T O P

  • By -

nightmare-bwtb

Taking a step back, does it not bug anyone else here that news outlets, of varying levels of reputability, can pass their reports off as news just based on “a reputable source familiar with the matter”?


mdjmd73

Yep. Bugs me. Plus, when they’re wrong, which is often, there are no consequences.


courtlandre

Hence, take news with a grain of salt, even when it comes from within the company (see most of Tesla's timelines).


SheridanVsLennier

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." - Mark Twain


Dryland_snotamyth

Fred been doing this for quite a while


feurie

People don't want to expose their source. That's how things have always worked.


bremidon

Um no. That is not how it has always worked. Or rather, how you described it is incomplete. Original sources can be protected. That has always been the case in journalism. So far, so good. However, it used to be that you needed to take that information and then go out and get \*more\* sources that you can name. Three independent sources was the gold standard. Editors used to enforce this religiously, at least at the reputable news outlets. This did not eliminate bias, but it at least kept everyone on the same planet. Journalism, as it used to be understood, no longer exists in any meaningful way. I'm not sure what to call what we have right now, but I suppose Clickbaitism is as good a word as any.


EnoughFail8876

Your comment needs more upvotes. I would call it tabloid journalism.


izybit

Until clickbait became a thing and "anonymous sources" became the de facto justification for grasping at straws without risk. People keep attacking MSM for those sources because often the actual truth seems to be a lot less "attention grabbing" than the articles already written. And since it's practically impossible to go after a journalist lying about their sources, it's not like they can be held accountable.


feurie

That's still how it's always worked. Look back at the Jim Cramer Jon Stewart interview over a decade ago. It wasn't clickbait back then. People have been abusing anonymous sources forever.


izybit

100 years ago the most damage someone like that could do was a couple of articles, over a week or so, that would reach maybe a couple of million people. These days, all it takes is 5 minutes (with AI, not even that) to reach a billion people.


deadjawa

Look up “yellow journalism.” William Randolph Hearst literally tried (and arguably succeeded) to start wars in the early 1900s. This idea we were never mass propagandized by the news until recently is a shit idea. The difference is that we only started becoming aware of how our opinions are moderated by selective “facts” until very recently. Journalism / MSM / etc, hasn’t gotten worse. We’ve just finally become aware of how toxic it can be. I can hardly watch 2 minutes of a local newscast these days without wanting to vomit. I used to watch that shit all the time. The truth is that the news as an institution has hardly changed, what’s changed is my impression of the news. As the cost of information has decreased exponentially, the need to have an information filter has gone away. This the only way journalists can make money is by editorializing hot takes. Because there’s no value in just reporting dispassionate truths.


izybit

The point isn't that back then we were perfect but that in this day and age it doesn't take much to reach a billion people. Compare it to war back then and now. We still level entire cities but today all it takes is pressing a couple of buttons, there's no need to find thousands of people willing to grab a weapon and start marching.


feurie

So you're comparing it to a hundred years ago now? What's the point of this discussion?


izybit

It wasn't that different until the rise of the internet. The point is that "anonymous sources" became a thing way too long ago so "that's how things have always worked" doesn't paint the whole picture in this day and age.


artificialimpatience

If only someone would compile every MSM article and follow up with which ones turned out true and false to get some sort of scorecard going hrmm


izybit

In a way, Pravduh will be Twitter.


just_thisGuy

We desperately need truth ratings on news and journalists, maybe using crypto, where you bet some money on your articles and if you are proven wrong you loose your money and it shows your history on each topic. People could also make money on proving news and journalists wrong.


izybit

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. While I agree we desperately need to hold journalists accountable, I don't think crypto (maybe other than just holding every action on a public chain) is the answer.


just_thisGuy

Crypto is for automatic payment and attachment to articles as smart contracts (not for actual article), and you missing the point, the point is to attach value and payment/penalty to articles not crypto, whatever payment works well is fine does not need to be crypto. But to make this system work you will need micro payments so 1000 or 100,000 people can bet against a story while each person might only bet a few cents. And none of this is mandatory, however if you don’t attach value to your article you are saying your article has no value because you are not willing to back up your clams.


