type of fuel. Second, the price of oil is actually pretty dependent upon political factors, mostly because the "price" of oil (the one you are looking at) is actually a future and not a spot price and so future risk is being priced in. So I wouldn't expect a crash as you are predicting. But a slow decline is something many people are expecting but as that happens its likely that fewer and fewer producers will continue to pump oil which will balance the drop in demand you are predicting. Just like a high oil price causes more production, a lower oil price causes less production which makes the price of oil tend to stay in a band and not drop to 0.
The more interesting thing to see is as this weakens the Petrodollar what does this do to US monetary policy? The real effect might be to weaken the US dollar which would cause US imports to get much more expensive, US exports to get much cheaper and more attractive and could spur a large wave of US automated manufacturing. Or it could just drop the US standard of living significantly. Its hard to know...
You Telsa nuts are...nuts. The top selling EV has been the Nissan Leaf (by far). Tesla is not likely to be the EV leader.
Damn 110010001000 is at it again. He posted 27 times on a Tesla article a couple of days ago, all critical of Elon or Tesla and mostly containing inaccurate claims and just plain falsehoods. Quit trolling, and haven't you lost enough money on Tesla to learn your lesson. I'm surprised your fund is even still solvent at this point. The Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US and not even in the top 5 worldwide. Quit posting things that are patently false.
Nissan makes the #1 selling LEAF all-electric car, Toyota makes the Prius Prime that has an all-electric mode along with improved hybrids using the lithium ion battery, and these manufacturers are not positions to make all-electric cars?
It is this kind of over-the-top bragging that has serious people shorting the Tesla stock?
Stop lying. The Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US. Its not in the top 5 worldwide (check inside EV). Meanwhile Tesla has 3 of the top 4 EVs by sales in the US. And that's before the model 3 really ramps up. Not even sure why the TSLA shorts are even still standing, have you not lost enough money on Tesla yet?
Huh? All the major ICE manufacturers currently also make EVs (maybe not Ford). How do they not have experience?
Cause most of them have only made about 2000 EVs each. Those are compliance cars which are produced so they can sell cars in CA without huge fines. They are only doing this BTW because Tesla won't sell them the extra credits to try to force other auto makers to start making EVs. Even this doesn't really get them to make EVs in any serious number. Not that it matters as the dealership networks hate EVs with an intensity that's hard to describe and will do pretty much anything to prevent EVs from taking off (ignoring culture issues, maintenance is a big money maker for dealerships). And since going to a car lot is about as pleasant as getting a trip to the dentist, I'm guessing that Tesla's direct to customer model will start to look more and more effective as time passes.
Tesla has been buying their batteries from the open market for a very long time, nothing prevents a new entrant in the electric car market from doing the same. Might not be an ideal vehicle design but it will at least buy them some time and gain them experience for the future. Given that a battery maker could gain a lot of future sales by helping out a car maker I'd imagine a battery maker might offer some engineering expertise to such a car maker.
Tesla doesn't buy batteries and haven't done so in some time. In fact, they have produced 1 Gwh of batteries themselves (with Panasonic's machines and their own chemistry). The gigafactory produces about half the world's EV batteries right now and will be increasing its production 400% over the next 12 months. Of the existing auto makers, only VW has even discussed a realistic EV strategy but its on paper today. They haven't even picked where the battery factories will go. They haven't signed contracts to buy the lithium. In short, they haven't done shit yet and they are the only ones even sort of moving that direction while I see model 3s everyday.
Does my prediction of natural gas replacing electric cars sound implausible? I'm guessing that it's more plausible than claiming Ford or GM having financial troubles because they can't figure out how to make an electric car to compete with Tesla. Think about that for a second. If Ford can't figure out how to compete with Tesla in the electric car market then why would they not simply take on the task of trying to compete with natural gas? What else have they got to lose at that point? If they make it work then they can take Teslas lunch with a car that fills up at home from the same natural gas people use to cook with. I've seen a lot of garages with natural gas heaters in them, it won't take much to hook up a spigot to fill up a car. The selling point for electric cars is never having to visit a filling station again, well natural gas offers that too.
