The great thing about Elon Musk is that he speaks the truth

[LevelUP]

The great thing about Elon Musk is that he speaks the truth, unlike most people. The truth often pisses people off, as it can go against conventional societal beliefs.

If you listen to what Elon Musk said, he mentioned:

     1. You don't need college to learn things; everything is basically available for free.

True. You can learn everything online, buy cheap books, and educate yourself.

     2. You need evidence of exceptional ability in the absence of a college degree to land a high-paying job.

True. You need a portfolio or some sort of track record of exceptional ability, and you could get a job at a Fortune 500 company making six figures.

https://youtu.be/Io3sdAAcZLw?si=ue7bMrFFpnY4xMQO

However, what he didn't say is that this path isn't for everyone. You can't wave a magic wand or BS your way to exceptional ability. This method takes time, dedication, and a high level of skill.

Most people would be better off going to college, earning a degree, creating a modest portfolio that shows a minimal level of competency, and then using job experience to work their way up to exceptional ability as they climb the corporate ladder.

So, it's not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

I do understand that a lot of the negative press about Elon Musk has nothing to do with him personally; it's more about Red Team vs. Blue Team.

[BritStudent]

People are not criticizing the concept of a Montessori school, they are criticizing Elon Musk who constantly attacks education, particularly higher education.

The great thing about Elon Musk is that he speaks the truth, unlike most people. The truth often pisses people off, as it can go against conventional societal beliefs.

I don't want to get into a big political argument, which seems to follow Elon Musk debates these days, however, I have to take exception to this statement re Elon speaking the truth.

This is a man who while chairman of SolarCity, assured Tesla investors that it was in good financial health, had his hand-picked board approve the takeover - then revealed it was in serious financial trouble and full of debt.

This is a man who regularly complains about public expenditure yet all of his companies rely or have relied on public funds for years.

This is a man who is regularly factually contradicted on his own platform by community notes.

This is a man who has been promising 'full self driving cars next year' for about ten years.

This is a man who promised that Tesla cars would defy convention and appreciate in value rather than depreciate - yet they've broken records for depreciation.

This is a man - actually, I could list two dozen false promises and false statements that he's been making for years, so why list them all?

This is a man who days ago re-tweeted the UK government was planning to open up remote island penal colonies and deport rioters.

And let's not forget, this is a man who is legally prevented from tweeting about his own company without prior approval of a lawyer because he made a plea deal to avoid being prosecuted over repeated false statements and market manipulation.

A deal he's repeatedly broken.

At best he could be described as a chronicly, uncontrollable hype man, more accurately he'd be described as inherently untruthful.

[LevelUP]

People are not criticizing the concept of a Montessori school, they are criticizing Elon Musk who constantly attacks education, particularly higher education.

The great thing about Elon Musk is that he speaks the truth, unlike most people. The truth often pisses people off, as it can go against conventional societal beliefs.

I don't want to get into a big political argument, which seems to follow Elon Musk debates these days, however, I have to take exception to this statement re Elon speaking the truth.

This is a man who while chairman of SolarCity, assured Tesla investors that it was in good financial health, had his hand-picked board approve the takeover - then revealed it was in serious financial trouble and full of debt.

This is a man who regularly complains about public expenditure yet all of his companies rely or have relied on public funds for years.

This is a man who is regularly factually contradicted on his own platform by community notes.

This is a man who has been promising 'full self driving cars next year' for about ten years.

This is a man who promised that Tesla cars would defy convention and appreciate in value rather than depreciate - yet they've broken records for depreciation.

This is a man - actually, I could list two dozen false promises and false statements that he's been making for years, so why list them all?

This is a man who days ago re-tweeted the UK government was planning to open up remote island penal colonies and deport rioters.

And let's not forget, this is a man who is legally prevented from tweeting about his own company without prior approval of a lawyer because he made a plea deal to avoid being prosecuted over repeated false statements and market manipulation.

A deal he's repeatedly broken.

At best he could be described as a chronicly, uncontrollable hype man, more accurately he'd be described as inherently untruthful.

There's a counterargument to everything.

This is a man who while chairman of SolarCity, assured Tesla investors that it was in good financial health, had his hand-picked board approve the takeover - then revealed it was in serious financial trouble and full of debt.

SolarCity relied on installing solar panels for free, with customers paying off the cost through government rebates and energy savings over time. However, this was never a sustainable business model. Telsa's stock was up huge after the acquisition, hitting record highs, so investors made money despite the SolarCity problems.

This is a man who regularly complains about public expenditure yet all of his companies rely or have relied on public funds for years.