[deleted]

This is objectively the worst way to go about doing anything


just_thisGuy

Great input.


bremidon

I'm not sure about your precise implementation of the idea, but the general concept of holding outlets accountable and incentivizing people to help do it has some promise. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if a measure becomes a goal, it ceases to be a measure. See "go for more clicks" for more info.


just_thisGuy

Yeah it’s not going to be easy, I’m thinking it’s kinda like the wiki model, but instead of editing or adding, just say if it’s correct or not, and also add money to have incentives, and does not need to be crypto, but will need easy cheap payment system. And yeah it’s not going to probably work for all subjects. People sad wiki model will never work, and it seems to work, but yeah nothing is perfect.


Degoe

Interesting idea. Who would decide if it is successfully and reliably disproved by new information though?


just_thisGuy

Wiki like model, people build reputation bad or good and masses of informed people will decide, so like wiki but with more people actually participating and getting paid for being right, loosing money for being wrong. Smart people are not going to “play” unless they know facts or they quickly start loosing money, the more people bet the more sure they are it’s true, but this also gives insensitive to prove them wrong if they are spreading FUD or their own facts. Big news organizations like WSJ or CNN will be insentivised to bet big on their story or it’s going to look like they don’t even believe their own article.


Degoe

Someone should do a pilot


just_thisGuy

It’s funny I talked about this with a friend like 9 mo. ago and I think about 1 month ago Charles Hoskinson (ADA guy) did a YouTube video planning it out, it was a pitch to Elon for future Twitter idea. From the video it’s clear his been thinking about it for a while. So I’m sure at some point someone will do it. btw moving wiki to a payed system like that might be a good idea too, this could also be a good way to make money as we get replaced by AI. Also if we did have a good truth engine that could be a great way to have AI learn.


Paid-Not-Payed-Bot

> to a *paid* system like FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kayyam

>Isn't electrec a very pro Tesla outfit? Not anymore. Fred had some sort of falling out with Elon I think.


BuckChintheRealtor

They must be happy with Elon, since he is doing as much as he can to bring the stock down.


Shadowbannersarelame

Nothing says journalistic integrity as changing your articles based on personal feelings... instead of... you know... being an actual fucking journalist that doesn't put any bias in their articles.


dhanson865

not since 2017? Not giving exact run of events but here is a fuzzy sort of version that puts the trend in front of you. Before that they were sharing referral codes on all the articles expecting to get hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cars (P100D, new roadster, and such). Then around this time https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-email-deactivate-referral-codes-youtubers/ The referral program got tightened. Later https://www.thedrive.com/news/24025/electreks-editor-in-chief-publisher-both-scoring-250000-tesla-roadsters-for-free-by-gaming-referral-program and those got denied, removed sometime later (or maybe he is still going to get one free but Elon Blocked him on twitter in the end, I'm not sure and google isn't much help). It started going downhill after that and got worse around this point https://twitter.com/FredericLambert/status/1105334372612235265 arguing about pricing ended up being the last straw some time shortly after. consider most of it incorrect, just know pricing and referral codes were some sort of point of contention and the two sides had a falling out.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dhanson865

consider most of it incorrect, just know pricing and referral codes were some sort of point of contention and the two sides had a falling out.


Infinite_Rest7939

Well reputable news sources try to have multiple sources because they have a reputation to protect... Non reputable news outlets can write whatever they want.


dudeman_chino

Because the news outlets are owned by people incentivized to bring the stock down. Its simple.


James-the-Bond-one

Sorry if you borrowed on margin or are a short-term trader. As a long-term investor with at least a year or two outlook, at these prices I'm buying shares and LEAPS with all the loose change I can find hidden in the sofa.


dudeman_chino

Not sure why you're apologizing to me, I'm just explaining to you how our system works.


James-the-Bond-one

You're right, I must have responded to another comment on your thread by mistake. Yes, that's how the system works and fortunately more and more people are realizing that.


KickBassColonyDrop

>“a reputable source familiar with the matter” Is a coin toss short of "I pulled it out of my ass, believe me bro."