First, Ford and GM can make EVs just fine. The problem for them is that they can't make batteries and can't acquire them at a price point that allows them to make EVs profitably. This is unlikely to change much in the next few years unless they start making EV batteries themselves which probably won't happen.
NG cars combine all the problems with gas with all of the problems of EVs without any of the benefits. You have to build a new energy distribution system (EV's problem) but its still a highly explosive material (gas's problem). Also, NGs were popular mods to make in the 1970s during the energy crisis. My GF's father built such a system himself and he was a soldier and not an engineer. So the issue isn't technology, its a combination of all the scale problems EVs have without the will that comes from "going green" that powers EVs to some extent.
Mechanic shops have switched long time ago. Almost all cars today, as well as their problems, are filled with electronics and cables.
Not to mention that the "EVs are maintenance free" pundits continually forget that EVs still have hydraulic brakes, suspensions, air conditioners, etc which all will still need repairs and maintenance. Even in my ICE car the only actual engine work that's been needed is the oil changes (up to 10,000 mile intervals these days), spark plugs (around 100,000 miles), and the alternator and coolant pump (both wear items typically replaced around 130,000 miles.) At 160,000 miles I'm in need of new struts and some suspension bushings. Brakes and tires have probably been my biggest recurring cost but those are wear items and I do drive "aggressively."
I've owned 2 EVs over the last 6 years as my daily drivers. The only time I had any maintenance done on either car was when the infotainment system failed on the second car about about a month of owning it. It was replaced for free. These were both Chevy Volts and GM isn't exactly the top of the heap for quality. The Tesla owners I know have even less issues with their cars than I have. Don't kid yourself, EVs and ICEs require drastically different amounts of maintenance.
Nonsense. Requiring quarterly profit statements brings much needed accountability to organizations. If you feel you need a pass for a number of quarters, discuss it with your shareholders (eg Musk). The pressure for companies to deliver regular results is one of the things driving our economies (read: quality of life) so much higher. If you were smart, you'd demand the same thing of your software projects and force a regular production deployment. If you're just going to complain about how things aren't fantastic for those living in North America, or that things are getting worse, well... probably means you can't see the forest from the trees. Objectively compare standard of living at the end of each decade over the last century and there is only one logical conclusion.
Not according to Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon. "When companies get where they're sort of living by so-called making the numbers, they do a lot of things that really are counter to the long-term interests of the business," Buffett said.
What do you do with countries which are beyond the tipping point such as Burundi? Where overpopulation already makes any chance of developing a decent economy a pipe dream and TFR is 6?
I see only three solutions for a country like Burundi, mass displacement of people which risks destabilizing any country they move to and setting it on the same path, Malthusian collapse or some kind of top down imposed limit on their population growth. The last one seems to me it would cause the least human suffering, shame "human rights" make it a non option.
A Rhonda like genocide is a possibility as those are the same conditions that caused that tragedy. Does that count of a Malthusian collapse?
That's strange. You made 27 posts on a Tesla story a couple of days ago, all of them attacking Musk and his cars.
27 comments on one Tesla story
How come you are now supporting his technology?
There should be a -1 Insincere mod just for you.
That's a short seller or a troll for a short seller. They have gotten crushed lately on their TSLA shorts but at the time still had a chance of not being completely destroyed. Hey 110010001000, how's that TSLA short doing for you today, or are your PUTs worthless instead? Probably didn't realize an option's price could go negative did you...
Generally speaking, I'd say the one benefit agile tends to bring is that it officially discourages developers from hunkering down into a huge project and simply "going dark" for a year, at least if done correct. Those types of going dark periods often don't end well. I've always thought that was common sense anyhow, but it's probably better for leads and producers to be able get a bit more visibility into those sorts of projects.
Your teams probably do very easy work (oh right, videogames). To do really difficult designs and very fast/efficient implementations, "going dark" is the only way I've ever seen it work. I seriously doubt anything of any real difficulty has ever been implemented by almost anybody without "going dark". Even in bad hacking movies, this is how it works. You don't fatten a hog by weighting it (old educational aphorism). And what's in your manager's head, rarely has any resemblance to reality. Code is reality when delivering software, everything else is BS.
It's important to remember that there are an order of magnitude more programmers now than there were in the days cobol was popular, and they write a lot of code. Java is the new COBOL, and has been for 15 years.