Tesla took a loan but repaid it in full. SpaceX generates most of its revenue from launching satellites. PayPal didn’t require government funds. Whatever assistance he received, the government has made back tenfold through job creation and the profitability of these companies. 

This is a man who is regularly factually contradicted on his own platform by community notes.

Like everyone else, he has made mistakes in trying to stay up-to-date with the news. Even reputable sources like the AP once incorrectly reported that Russia had fired missiles into NATO territory, which turned out to be false.

This is a man who has been promising 'full self driving cars next year' for about ten years.

Tesla now offers a full self-driving feature. Which other car company provides this feature to individual consumers on a large scale?

This is a man who promised that Tesla cars would defy convention and appreciate in value rather than depreciate - yet they've broken records for depreciation.

Tesla vehicles have experienced far less depreciation compared to other electric cars and luxury brands. He suggested that if FSD works on older models, it could potentially increase their value.

This is a man who days ago re-tweeted the UK government was planning to open up remote island penal colonies and deport rioters.

The UK imprisons people for years over memes and speech. Do they really need remote island penal colonies to maintain a totalitarian state?

This is a man - actually, I could list two dozen false promises and false statements that he's been making for years, so why list them all?

And I could list a number of false claims made by Mark Cuban.

Elon Musk is neurodivergent, which might explain why his brain seems hard-wired not to lie and why he is so passionate about social justice and fairness.

[BritStudent]

There's a counterargument to everything.

This is a man who while chairman of SolarCity, assured Tesla investors that it was in good financial health, had his hand-picked board approve the takeover - then revealed it was in serious financial trouble and full of debt.

SolarCity relied on installing solar panels for free, with customers paying off the cost through government rebates and energy savings over time. However, this was never a sustainable business model. Telsa's stock was up huge after the acquisition, hitting record highs, so investors made money despite the SolarCity problems.

You're not disputing he was dishonest in his dealings re SolarCity, he certainly made a huge profit on the deal and the stock did rise - Tesla was the meme stock during the covid lockdown where millions of Americans invested their stimulus checks, they benefited more than probably any other.

This is a man who regularly complains about public expenditure yet all of his companies rely or have relied on public funds for years.

Tesla took a loan but repaid it in full. SpaceX generates most of its revenue from launching satellites. PayPal didn’t require government funds. Whatever assistance he received, the government has made back tenfold through job creation and the profitability of these companies. 

PayPal didn't require government funds, although the success of PayPal can't really be attributed to Musk anyway. He was forced out after 7 months in charge due to disagreements over his plans to move it to a whole other platform - he was forced out, it stayed as it was and it then took off. When he was forced out, it had about a million users, within 5 years it went to over 50 million users, another 5 over 100 million, etc and has grown at similar rates since.

Tesla survived solely due to the carbon credits scheme, a government subsidy for low carbon car manufacturers. It still attributes a sizeable proportion of it's income from selling these, essentially gifted by the state. It's earned about $9 billion dollars in profit from this subsidy, which is a sizable proportion of its lifetime total profit of $26 billion.

SpaceX gets about 60% of revenue from government contracts now, but historically it's been much higher, often over 80% - without the massive government expenditure it wouldn't exist.

This is a man who is regularly factually contradicted on his own platform by community notes.

Like everyone else, he has made mistakes in trying to stay up-to-date with the news. Even reputable sources like the AP once incorrectly reported that Russia had fired missiles into NATO territory, which turned out to be false.

And they could be considered mistakes if he didn't keep repeating the same 'mistakes' or mis-stating such obvious falsehoods. You're absolutely correct, reputable mainstream media can make mistakes at times, yet they correct and withdraw them. Musk and people like him either just delete, ignore or double-down and claim conspiracy's. Although much derided, the mainstream broadcast media is still the most reliable and trustworthy on the whole - partly because they are usually legally bound to be.

This is a man who has been promising 'full self driving cars next year' for about ten years.

Tesla now offers a full self-driving feature. Which other car company provides this feature to individual consumers on a large scale?

Tesla sells cars with a feature called autopilot, with an option upgrade to a feature named 'full self-driving', however, even Tesla is clear this is not 'full self-driving'. It is a driver assist feature. Just back in April, Tesla repeated their annual claim that by the end of this year, they will reveal a prototype for full self driving, with production to begin in 2025. Given that this feature has been getting worse in Tesla cars because of cost cutting in the technology in newer models, that seems very unlikely. It's present technology is considered a Level 2 self-driving system.

As for other manufacturers, Google has fully autonomous self-driving Waymo taxi's with no human driver present, this is considered level 4, however, this isn't available to consumers.

What is available to consumers is the level 3 Mercedes system, Drive Pilot, which is considered the most advanced system in the world available in production consumer models at present. 