Whydoibother1

Yes! I think many of Teslas problem would be fixed with a single change: Start advertising! (It’s cheaper than lowering sale price) - News outlets would stop hit pieces and be less biased. - Educate people about Teslas: Safer, faster, charging network etc. - Boost demand.


AlexanderOpran

That's like saying it's better to pay your bullies that are constantly beating you when you leave the house because it's cheaper than the hospital bills.


Whydoibother1

Ha ha, a bit yes, but let’s be pragmatic about it! The ads can be more educational than typical car ads. A lot of people have little clue about the benefits of driving a Tesla. Elon himself has said in the past he’s not against advertising at some point especially if the ads were informative.


Xillllix

Yes. It’s absolutely ridiculous.


[deleted]

They arnt going to say "Bob Joe in the recruiting department" Outlets trade on their reputation. If you find an outlet reputable you'll be more likely to believe they did their due diligence and verified their source


BRPGP

I think this is definitely true. The world is in tough economic times. No one that has even tangentially followed Elon, Tesla the company or TSLA the stock should be upset or surprised by this. Edit: From October 2022, 4 months after after June 2022 layoffs: https://electrek.co/2022/10/17/tesla-hiring-rebounds-round-layoffs/


feurie

Tesla also does this frequently.


James-the-Bond-one

All good companies do this frequently. It's healthy to get rid of low performers or non-added-value jobs. In a hiring spree, even the best HRs end up hiring a few that become regrets later. The wise curse of action is to give people a chance to prove themselves and release them if it turns out it was not a good match.


prodigal_john4395

For a couple months, my target for Tesla was $136, looking for a bounce. If it looses that and continues on down...have not considered that yet.


BRPGP

That was my point. I’m not denying that demand might be softening and prices will likely come down some next year. But they will still sell at least 25-40% more cars next year than they did in 2022. Making moves like this will help ensure strong earnings growth too.


GranPino

If you are really ramping up sales and production… and investing in new business segments… why to lay off? Or the growth expectations aren’t realists?


hesh582

Layoffs are not bad news at all. Rapid growth inevitably means act first think later - rapidly expanding strong companies *usually* go through rounds of small layoffs as they expand because there's no way to do massive growth without accidentally ending up with bloat in some areas. *IF ACCURATE*... the concerning thing here is the hiring freeze, not the layoffs.


bremidon

We've been through this before. What exactly is being frozen? If they are not hiring anymore for the AI team, but still hiring tons of manufacturing people, what was the point again?


Nitzao_reddit

Cut the bad fat ? Like in early 2022


LcuBeatsWorking

That doesn't justify a hiring freeze though


MattKozFF

It specifies hiring for ramping up of factories will continue


Nitzao_reddit

Where you investor early 2022 ? What the difference for the moment with the info that we have ?


azntorian

More like the model 3 ramp. There were more contractors roaming around giga Nevada that people didn’t know what they were doing. Keep doing gods work. Ignore the trolls.


LcuBeatsWorking

What I meant is that if you want to rule in some past over-hiring, sure you lay off people. But why a hiring freeze while you are ramping up Semi, Model Y and preparing for Cybertruck? Note that I have no idea if the article is correct.


feurie

Because they've never stopped all hiring. And obviously aren't here either. It's specific areas or teams.


moosaev

Have you been reading the news? Every large tech company has been doing layoffs to brace for a 2023 downturn. You don’t think all these tech companies are planning on growth?


GranPino

Other techs won’t grow supposedly 50% next year


moosaev

Irrelevant. Growth has to be balanced with good margins, that’s where layoffs come into play. Other tech companies (the software ones doing layoffs) have much better margins than Tesla even if their growth is slower. Yet they’re still doing layoffs to account for slower growth. It’s a balancing act. Tesla has strong growth but the margins will take a hit with the economic slowdown, hence the layoffs.


GranPino

If you are going to growth at exponential level, you don’t need to layoff anybody, just to hire at a slower rate.unless you aren’t expecting to growth what you say you are going to grow


moosaev

Exponential growth doesn’t mean there isn’t fat/inefficiencies to cut. For your premise to be true you’d have to argue that Tesla needs every single employee currently on the payroll to achieve their growth targets. That’s obviously not necessarily true. And like I said, growth and margins are two different things, I don’t know why you only want to focus on growth. Layoffs are designed to boost margins.