Java is about 27 years old. By 2003 (15 years ago) Java had been the dominate language for almost a decade.
That is the amusing this: you are wrong and you don't even know it. Tesla is NOT the largest battery manufacturer for EVs (by far) and is not the largest EV manufacturer (Nissan is). You Musk fanboys are so delusional! You believe the marketing.
Nissan's Leaf is the 7th best selling EV in the US. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Also, Tesla has manufactured and deployed a Gwh of batteries from the gigafactory which is about half of the worlds deployed batteries (which includes categories of batteries that Tesla doesn't make). Enjoy your losses sucker.
What new technology? Do you even know what company is the largest manufacturer of EVs??? Why aren't you investing in them? Musk is all about ego. That is why all those rich tech guys are building rocket companies.
Because its very likely that EV maker in China is lying. Also, people in other countries actually want Tesla's cars. And that EV maker doesn't make their own battery manufacturing either which is really why Tesla has such a high stock price. And Tesla will be the largest EV maker in the world in a couple of quarters anyway.
The Nissan Leaf is the best selling EV on the market today and starts at $29k and is actually available. THAT is a real EV for the masses. Tesla is just promising a $38k car while delivering cars for the 1%. The truth is exactly opposite of what you have said.
No it isn't. Here are the best selling EVs on the market today.
Here is the list
What is it with you fanbois always moving the goalposts? Original claim was there were a bunch of guaranteed sales therefore everything is rosey, citation proves that the premise isn't quite so true, and you come back with something completely unrelated to guaranteed sales.
Those people could also go buy a bolt or a redesigned leaf (which is also selling faster than factory capacity, but they are turning out way more of them than tesla is). 6-12 months down the road the competition landscape is going to be even worse for tesla and that backlog is still going to be in the hundreds of thousands.
Tesla themselves said they will exhaust the current model 3 backlog over the next 12 months. The real question is how quickly does that backlog fill back up afterwards. Also, Tesla sells 3 models of car with higher sales than the Bolt or Volt and that's before they increase their sales by a factor of 4 to consume the current backlog.
The real fantasy here is that GM could make 100,000 EVs in a year...that's the thing that's not possible right now. Where would they get that many batteries? None of the other auto makers has their own a large scale battery factory. Also, GM looses $9,000 on each Volt and Bolt they sell while Tesla can make better types of EVs for about $17,000 less per car (compared to GM).
It does if that's when they shorted the stock. If you want to say they lost a billion dollars, the change in price of shares times the number of shares shorted has to be a billion dollars If the stock moved down between when they sold and bought the stock back, they've made money.
*Fees and interest complicate things
But they didn't. Most of the current set of short positions were opened about 3 months ago when the idea was floated by hedge fund managers at an investment conference in NYC. At that point, TSLA was trading between $275 and $305 most of the time. So those are the price ranges in which most of those positions were opened. Its trading over $315 now in a range that likely is between $305 and $325 or $330.
The smart money who sorted Tesla have decided to cut their loses and have already bought enough stock to cover their short positions, only the pathological-gambler-in-denial type of investor will wait to break even 'till the end. Also, how do you plan to codify in law a ban on short selling that cannot be circumvented trivially and can be enforced? Many lawmakers have tried and failed.
No they didn't. There were more than 40 million shares shorted. At average daily volume (7M a day for TSLA) that's over a week of nothing but buying from short sellers to exit. So in reality it will take more than a month to unwind those positions and to do so at that rate would cause the price to spike by a very large amount (by increasing the buying interest over that period). The shorts are still very far in and very much in a bad position. In fact, to defend the $325 price on Thursday, its likely they had to get in even deeper in new positions (to replace short positions that were stopped out between $315 and $325) as the price was spiking at that point and a large volume of (apparently institutional) sales pushed the price lower before close on Thursday. While we won't know if those were new shorts or longs getting out for two weeks (till the block trade reports for this week are released), its a reasonable assumption to think they were new shorts as they looked to be large, institutional trades (and not many smaller trades which would indicate profit taking by long, retail investors).
Leveraged people attach credit lines to their margin accounts.
And when that credit is maxed out???