This is a man who promised that Tesla cars would defy convention and appreciate in value rather than depreciate - yet they've broken records for depreciation.

Tesla vehicles have experienced far less depreciation compared to other electric cars and luxury brands. He suggested that if FSD works on older models, it could potentially increase their value.

This is completely false. Tesla cars have been dropping faster than anything, in large part due them dropping the sticker price of new cars by thousands in order to maintain sales against cheaper competition. Who's going to by used if you can buy a new car for thousands less?

Studies have shown them losing 30% of their value after a year.

https://diminishedvaluecarolina.com/stud...than-chevy

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/elon-m...ery-wrong/

This is a man who days ago re-tweeted the UK government was planning to open up remote island penal colonies and deport rioters.

The UK imprisons people for years over memes and speech.

Does it? Really? People who have been convicted over 'speech' are those who've generally been convicted over hate speech or incitement to violence - a very reasonable standard that is the norm worldwide. These cases are also very rare.

In the US, while hate speech is generally protected, incitement to violence is more nuanced and must pass the 'incitement to immediate lawlessness' test.

However, this nuance didn't help the shock comedian Kathy Griffin, who took part in a photo shoot holding a severed head of Trump, a bad taste joke that found her being investigated for months for 'conspiracy to assassinate the President' with a potential life sentence.

On the other hand, you have literal book banning spreading across the Republican states like wildfire in recent years.

[b][b]Do they really need remote island penal colonies to maintain a totalitarian state?

As for being a totalitarian state? Really? Compared to what? Suffice to say that if you're comparing to the US, the UK typically comes out higher in international [/b][/b][b]'f[/b][b]reedom' indexes.[/b]

[b]For example, Freedom House, Index on Censorship and the Human Freedom Index all rate the US below European countries generally speaking, and mostly below the UK. Voter [/b][b]disenfranchisement [/b][b]is a real concern in the US for example.

[/b]This is a man - actually, I could list two dozen false promises and false statements that he's been making for years, so why list them all?

And I could list a number of false claims made by Mark Cuban.

Elon Musk is neurodivergent, which might explain why his brain seems hard-wired not to lie and why he is so passionate about social justice and fairness.

Again, this is just patently false - he lies and spreads falsehoods all the time as I've demonstrated. I'm not sure what relevance Mark Cuban has to a discussion about Musk? Billionaires lie? Sure. As Upton Sinclair said "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[NotJoeBiden]

Musk is such a genius that he turned a $44 billion platform into a $13 billion one.

[ss20ts]

The great thing about Elon Musk is that he speaks the truth, unlike most people. The truth often pisses people off, as it can go against conventional societal beliefs.

If you listen to what Elon Musk said, he mentioned:

     1. You don't need college to learn things; everything is basically available for free.

True. You can learn everything online, buy cheap books, and educate yourself.

     2. You need evidence of exceptional ability in the absence of a college degree to land a high-paying job.

Says the guy who went to college and earned a degree. Not only did he attend college, he attended 4 of them and earned 2 bachelor's degrees. He also applied to graduate school and was accepted, but did not attend. Why would anyone listen to his comments about not needing to attend college? Opinions are like arm pits.....everyone has them and they smell bad.

[LevelUP]

There's a counterargument to everything.

This is a man who while chairman of SolarCity, assured Tesla investors that it was in good financial health, had his hand-picked board approve the takeover - then revealed it was in serious financial trouble and full of debt.

SolarCity relied on installing solar panels for free, with customers paying off the cost through government rebates and energy savings over time. However, this was never a sustainable business model. Telsa's stock was up huge after the acquisition, hitting record highs, so investors made money despite the SolarCity problems.

You're not disputing he was dishonest in his dealings re SolarCity, he certainly made a huge profit on the deal and the stock did rise - Tesla was the meme stock during the covid lockdown where millions of Americans invested their stimulus checks, they benefited more than probably any other.

One of Elon Musk's goals is to achieve 100% sustainability, with solar power playing a significant role in that effort.

You've made a subjective argument about dishonesty in the SolarCity deal, suggesting that Elon made overly optimistic projections. However, CEOs make projections all the time, and they aren't always accurate—it's part of doing business. That doesn't mean they're being dishonest. SolarCity's financials were publicly accessible, so the information was available to anyone interested. At worst, you could argue that Elon was trying to put lipstick on a pig.

This is a man who regularly complains about public expenditure yet all of his companies rely or have relied on public funds for years.

Tesla took a loan but repaid it in full. SpaceX generates most of its revenue from launching satellites. PayPal didn’t require government funds. Whatever assistance he received, the government has made back tenfold through job creation and the profitability of these companies. 

