3 ms·

Here's this article in a format that makes no noise: http://archive.is/wCQls http://archive.is/wCQls The WSJ article it refers to is called "Tesla’s Make-Or-B

Here's this article in a format that makes no noise: http://archive.is/wCQls http://archive.is/wCQls The WSJ article it refers to is called "Tesla’s Make-Or-Break Moment Is Fast Approaching": http://archive.is/ucf9q http://archive.is/ucf9q The CNBC article it refers to is called "Tesla employees say automaker is churning out a high volume of flawed parts requiring costly rework": https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/tesla-manufacturing-high-volume-of-flawed-parts-employees.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/14/tesla-manufacturing-high-vol...

dang 9y ago
Since the CNBC article is by far the most factual, and doesn't seem to have been discussed yet on HN, I'm going to try burying this submission and rolling back the clock on the first post of that one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16587249. The Bloomberg article isn't bad, but it's so generic that the discussion is generic as well (Tesla in general, short selling in general). That's the main trouble with articles that don't contain enough factual fiber.