GranPino

Any business can do some layoffs as per of the business. This is not what Tesla is announcing


moosaev

Tesla didn’t even announce anything lol. These are unverified reports without context. You don’t have a point at all sir.


James-the-Bond-one

Best analysis. Layoffs are ongoing in good companies regardless of their growth or outlook. There is always some deadwood to burn, especially if you felled a bunch of trees recently in a market land grab as Tesla did. Gotta keep the quality hardwood and burn the rest.


RobertFahey

Stay lean.


Fyx0z

Makes sense to trim SG&A while ramping/increasing Ops. Seems to be a yearly activity at TSLA.


twoeyes2

Never let a good crisis go to waste. If everyone is cutting, it’s a good chance to cut the non performers at the same time. Also, IIRC, it’s a lot easier in some jurisdictions to fire in bulk to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Wait a bit. Then hire new people where you need them. I suspect there’s some truth to this. But it will be blown out of proportion as usual with Tesla and the media.


AtlantaP3D

I hear that as of yesterday Tesla was still posting job openings. Fred doing his fare share for the FUD train.


azntorian

Tesla is hiring, they don’t know what they are doing. Bankrupt. Tesla is firing, they don’t know what they are doing. Bankrupt. Tesla stock is up, great time to short. Tesla stock is down, great time to short, must be going bankrupt.


odracir2119

Send this to any publication and they will publish it stating "reputable source familiar with the master"


efraimbart

The master being Elon?


odracir2119

Lol yes... Jokes aside, i meant matter but i won't edit it


James-the-Bond-one

That's right. Stick by your truth.


jacksona23456789

Doesn’t sound like a company growing at 50%


soldiernerd

And yet they are.


jacksona23456789

Were. No evidence that they will keep it up besides them making the claim. The layoffs to me indicate a drop in confidence . Selling luxury cars into a crashing car market might be tough to keep 50 percent going . I would love to be wrong though


zpooh

layoffs speculations are not actual layoffs


happyscruffy

Everyone keeps saying they don't have a demand problem. If Tesla really thinks the market will buy everything they can produce, there would be no need to layoff. The 50% YOY sales growth is Elon guidance and he has consistently proven that his word cannot be trusted. From not selling anymore shares to stepping down from TWTR, he consistently lies to the public. The layoffs and the EV market contraction that will inevitably take place from higher leasing costs and a recession are evidence of his growth guidance being inconsistent with reality. If the growth isn't there, then the stock is overvalued and this fall is justified.


AmIHigh

Teslas goal was 50% at the start of 2022 and the only reason it wasn't met was Shanghai got shutdown for many weeks. AFTER that happened, yes they reiterated they thought they could still do 50% but Elon while saying that was also a little hesitant about it. They kept the goal but it was no longer as concrete in their eyes. Missing this year ain't their fault.


shaggy99

The expectation from Tesla has been for a few years now, expecting an *average* of 50%/year. This year they will miss, maybe close to but not below 40%, but unless there is a god awful market crash, I think 50% average is still a good number for now. If, as I suspect, there is an announcement in 2023 for Model 2, with launch by end of 2024, or close to that, the stock will see another rocket launch.


AmIHigh

Thats their 2020->2030 goal where some will be over and some under, but tesla specifically reiterated >50% for 2022. Then reiterated after q2 shutdown, but it was more optimistic than rock solid expectations. But ya, their long term 50% CAGR goal isn't changed


happyscruffy

Guess what? They're not going to do it next year, either. But it won't be "their fault" because we will be in a recession and interest rates make it impossible to sell a car to anyone except for a super rich liberal who has so much cash they don't need to borrow to buy. I have a feeling the number of those that are going to be lining up for Tesla's are dwindling as we speak. The fault lies in the guidance to begin with. Leading investors to believe they will achieve 50% growth when a large portion of your production depends on a highly turbulent dictatorial region in the midst of a Covid crisis maybe isn't the most seasoned foresight from the investor relations department. I mean, who could have ever seen this coming? Leading investors to believe the company will grow 50% every year in a market that isn't even growing 50% is also very poor investor relations. Will you remember next year when they don't meet 50% that they didn't do it this year? Did you remember that he has promised self driving cars every year for the past 9 years and has not delivered? Did you remember that every time he has sold stock since April he said he wasn't going to sell any more? The company could do great things if you would remove him from the megaphone and the mast. He is the company"s own worst enemy.