PayPal didn't require government funds, although the success of PayPal can't really be attributed to Musk anyway. He was forced out after 7 months in charge due to disagreements over his plans to move it to a whole other platform - he was forced out, it stayed as it was and it then took off. When he was forced out, it had about a million users, within 5 years it went to over 50 million users, another 5 over 100 million, etc and has grown at similar rates since.

Elon founded X.com, which later merged with another company to form PayPal. He made a substantial amount from the sale of PayPal, which he used to fund SpaceX and Tesla. You mentioned that "he was forced out," and now you wonder why he handpicks his boards to prevent this in the future. Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple, and the company nearly went bankrupt before buying out Jobs' OS company and turning Apple into a trillion-dollar business.

Tesla survived solely due to the carbon credits scheme, a government subsidy for low carbon car manufacturers. It still attributes a sizeable proportion of it's income from selling these, essentially gifted by the state. It's earned about $9 billion dollars in profit from this subsidy, which is a sizable proportion of its lifetime total profit of $26 billion.

Electric cars now cost less to produce than gasoline cars. They don't need any help—any subsidies only accelerate the adoption of electric cars. People buy Teslas because they're status symbols, much like the iPhone, and they would purchase them even without tax credits.

SpaceX gets about 60% of revenue from government contracts now, but historically it's been much higher, often over 80% - without the massive government expenditure it wouldn't exist.

SpaceX generates over half of its revenue from Starlink, and that figure is rapidly increasing. The government has a choice of which rockets to use for satellite launches, and SpaceX is the most cost-effective option, which saves the government money—ultimately saving taxpayers money since it's their money, not the government's.

This is a man who is regularly factually contradicted on his own platform by community notes.

Like everyone else, he has made mistakes in trying to stay up-to-date with the news. Even reputable sources like the AP once incorrectly reported that Russia had fired missiles into NATO territory, which turned out to be false.

And they could be considered mistakes if he didn't keep repeating the same 'mistakes' or mis-stating such obvious falsehoods. You're absolutely correct, reputable mainstream media can make mistakes at times, yet they correct and withdraw them. Musk and people like him either just delete, ignore or double-down and claim conspiracy's. Although much derided, the mainstream broadcast media is still the most reliable and trustworthy on the whole - partly because they are usually legally bound to be.

The mainstream media (MSM) has been known to repeat falsehoods for years, which is why most people today don't trust the media.

This is a man who has been promising 'full self driving cars next year' for about ten years.

Tesla now offers a full self-driving feature. Which other car company provides this feature to individual consumers on a large scale?

Tesla sells cars with a feature called autopilot, with an option upgrade to a feature named 'full self-driving', however, even Tesla is clear this is not 'full self-driving'. It is a driver assist feature. Just back in April, Tesla repeated their annual claim that by the end of this year, they will reveal a prototype for full self driving, with production to begin in 2025. Given that this feature has been getting worse in Tesla cars because of cost cutting in the technology in newer models, that seems very unlikely. It's present technology is considered a Level 2 self-driving system.

As for other manufacturers, Google has fully autonomous self-driving Waymo taxi's with no human driver present, this is considered level 4, however, this isn't available to consumers.

What is available to consumers is the level 3 Mercedes system, Drive Pilot, which is considered the most advanced system in the world available in production consumer models at present. 

Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system can drive from point A to point B for extended periods without the need for driver intervention.

Recently, someone tested Mercedes' system, which required over 40 interventions. They are years behind Tesla, and only certain models have it, starting at $100,000+.

Waymo taxis aren't for sale, as you mentioned. If they were, they would cost over $200,000 each and still wouldn't be as good as Tesla's FSD, as Waymo's system is geo-restricted to specific areas.

This is a man who promised that Tesla cars would defy convention and appreciate in value rather than depreciate - yet they've broken records for depreciation.

Tesla vehicles have experienced far less depreciation compared to other electric cars and luxury brands. He suggested that if FSD works on older models, it could potentially increase their value.

This is completely false. Tesla cars have been dropping faster than anything, in large part due them dropping the sticker price of new cars by thousands in order to maintain sales against cheaper competition. Who's going to by used if you can buy a new car for thousands less?

Studies have shown them losing 30% of their value after a year.

https://diminishedvaluecarolina.com/study-shows-tesla-cars-depreciate-70-times-faster-than-chevy

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/elon-musk-said-teslas-were-appreciating-assets-unsurprisingly-he-was-very-wrong/

"On average, your typical new sedan depreciates 39 percent in its first three years. Trucks go down 34 percent. But electric vehicles drop an astonishing 52 percent."

