From the article: “About a decade ago, Tesla rigged the dashboard readouts in its electric cars to provide “rosy” projections of how far owners can drive before needing to recharge, a source told Reuters. The automaker last year became so inundated with driving-range complaints that it created a special team to cancel owners’ service appointments.

  • Toto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon pulling numbers (which happen to be what the markets want) out of thin site is nothing new. Delivery time of cyber truck? Price points?

    He, like jobs before him, has morphed from a brilliant engineer to ruthless marketer. And like jobs before him justifies it versus his internal stunted moral compass

    Appreciate him for fostering the electric car economy, admire his work ethic (space x), but hate the guy

    • maynarkh
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except he never was a brilliant engineer, he was fired for engineering incompetence at one point, and he’s been lying about having an engineering degree.

    • ghariksforge@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both electric cars and spacex are government subsidized industries. He’s not competing on the free market. Elon excels at getting the government to make his business for him.

      • krische@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s not competing on the free market.

        Those subsidies are exclusively available only to Elon’s companies?

        Come on, he’s a massive douche; but Tesla/SpaceX are in the same market as all their competitors. They’re not special, they just chose to do things others weren’t. Why didn’t GM build BEVs sooner to suck up all those subsidies? Why didn’t ULA land their boosters to reduce launch costs and secure more launch contacts and grants?

          • krische@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And that’s a bad thing? Isn’t the entire purpose of that government money to spur development? Seems like it is working as intended then?

            There’s no shortage of reasons to hate Elon, but using government subsidies for their intended purpose seems like a strange one.

            • Alimentar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes it’s bad. Competing for market share should be balanced and free of government intervention. How does a company (small or large) hope to compete against a company that is being subsidised.

              Tesla can then undercut their competitors as they don’t need to make a profit. They’re subsidiesed.

              Then the government has also imposed regulations for car manufacturers, that if they don’t sell enough EVs in the year, they have to pay a penalty by buying carbon credits.

              Well Tesla sells those carbon credits. So they can undercut their competition, entice consumers with lower prices and recoup the losses through subsidies and selling these credits. All thanks to government intervention.

              Basically screwing competition and screwing you. As these have knock on effects.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Those other companies can qualify for the same subsidies. Sometimes it’s a first mover advantage (subsidies change over time), and sometimes it’s not. But AFAIK, Tesla and SpaceX don’t get any subsidies that other companies couldn’t qualify for. Maybe there are some that foreign companies can’t get, but that’s not unique to the US (see AirBus vs Boeing).

                That said, I’m generally against subsidies. For example, I think the EV subsidies have essentially just changed into additional profit margin. Look at what happened to Tesla Model Y prices when subsidies changed, it basically dropped by the amount of the subsidy reduction. If we removed EV rebates today, I think car companies would drop prices by about that much, which means those rebates are essentially pure profit. I don’t think that’s the case for SpaceX though, but I don’t know enough about that industry to know for sure.

      • Toto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Totally agree but they would have been subsidized for anyone. It was Elon who did it

        Reminder: I really hate him

        But people saying that anyone could have done what he did IF they were born with money or IF government subsidies could somehow apply to them too. Plenty of born rich people out there who didn’t.

        He’s a smart guy. Emotionally a child, sociopath and narcissist. But he actually deserves some credit.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yup, he’s a smart salesperson and businessman, and he knows how to find good engineers. And that has worked out well for him. He had the means and was in the right place at the right time with the right ideas.