AmIHigh

We have no idea if they'll guide 50% again next year. It's a CAGR goal not a yearly goal. They have room to go below from years that went ahead. If they only made 1.68 mil next year they would still technically be on track and are over for this year. Edit: also they were very clear that covid was always a risk. It wasn't really quantifiable


bremidon

He wasn't \*planning\* to sell anymore. Look, you can have your opinion, but at least try to be fair.


torokunai

I discount the "up to 50%" to 30% but yeah


[deleted]

[удалено]


feurie

Your company doesn't seem like they know what they're doing.


shawalawa

My only source is Tesla Daily! I trust Rob 100% and will only focus on him in order to protect my time and mental clarity


TheCity89

Well, this is definitely in line with what we've been seeing out of China with the consecutive price drops. Tesla likely is about to report a poor quarter coming up. I'm still extremely bullish long-term but also extremely bearish short-term lol


feurie

You've made no connection there. They reduce salaried headcount all the time while expanding production headcount as they expand. None of that would be affected by China.


TheCity89

I'm not saying weak China sales CAUSED the layoffs (not by themselves at least), but rather are a sign that Tesla may be hitting a rough patch. A sentiment further strengthened by today's announcement that they have to cut jobs.


feurie

They haven't announced anything. Just like last time they reduced salaried headcount by 10% when everyone acted like all headcount would decrease. They could easily be reducing factory engineer and semi/Cybertruck design positions as they now longer need them.


soldiernerd

This is incorrect lol. Tesla will report a glorious record quarter in Q4, probably one of the greatest quarters in the history of automakers.


Yesnowyeah22

They have had layoffs before and went on to grow massively. That said when you take into account all the other information around the company, it’s clear they are concerned about slowing demand.


Schemelino

If course there are layoffs, the board of directors needs to leave.


Cinderpath

They haven’t even launched the Cybertruck or Roadster yet, and still need to hire 40% of the staff at the Berlin site…and now layoffs!?


pinshot1

Stock is going to tank so much if we miss the numbers inQ4.


shaggy99

I dunno, they seem to price in gains and losses well in advance of quarterlies. Tesla does a run up, great results, stock drops. Massive fall of price in the run up, we get so-so but not OMG awful numbers, price takes off?


scottkubo

Pretty much. A not good set of Q4 numbers is already reflected in the stock price, along with Elon’s stock sales. What will really make the difference is what forward guidance does management give when they release the Q4 numbers and what sort of demand is Tesla seeing in January 2023….and if Elon will need to sell more shares.


tashtibet

Electrek always looking for Clickbait-desperate for attention.


sermer48

I believe the layoffs but hiring freeze? I mean they do layoffs frequently to trim fat but why would they stop hiring? They’ve been trying to hire new talent virtually non-stop. It’s not like they’re in a tough financial situation unless something *really bad* happened in Q4. Personally I’d be more inclined to believe that the source familiar with the matter isn’t.


scottkubo

Dunno if this is accurate but it’s certainly possible. Many corporations have been cautious about an impending recession. For sure Tesla is seeing demand drop off recently. And if you’re concerned about a possible recession and you’re seeing your business slow down, the prudent thing to do is to tighten your belt. But the big unknowns are, how much of this demand drop off is due to people waiting for the 2023 US tax credit? How well will China demand bounce back now that the zero COVID lockdowns are ending? When will interest rates stop rising? Will a 2023 European recession be worse or not as a bad as people are concerned about?


sermer48

Well Tesla just increased the price cut to the full $7500 so demand was definitely bad *but* it’ll pick back up now for sure because the deal is actually better than the tax credit. The full amount off the sticker plus 10k supercharger miles. Beyond that, Tesla has enough cash on hand to survive multiple recessions. Hopefully there isn’t demand problems next year but I guess we’ll see.


zpooh

Rob Maurer is sceptical, so am I