"The outlier is the Tesla Model 3—both compared to other EVs and the market as a whole—which iSeeCars estimates is worth only 10 percent less coming off lease after three years than when it was new."
Source: Car and Driver

A large part of the cost of electric cars is the batteries, and since battery prices have dropped, electric car prices have followed suit. Now, people jump on the strawman argument to attack Elon by saying last year's prices are down, ignoring the fact that for many years, there was little depreciation.

This is a man who days ago re-tweeted the UK government was planning to open up remote island penal colonies and deport rioters.

The UK imprisons people for years over memes and speech.

Does it? Really? People who have been convicted over 'speech' are those who've generally been convicted over hate speech or incitement to violence - a very reasonable standard that is the norm worldwide. These cases are also very rare.

In the US, while hate speech is generally protected, incitement to violence is more nuanced and must pass the 'incitement to immediate lawlessness' test.

However, this nuance didn't help the shock comedian Kathy Griffin, who took part in a photo shoot holding a severed head of Trump, a bad taste joke that found her being investigated for months for 'conspiracy to assassinate the President' with a potential life sentence.

On the other hand, you have literal book banning spreading across the Republican states like wildfire in recent years.

People on the left often support speech laws until they find themselves affected by them.

Republicans aren't banning books. Amazon and eBay caved to pressure from the far left to stop selling certain books, which amounts to de facto book banning.


Do they really need remote island penal colonies to maintain a totalitarian state?
As for being a totalitarian state? Really? Compared to what? Suffice to say that if you're comparing to the US, the UK typically comes out higher in international 
'freedom' indexes.

For example, Freedom House, Index on Censorship and the Human Freedom Index all rate the US below European countries generally speaking, and mostly below the UK. Voter [/b[b]disenfranchisement [/b][b]is a real concern in the US for example.

If you can't think and speak freely, you're living in a totalitarian state, much like North Korea. No "freedom" index is going to change that.


This is a man - actually, I could list two dozen false promises and false statements that he's been making for years, so why list them all?

And I could list a number of false claims made by Mark Cuban.

Elon Musk is neurodivergent, which might explain why his brain seems hard-wired not to lie and why he is so passionate about social justice and fairness.

Again, this is just patently false - he lies and spreads falsehoods all the time as I've demonstrated. I'm not sure what relevance Mark Cuban has to a discussion about Musk? Billionaires lie? Sure. As Upton Sinclair said "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

You're more likely to hear the truth from Elon than from just about anyone else in the business community.


You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed, and you believe whatever you want to believe.
[/b]

[BritStudent]

One of Elon Musk's goals is to achieve 100% sustainability, with solar power playing a significant role in that effort.

You've made a subjective argument about dishonesty in the SolarCity deal, suggesting that Elon made overly optimistic projections. However, CEOs make projections all the time, and they aren't always accurate—it's part of doing business. That doesn't mean they're being dishonest. SolarCity's financials were publicly accessible, so the information was available to anyone interested. At worst, you could argue that Elon was trying to put lipstick on a pig.

No, the point I made, and the point made in the court case was that he had been dishonest, ie, he lied about the financial health of SolarCity, not projections. He flat out deceived the investors. The case was ultimately dismissed because the court found with the rise in the price of Tesla stock around this time period that investors hadn't suffered a loss - but it was Musk who gained the most financial benefit of this deal.

Elon founded X.com, which later merged with another company to form PayPal. He made a substantial amount from the sale of PayPal, which he used to fund SpaceX and Tesla. You mentioned that "he was forced out," and now you wonder why he handpicks his boards to prevent this in the future. Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple, and the company nearly went bankrupt before buying out Jobs' OS company and turning Apple into a trillion-dollar business.

Musk's ownership of the combined company was about 11%, if the other 89% disagreed what he was doing with their company, surely you're not disputing they have a right to fire him? He wanted to change direction from the path that ultimately grew them from 1 million customers to hundreds of millions of customers in the next few years.

Electric cars now cost less to produce than gasoline cars. They don't need any help—any subsidies only accelerate the adoption of electric cars. People buy Teslas because they're status symbols, much like the iPhone, and they would purchase them even without tax credits.

The point about them costing less to produce isn't true, although they are hoped to cost less by 2027. However, they are the most subsidised product for sale in America and their sales rely heavily on these subsidies. Consumers get a tax credit of up to $7500 per car sold, while Tesla still takes home about $2 billion per year due to the carbon credit program.

SpaceX generates over half of its revenue from Starlink, and that figure is rapidly increasing. The government has a choice of which rockets to use for satellite launches, and SpaceX is the most cost-effective option, which saves the government money—ultimately saving taxpayers money since it's their money, not the government's.

