Wut

Arm chair psychology and complete lack of financial and emotional interest in TSLA talking.

The guy is not bored. Probably experiencing overbearing anxiety and trying to deflect. But that’s my opinion

You mean EIon Musk? The Twitter spam bot? Can you please provide some evidence on this.


Great year for the bears so far. What are the latest bankruptcy predictions ITT?

Come on dude, bears have been right about a lot of the fundamental story this year on demand especially compared to the bulls and what a shocker but price matches that. You know I'm a lot more neutral than most but if we are going to talk about relative performance it's been pretty awful. It still hasn't broken down but with the market basically at all time highs it's not giving a lot of confidence either and what are the next real catalysts? Model Y pop was pretty weak, how do you respond to that?

To be fair, the model Y hasn't actually even been announced yet. It was just another attempted pump and cash grab.

Autopilot remains a sick deadly joke. I guess the below is the source of "truck lust" - Tesla sensors either can't see or the software ignores anything above a certain height. This was the same flaw that decapitated a Musk devotee watching Harry Potter.

Watch how the truck is detected and then disappears from the autopilot detection as its wheel-free undercarriage makes it undetectable to the hardware that the liar and fraud Musk said is already sufficient for Fully Self Driving in all conditions:



Note also how the software is so incompetent and poorly written it doesn't even exercise caution given the second-ago detection of the truck....there's no extra layer of safety by doing a simple check for previously detected items that suddenly disappear. It simply turns the wheel into the spot where the truck was a second ago that it lost track of. Imagine this at higher speeds? Horrific accident.

This isn't an edge case - this is a standard case, and on a highway no less. How is this cuck system detecting pedestrians? People on bicycles alongside the car? We already know it can't detect stationary objects, slamming right into them without even slowing or warning, and falls apart when lanes disappear.

Meanwhile, GM and Waymo have fully autonomous taxi fleets driving around actual cities for a year now driving in all conditions including complex stop signs, pedestrians, bicycles, roadworks, no lanes, road blockages, etc with less than one disengagement every 3000 miles and dropping very fast.

Tesla are dead last in autonomous driving with no path to catch up. Something to remember as Musk the conman pumps "Fully Self Driving" coming this year and total bull**** like neural nets and his data collection. Dumb people are dumb I guess.

I was actually genuine in that the year has been pretty good for bears. I've said last year that 2019 is going to be difficult for TSLA, but I wasn't expecting market highs, I was actually expecting a bear market in general.

I don't see a convincing story why TSLA should return to +$300 anytime soon. I've said before that it is overvalued and that the real growth will come when there is mass market adoption of electric cars and TSLA will spearhead that.

I disagree with your notion that there needs to be an announcement or sudden catalyst for TSLA to grow. If they can churn out 300-500k cars per annum and improve their manufacturing, the company will be very profitable and continue to grow.

On the horizon, TSLA will have a lineup of electric cars that no one else has. The major car companies already struggle to assemble a line up and the electric cars that exist are often times not bestsellers - especially at those companies that rely on ICE cars and sell them very profitably today.

What I still find ridiculous is the bankruptcy talk. Hence, I asked what the latest predictions are.

Waymo and GM don't have large fleets operating all over the world. Do you not get the monumental difference? Can you not derive from Waymo's decade long development of this and still no worldwide roll out that this is not as easy as you pretend it is. Tesla is actually very far and a lot further than any other car manufacturer.

You rely on your bull**** consultancy agency that supposedly knows something that no one else does.

You are ALWAYS comparing the current Tesla to the potential future of some car company (never the same by the way). You have been dead wrong on all of those comparisons, including your endless touting of the iPace (niche car) or the Bolt (basically not sold).

Wow, you are straight up delusional.

Again, fully autonomous level 4 taxi fleets operating in multiple cities vs level 1.5 highway driving with MASSIVE bugs.

No, they know what everyone except arts degrees journalists taken in by Musk's lies and Tesla fanboys know - that Tesla are dead last. There are four sets of information we have:

1. The Navigant research report
2. Reports of the actual abilities of Tesla autopilot, which show it as buggy level 2. This is how I predicted, years ago, that Musk was way off with his timeline and that Tesla had horrible software. If your software is even remotely reliable for 3+, these issues don't happen because they cannot happen. The truck issue I posted for example can only happen if your software is ultra ****ty hacked together code and hasn't even solved a tiny fraction of what's needed for even base level 3 let alone level 4 which is mature and deployed by others now.
3. What is actually deployed in real life right now - highway-only driving assist with Tesla (and ultra ****ty that at that - it has major bugs and slams into stationary objects and trucks) vs actual autonomous taxi fleets driving in all conditions.
4. Public disengagement data, which is the gold standard of objective evidence for where autonomous driving is at. Waymo and GM are crushing.
The iPace ripped the guts out the Model S/X in Europe, destroying Tesla's profitability on those cars and forcing them to drop prices 40K euro overnight. A single, first try, deliberately low volume competitor ***** slapped Tesla hard and destroyed their monopoly and margins with a single car. That's not "dead wrong", that's "dead right".

