I could make a good guess at the answer, but maybe someone knows for certain. Has Tesla assumed liability for cases where summon has failed at a simple level and led to car damage?

I assume you think the user (and not Tesla) is responsible. I think that is correct.

If you mean a glaring defect, rather than something that could have been prevented with appropriate supervision by the user, that might be a different story...

I'm talking about where the Tesla has crashed into the side of a garage or other stationary objects.

turns out, europe was pretty darn strong.

they have 15 months to deliver on their target for fsd and they are buying a computer vision company NOW?

As if the stockholders give a ****. They are happy to donate any amount of money to elon. As long as they get to look like they are helping the world, they will pay any amount of money.

The summon videos are seriously hilarious

not a single one of the teslas on the road with the shitty cameras they have right now will ever fully drive itself.

Who gives a ****, 100k orders (150mm+ loss)Boyz. Pump is on the menu!!!1!

That's what literally anyone with a clue has been saying since at least investor autonomy day. Pure scam.

Tesla QA department.

Cracked another egg for science.

I admit I’m surprised that q3 demand was as good as it was, but i am also surprised that things like religion aren’t viewed as pure grifting so I’m not a good judge

97000 deliveries. Looks to be 150-250mm loss, with leaning towards 250mm. Unless they do some accounting ****ery, which is entirely possible.

looking like a winner!

97k deliveries, down AH

lower revenue and big loss secured

How much fsd recognition in this guestimate?

None

i agree with you, and im not illiterate at ASC 606, but there are some solid accountants who disagree with me on twitter


the capitalized Full Self Driving (as TS always points out) could be defined somewhere as something that isnt full self driving therefore allowing them to release some of the DR related to FSD.


I dont agree with that, but I have come to realize I shouldnt underestimate anything fraud related wrt Tesla

What's driving the smaller loss q o q?

I would consider them recognizing fsd revs as accounting ****ery, but it's certainly possible they could recognize something in a completely legitimate manner.

25-18e. Providing a service of standing ready to provide hoods or services (for example, unspecified updates to software that are provided on a when-and-if-available-basis) or making goods or services available for a customer to use as and when the customer decides

But, I think there are some other rules around actual customer benefit from a good or service, which would be highly questionable considering the state of the software.

I don't really have to worry about the specifics at my job. I go as aggressive as possible on everything and let my corporate overlords reign it in if they so wish

What were the losses last quarter? I am remembering it was like -190mm for some reason. My spreadsheet is at the house

GAAP was lke 400m.

extra headwinds:
Q2 price cuts there for full quarter
Q3 price cut
mix likely worse

That's right, it was -390. So yeah, leaning more towards -450mm based on the mix and price. I'll try to make an official post as my methods were reasonably accurate last quarter.

If they are going to recognize fsd pre-orders, all bets are off. They could recognize 1000$ and that would account for 100s of millions in profits

I'm pretty convinced they'll recognize some. Just dont see a good reason to release advanced summon otherwise. I hope they dont though.

So they need 105k to hit low end of delivery guidance. Will they be forced to acknowledge high end isnt happening ?