xkjkls

30 ms·

331.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Have you ever used Google Maps in a country like Costa Rica? Because the country isn't mapped to nearly the same degree (also, they have a habit of not even naming their roads), it becomes barely useful. I'm not talking about the
332.
by xkjkls 7y ago
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Tesla-Reviews-E43129.htm 3.3 is not a high review.
333.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> I worked for an erratic, sociopathic boss once. I quit after about six months. Unless you're a masochist or truly have no other options, you'll soon realize it's not worth whatever extra money or prestige the company nam
334.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Given that in many countries GPS barely works enough to order an Uber with a human driver, I'm highly skeptical of self-driving taxis.
335.
by xkjkls 7y ago
How much difference does 4++ vs 5 make for the predicted consequences of self-driving cars though? That's the important thing.
336.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Honestly, I don't know how often that question ever warrants good responses. From my experience, most hiring comes from interviewing people who resumes show they're pretty obviously qualified, rather than questions like this from
337.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> It seems that you are new in this argument, because this point has been rebutted so many times in the past, but here goes: it does not have to be flawless, it just has to statistically cause fewer accidents per kilometer/year than
338.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Especially not when they are literally accepting money for the feature, which they have consistently estimated wrong timelines on.
339.
by xkjkls 7y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-reportedly-terrifi...
340.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Sure, but having worked in a number of different environments and having a family, a work culture that is willing to support me is very important. Tesla and SpaceX don't seem to have that at all.
341.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> When I'm looking for jobs, my main criteria is market cap / number of employees, and Tesla (as most startups/small companies) was very bad before the stock price went up. Now with high stock prices Tesla can afford to pa
342.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Software patents end up being so vague that basically every large company is violating some in some way. They don't get in legal battles with eachother often because the resulting legal decision will be somewhat random and risks huge r
343.
by xkjkls 7y ago
I think it is much less that people are opposed to self-driving cars as a concept, just that they are skeptical of their current efficacy, and even more skeptical of what many of the current competitors in the field self-report their effica
344.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> I don't understand enough about financials to understand what you are saying. Capital Expenditures are what a company spends on land, buildings, equipment -- all of those sort of long term assets. Depreciation is how much the valu
345.
by xkjkls 7y ago
It’s really hard to ever say a company is properly investing if their CapEx on their income statements exceeds their depreciation. Can you name other fast growing companies that is true for?
346.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Did it? They only produced a small number more than they did per quarter at the end of last year. Why do we think they are production constrained?
347.
by xkjkls 7y ago
No, that’s GAAP loss, so that doesn’t include any debt repayments. That’s what the business generated. And they produced the most cars they ever did and still lost money for the tenth consecutive year, in a year where the expectations given
348.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Tesla has lost -6.5 billion, so, yeah, I'd still stick with the Bears.
349.
by xkjkls 7y ago
All of this is theoretical and we don't have any real data on how it will affect gross margins. When the car is larger, many things are going to be more costly, like painting, which takes up a significant part of automotive margins.
350.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Well, let's check back next year. The bears are already 1-0 against Elon Musk, given that a large percentage of Tesla bears were originally short SolarCity.
351.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Using non-GAAP numbers. Non-GAAP gives you substantial lee-way to not charge things to your bottom line. I don't think you get to claim to run a profitable business just because you started paying your employees completely in stock.
352.
by xkjkls 7y ago
QoQ. They still showed a YoY decline for 2019. And that's in a market that's been expanding, so they've significantly lost market share.
353.
by xkjkls 7y ago
No. Businesses are eventually valued by the capital they can return. Otherwise numbers are all meaningless
354.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Solar panels and accompanying equipment break. It’s much easier to maintain a centralized installation than having people need to travel for service.
355.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Can they? They had a loss of $800 million in 2019, and that’s with over $500 million in regulatory credit sales boosting that. The EV market still seems like it incinerates capital
356.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Not a meaningful amount of capital though.
357.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Their solar business, which they purchased, has declined every year since the acquisition
358.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Jeff Bezos could retire tomorrow and it would barely change the stock. Is it expensive? Sure, but it’s expensive because it has a wide variety of charismatic businesses, not Jeff Bezos.
359.
by xkjkls 7y ago
You’re using non-GAAP numbers. By GAAP standards, they lost $800 million
360.
by xkjkls 7y ago
How often do you really travel cross country?

More ›