Bolt had very nice sales and orders but they're basically pulling it from market. worldwide Not sure why, perhaps production problems. It doesn't matter though - dozens of models are coming online this year.

This is a quote by someone at Navigant

I've posted the criteria before, but here they are again:
You are relying on this as your bible without realizing that they are actually judging autonomous driving based on irrelevant factors for autonomous driving technology. The fact that you still don't get that is ****ing ridiculous.

Can you point me towards the GM autonomous taxi ride sharing service? Can you point me towards the Waymo autonomous taxi ride sharing service other than Phoenix (where it is accessible to 400 people, that's as many cars as Tesla produces per day)? You are just lying.

If you've pointed me towards them (you won't and dodge again), could you then explain to me how it is commercially viable to have sensors on top of those cars that cost five digits and are not mass produced today?

Tesla has a completely different roll-out strategy and it is indefinitely more difficult to provide the same level of autonomous driving to a fleet of several hundred thousand cars than it is to provide it to cars driving less than a million miles per year (GM) or slightly above a million miles (Waymo).

I am not even trying to explain it to you, you don't understand complex things. You are a basic linear thinker who tries to be a clever contrarian.

Now you're reduced to straight up lying? Sad. I'm not relying on Navigant. I literally posted multiple pieces of hard data that show where each are at. Disengagement data. Running fleets in actual cities on mature level 4 in all driving environments vs very buggy level 1.5 for Tesla. Awful bugs in Tesla showing both horrible code quality and hardware insufficiency. That's what it's based on. And you know that because I made that case years before the Navigant report was posted. And used it to correctly predict that Musk's projections about autopilot were pure bull**** and that Tesla had no path to even level 3.

And dickhead - the things you listed actually HELP Tesla and move it higher up the chart than it would be based purely on the state of its technology.

As for the rest, it's all been posted before. After your insane triple down where you claimed I was lying about Tesla dropping prices 40K euro overnight, something you could have verified for yourself quickly rather than double and triple down calling that fact a lie in the face of hard evidence (this is how ****ed in the head you are), I'm not engaging with you on details any more. I have better things to do.

You're an excellent example of the kind of brain damaged idiots who get enraged when facts are posted about Tesla though. You're like a Scientologist. The only thing you haven't done is claim I'm paid by big oil as well or paid by shorts.

To be fair to TS, I don't think Tesla has a strategy for full self driving either. It's just something Musk keeps in his mental binder but he ain't spending time, money, or energy on it right now.

If Musk wakes up one day and buys an autonomous vehicle focused company a billion dollars worth of TSLA stock and give (maybe sell? lol) 10,000 model 3s to the company, chances are Musk can find some city to let him test driverless ridesharing. They'll retrofit the modules (and possibly refund or give credit to old customers to buy the modules) if Waymo style Lidars turn out to be indispensable in fully autonomous driving.

Until then, only the diehard fans of Musk think he's serious about autonomous driving by 2020.

It's possible he's just stupid and doesn't understand the issues/is lied to by his team. I thought this was extremely unlikely - Musk is a pretty stupid person in a lot of ways (unlike geniuses he's unable to understand or see detail) but I didn't think that stupid.

But then he tried to install a full robotics system for M3 which nearly sank his company. Anyone who had an even moderate level of engineering intelligence would not have done that. It's a simple analysis and only a crazy grandiose narcissist with a low level of intelligence would have done that. So the only conclusion for that bit of evidence is that he's actually kind of dumb. Which fits with other things - for example his incompetence at coding in his early startups, writing spaghetti/hairball code that couldn't scale.

To me it seems nearly certain that he must know better on autonomous driving and is just using "Fully Self Driving coming soon" as a lie/con that's great for pumping the stock, but it's at least possible he doesn't.

And yeah, Tesla have nothing. Awful code base, no viable strategy to get to level 3 let alone 4, horrible culture of cheap nasty hacks instead of safe code, virtually no R&D money inflowing where billions are required, no longer attracting talent given how extremely far behind they are the competition.

I almost forgot about the robot factory. Feels like forever ago.

You can't engage with me on details, because you make things up all the time. The 40k were an exception to the rule, you are under normal circumstances not right. Otherwise, you would have already posted evidence of the fleets of self-driving taxis. Can you please post this or if not, you've lied yet again.

Name two things I've made up.
Everything I post is sourced and every fact I post is correct. Even most of my predictions are correct. You're just straight up delusional. GM and Waymo have been running fleets for over a year

It's been posted multiple times in this thread. This is my statement, contrasting real world actual usage of actual autonomous taxi fleets with Tesla's worthless product:
This is a true statement. From 2017, almost two years ago:

Cruise is running an autonomous ride-hailing service for employees in SF

Again, two years ago, and it's been expanded.