SpaceX announced a few months ago that it's now breaking even with Starlink, although this is alleged to also be a deception and that it's deliberately leaving out certain costs eg launch costs and losses on the terminals.

https://payloadspace.com/starlink-and-ku...money%20on

But again, the point was rather that SpaceX is a company that is reliant on government expenditure, from a man who objects to much other government expenditure - even last night he asked Trump to put him in charge of a new government committee to cut government spending if he is elected.

The mainstream media (MSM) has been known to repeat falsehoods for years, which is why most people today don't trust the media.

The mainstream media isn't perfect, but it's the most reliable, credible media we have - some guy on Facebook or Twitter is certainly not. Nor is the collective 'wisdom of crowds'.

Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system can drive from point A to point B for extended periods without the need for driver intervention.

Recently, someone tested Mercedes' system, which required over 40 interventions. They are years behind Tesla, and only certain models have it, starting at $100,000+.

Waymo taxis aren't for sale, as you mentioned. If they were, they would cost over $200,000 each and still wouldn't be as good as Tesla's FSD, as Waymo's system is geo-restricted to specific areas.

So the Waymo's are geo-restricted, but surely actual full self-driving in their area, with no driver, is better than Tesla's - or any other current system? How can it not be? Anyway, experts who judge these things judge it to be - same with the Mercedes system. I've seen the test you mention, it was a test clearly designed to favour the Tesla. Other tests have conluded the Mercedes is the superior system.

This is completely false. Tesla cars have been dropping faster than anything, in large part due them dropping the sticker price of new cars by thousands in order to maintain sales against cheaper competition. Who's going to by used if you can buy a new car for thousands less?

Studies have shown them losing 30% of their value after a year.

https://diminishedvaluecarolina.com/study-shows-tesla-cars-depreciate-70-times-faster-than-chevy

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/elon-musk-said-teslas-were-appreciating-assets-unsurprisingly-he-was-very-wrong/

"On average, your typical new sedan depreciates 39 percent in its first three years. Trucks go down 34 percent. But electric vehicles drop an astonishing 52 percent."

"The outlier is the Tesla Model 3—both compared to other EVs and the market as a whole—which iSeeCars estimates is worth only 10 percent less coming off lease after three years than when it was new."
Source: Car and Driver

A large part of the cost of electric cars is the batteries, and since battery prices have dropped, electric car prices have followed suit. Now, people jump on the strawman argument to attack Elon by saying last year's prices are down, ignoring the fact that for many years, there was little depreciation.

Come on, your source is 4 years old when there was no competition, my sources are from the last few months. They were aspirational when they were first to market with self driving and before Elon had gone off the deep end, now there is regular surveys of purchasers being embarassed to own a Tesla, not because of the car but because of Elon!

Sticker prices of Tesla's have been cut by up to a third from their peak, in order to maintain market share against the competition which is proving devastating for profit margins and described as unsustainable.

People on the left often support speech laws until they find themselves affected by them.

Republicans aren't banning books. Amazon and eBay caved to pressure from the far left to stop selling certain books, which amounts to de facto book banning.

That's simply not true. In Florida, Texas and Tennessee the Republican state legislatures have all introduced legislation to enable the banning of books and sometimes speech in libraries and schools. These recent moves to ban books are just one of the reasons that the US is being judged to be less 'free' then in the past (that and the voter suppression), although by your assessment this seems to mean you'd consider these totalitarian states.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/11/...20backside

https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/202...ng-the-us/

[b]If you can't think and speak freely, you're living in a totalitarian state, much like North Korea. No "freedom" index is going to change that.

In all societies we make a social contract, are you suggesting that because you can't legally kill a stranger in the US that you're living in a totalitarian state? What about instructing someone else to commit a murder? Speaking freely? Of course not. A frankly ridiculous assertion.

You're more likely to hear the truth from Elon than from just about anyone else in the business community.


You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed, and you believe whatever you want to believe.
[/b]
Again, you haven't really disputed any of the arguments and points I've made, refuting the idea that Elon is  an honest man, let alone THE most honest man. Time and time again he's told lies and misled people, usually when it's profitable for him. His own family members, parents and children have all accused him of being dishonest and a liar.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree on these subjects!

[LevelUP]

One of Elon Musk's goals is to achieve 100% sustainability, with solar power playing a significant role in that effort.

You've made a subjective argument about dishonesty in the SolarCity deal, suggesting that Elon made overly optimistic projections. However, CEOs make projections all the time, and they aren't always accurate—it's part of doing business. That doesn't mean they're being dishonest. SolarCity's financials were publicly accessible, so the information was available to anyone interested. At worst, you could argue that Elon was trying to put lipstick on a pig.

No, the point I made, and the point made in the court case was that he had been dishonest, ie, he lied about the financial health of SolarCity, not projections. He flat out deceived the investors. The case was ultimately dismissed because the court found with the rise in the price of Tesla stock around this time period that investors hadn't suffered a loss - but it was Musk who gained the most financial benefit of this deal.

You never provided a specific example of Elon Musk's so-called lies. For instance, you could cite where Elon said something like, "The sky is orange," and include the context of when and where he said it. Your argument here seems to be based on subjective opinion. Elon has the power to buy any company he wants for any reason. He made a statement, and you feel that it's not honest enough.

Elon founded X.com, which later merged with another company to form PayPal. He made a substantial amount from the sale of PayPal, which he used to fund SpaceX and Tesla. You mentioned that "he was forced out," and now you wonder why he handpicks his boards to prevent this in the future. Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple, and the company nearly went bankrupt before buying out Jobs' OS company and turning Apple into a trillion-dollar business.

Musk's ownership of the combined company was about 11%, if the other 89% disagreed what he was doing with their company, surely you're not disputing they have a right to fire him? He wanted to change direction from the path that ultimately grew them from 1 million customers to hundreds of millions of customers in the next few years.

Indeed, the rules are set up in a certain way. If I built the company, own the company, and control the company, then if you don't like it, don't buy my stock. For example, Mark Zuckerberg has what are called super shares, which equal 10 votes for each share. So, 10 super shares equal 100 votes versus 90 votes for 90 regular shares. Yes, Elon didn't have this for PayPal, and he wants this for Tesla, which he probably won't get.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk...52450.html

Electric cars now cost less to produce than gasoline cars. They don't need any help—any subsidies only accelerate the adoption of electric cars. People buy Teslas because they're status symbols, much like the iPhone, and they would purchase them even without tax credits.

The point about them costing less to produce isn't true, although they are hoped to cost less by 2027. However, they are the most subsidised product for sale in America and their sales rely heavily on these subsidies. Consumers get a tax credit of up to $7500 per car sold, while Tesla still takes home about $2 billion per year due to the carbon credit program.

You're behind on the news.

It comes down to the cost per kilowatt-hour (KWH) to produce a battery. At $60 per KWH, the cost to produce an electric car is on par with that of a gas-powered car.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/113...combustion

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/26/cat...m-evs-win/

SpaceX generates over half of its revenue from Starlink, and that figure is rapidly increasing. The government has a choice of which rockets to use for satellite launches, and SpaceX is the most cost-effective option, which saves the government money—ultimately saving taxpayers money since it's their money, not the government's.

SpaceX announced a few months ago that it's now breaking even with Starlink, although this is alleged to also be a deception and that it's deliberately leaving out certain costs eg launch costs and losses on the terminals.

https://payloadspace.com/starlink-and-ku...money%20on

But again, the point was rather that SpaceX is a company that is reliant on government expenditure, from a man who objects to much other government expenditure - even last night he asked Trump to put him in charge of a new government committee to cut government spending if he is elected.

Only Congress can cut government spending. Sure, the president can save a few dollars here and there, but it’s peanuts compared to the yearly government budget.

It’s a logical fallacy called an appeal to hypocrisy to suggest that Elon Musk can't advocate for cuts in government spending if he receives government money.

The mainstream media (MSM) has been known to repeat falsehoods for years, which is why most people today don't trust the media.

The mainstream media isn't perfect, but it's the most reliable, credible media we have - some guy on Facebook or Twitter is certainly not. Nor is the collective 'wisdom of crowds'.

The mainstream media (MSM) consists of political activists with extreme bias. There is no ministry of truth. It's up to you to use a range of diverse sources to find the truth.

Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) system can drive from point A to point B for extended periods without the need for driver intervention.

Recently, someone tested Mercedes' system, which required over 40 interventions. They are years behind Tesla, and only certain models have it, starting at $100,000+.

Waymo taxis aren't for sale, as you mentioned. If they were, they would cost over $200,000 each and still wouldn't be as good as Tesla's FSD, as Waymo's system is geo-restricted to specific areas.

So the Waymo's are geo-restricted, but surely actual full self-driving in their area, with no driver, is better than Tesla's - or any other current system? How can it not be? Anyway, experts who judge these things judge it to be - same with the Mercedes system. I've seen the test you mention, it was a test clearly designed to favour the Tesla. Other tests have conluded the Mercedes is the superior system.

This is a subjective argument. Someone could argue that using my cell phone as a hack for autopilot is better than all those systems. Some say the iPhone is better than Samsung. We could go on and on, and nobody would win.