December 2018, actual paying passengers:
Waymo unveils self-driving taxi service in Arizona for paying customers
Again, the point is contrasting the state of Tesla's development (limited on highways and failing even there), with that of Cruise/Waymo (level 4 operating a high level of proficiency in multiple cities). My post was factual and correct. You once again - like the 40k euro price drop - called me a liar repeatedly on something that is purely factual. That makes you a piece of **** not worth engaging with.
I don't expect an apology - you're a worthless piece of **** on par with a Scientologist when someone questions L. Ron Hubbard. Just lie and smear however you can. Although in your case I think you're actually brain damaged and have broken heuristics/can't form memories properly, in which case that's unfortunate. It's why it's pointless to engage with you though. You're not dealing with reality and your basic heuristics don't work.

Are you ****ing dense?

I've said the following and you come back with the above. You are unbelievably dumb.
You have actually claimed the following:
This is a straight up lie. Because Phoenix is not multiple cities. And 400 eligible customers are less than the number of people buying a Tesla with the option for the self-driving features per day.

Interested to get a source on this.

Is it really a feature if it doesn't exist? Or is this like when "auto-pilot" doesn't really mean auto-pilot?

Spurious, you're just a very stupid person. Fully autonomous level 4 taxi fleets are operating in multiple cities (SF, Phoenix, Tokyo for that matter). Here's what I said:
This is what I said and it's a fact. There's nothing about it that's in any way controversial. Multiple reliable sources back it up. Perhaps you don't understand many to many subject-object agreement rules in English?

Your desperate (and unsuccessful) attempt to paint facts as lies is just weird, man. If it's not a language thing (you seem fluent in English?) I can't only assume brain damage or deliberate dishonesty, and given the 40K euro thing I'm going with brain damage. There's legit something wrong with you, man.
By this logic, Ford with their fleet of tens of millions of cars with cruise control are way ahead of Tesla with their fleet of 300K cars with cruise control + lane changing + car following.

I'm definitely going with brain damage at this point.

Need to update this it seems as it's way off now. Since running their taxis fleets, Waymo/GM disengagement data has gotten better and better. I hadn't checked lately. Incredibly, it's down to once per 11,000 miles in complex San Fran traffic as of December last year. Which is just extraordinary - it's handing signs, traffic lights, complex four ways stop situations, pedestrians, bikes, drivers flouting road rules, road blockages, lack of lanes, roadworks, all flawlessly. San Francisco is one of the complex environments to drive in. Once per 11,000 miles is almost a year of driving for the average driver.

Level 4 is a fully solved at this point it seems. Just an amazing accomplishment by Waymo and especially GM which started later. Meanwhile, Musk has introduced automatic lane changing on the highway after two years of development - that can't even see trucks alongside on a laned highway and steers into them as of the latest update. But according to Spurious:

Just incredible delusion.

Dude, you are making stuff up. Waymo operates a small fleet of autonomous taxis in Phoenix. They are the only one. Cruise has a small service that is for employees only, i.e. no taxi, and the one in Tokyo is just you being a moron (taxi driving along a very fixed route, that's a train you idiot).

The Tesla technology has the possibility to be improved and actually is better than what Ford has on offer. If you don't understand this leverage then you are an idiot.


You've lied a bunch of times and have been exposed. You are just desperate to prove something you are unable to prove, because you have made an assumption but you are obviously not sure.

I mostly skimmed this ridiculous argument but as far as I can tell you are speaking past each other.

Spurious may be technically correct or may not be I am not bothering to research but regardless he is narrowly focusing on the word "taxi" ie carrying passengers.

When the point is that there fleets of Waymo and Cruise self-driving cars deployed on city streets for years now. Therefore Tesla, who can't figure out highway lane-changing, is way behind. Whether those Waymo/Cruise cars are carrying no passengers or 400 passengers or thousands is really immaterial to the level of the technology.

He's not even technically correct. Both services are carrying hundreds of passengers, available to be called at any time via an app, from anywhere to anywhere in the city (SF for Cruise, Phoenix for Waymo, although there are other programs). These services are so incredibly advanced that they only disengage less than once every 11,000 miles. That's how well they're navigating city traffic from anywhere to anywhere in San Francisco.

Read the links at 7842 above because it's important to understand how far along they actually are (and hence how clownishly far behind Tesla are). Hundreds of people are using full autonomous taxis they can call at will in multiple cities. Going whenever they want from anyway to anywhere in the city. They're fully autonomous taxi services that been in deployment over a year.

The point being, of course, which you get and Spurious bizarrely doesn't, that level 4 is here and Waymo and Cruise have a mature platform for it with one disengagement per year of average driving (11,000 miles) in multiple city environments, running an anywhere-to-anywhere taxi hailing service, which is amazing, while Tesla is stuck on a crazy buggy 1.5 with no path to reach level 3 let alone 4.

Spurious is just a Musk fanboy who's so butthurt by facts he can't think straight. And even when presented with evidence he doubles and triples down on calling me a liar. The dude is gone in the head.