Opinions change; facts don't. You can't buy a Waymo, and a Mercedes with FSD is far more expensive than buying a Tesla.

You can dupsute these videos, call CNN Fake News for reporting that Mercedes Drive Pilot can't work at night among its other shortcomings.

https://youtu.be/h3WiY_4kgkE?si=Uho7uWMqGKAQrYcR

https://youtu.be/aWSs2n1NQVY?si=jJGCWImAcQScw8wF

This is completely false. Tesla cars have been dropping faster than anything, in large part due them dropping the sticker price of new cars by thousands in order to maintain sales against cheaper competition. Who's going to by used if you can buy a new car for thousands less?

Studies have shown them losing 30% of their value after a year.

https://diminishedvaluecarolina.com/study-shows-tesla-cars-depreciate-70-times-faster-than-chevy

https://www.carscoops.com/2024/03/elon-musk-said-teslas-were-appreciating-assets-unsurprisingly-he-was-very-wrong/

"On average, your typical new sedan depreciates 39 percent in its first three years. Trucks go down 34 percent. But electric vehicles drop an astonishing 52 percent."

"The outlier is the Tesla Model 3—both compared to other EVs and the market as a whole—which iSeeCars estimates is worth only 10 percent less coming off lease after three years than when it was new."
Source: Car and Driver

A large part of the cost of electric cars is the batteries, and since battery prices have dropped, electric car prices have followed suit. Now, people jump on the strawman argument to attack Elon by saying last year's prices are down, ignoring the fact that for many years, there was little depreciation.

Come on, your source is 4 years old when there was no competition, my sources are from the last few months. They were aspirational when they were first to market with self driving and before Elon had gone off the deep end, now there is regular surveys of purchasers being embarassed to own a Tesla, not because of the car but because of Elon!

Sticker prices of Tesla's have been cut by up to a third from their peak, in order to maintain market share against the competition which is proving devastating for profit margins and described as unsustainable.

As I said, the price dropped because battery prices dropped. For a long time, Teslas held their value, but it’s a recent trend that used prices are dropping. I do agree with your point.

People on the left often support speech laws until they find themselves affected by them.

Republicans aren't banning books. Amazon and eBay caved to pressure from the far left to stop selling certain books, which amounts to de facto book banning.

That's simply not true. In Florida, Texas and Tennessee the Republican state legislatures have all introduced legislation to enable the banning of books and sometimes speech in libraries and schools. These recent moves to ban books are just one of the reasons that the US is being judged to be less 'free' then in the past (that and the voter suppression), although by your assessment this seems to mean you'd consider these totalitarian states.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/11/...20backside

https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/202...ng-the-us/

You’re talking about children. Children don't have the same rights as adults. They can't say what they want, wear what they want, read what they want, eat what they want, or do what they want in schools, or else they are punished, which could include detention, suspension, or even beatings. Republicans didn't ban words, clothes, food, books, or actions in schools. Children never had those rights in the first place. You are parroting political propaganda.

[b]If you can't think and speak freely, you're living in a totalitarian state, much like North Korea. No "freedom" index is going to change that.

In all societies we make a social contract, are you suggesting that because you can't legally kill a stranger in the US that you're living in a totalitarian state? What about instructing someone else to commit a murder? Speaking freely? Of course not. A frankly ridiculous assertion.

I'm making a subjective argument, which you can't win. I can say I like the color blue, and you can show me all the case studies you want about how blue is bad for your eyes, but I wouldn't care.[/b]

For me, freedom is very important, and free speech is central to freedom. That’s what I FEEL.

The social contract in America is the Constitution, which includes freedom of speech.

If Kathy Griffin were a UK citizen living in the UK and posted a severed head of the UK Prime Minister on social media, she would probably face more than just an "investigation."

[b]You're more likely to hear the truth from Elon than from just about anyone else in the business community.


You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed, and you believe whatever you want to believe.
[/b]
Again, you haven't really disputed any of the arguments and points I've made, refuting the idea that Elon is  an honest man, let alone THE most honest man. Time and time again he's told lies and misled people, usually when it's profitable for him. His own family members, parents and children have all accused him of being dishonest and a liar.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree on these subjects!

I'm still waiting for specific Elon Musk lies to be posted—a specific statement Elon has made, with a citation. Not an estimate or honest mistake that was later retracted.

P.S.

I like the color blue or black. If anyone wants to join in, they need to pick a color before someone else claims it. Lol.

[NotJoeBiden]

It was pretty cool to see Musk’s “genius” dumpster-fire of a glaze sesh with Trump.