Yeah, genius thought that creating CyberTruk and turn full Nazi will expand his consumer base.
Sucks for real founders of Tesla, but hey, at least you helped bootstrapping switch to EVs.
seriously, I think if Elon could just sit back and shut the fuck up about everything since the beginning, he could have went down in history as one of the greatest man alive.
Apartheid Space Karen just had to go and call the Thai cave diver a pedo because his tech bro submarine idea was dumb as fuck, and his fragile ego couldn't handle the L.
I wondered if that was the trigger or just a symptom. I suspect, given his upbringing and previous reputation from other startups, it was just a symptom.
Definitely. But it was the moment where a LOT of people started seeing the real elon
Oh, billionaires and their submarines. I wish Elon wanted to tour the Titanic.
turn full Nazi
He's a Nazi? Like, literally? What's the latest?
Edit: we're discussing the down votes for this comment below. I'm baffled, because I'm merely asking for info. Please, if you want to down vote, reconsider, and consider replying to me why instead. š I don't care about the votes, I'm just curious why a simple request could be so unpopular. Thank you.
He lets Nazis use his platform and calls it "freedom of speech", although this exact freedom is limited by the wellbeing of others. And promoting Nazis is harmful to not only minorities, but the society in my opinion, as they strive to split the society with populist arguments.
Calling someone a Nazi is quite a serious accusation, and it's going to need a lot better justification than that. I post gay porn on Twitter, and Elon lets me do that. Does that mean he's gay too?
Youāve tied my head up in knots with this one. Haha
As to the argument above yours, fostering a space for Nazis to grow their movement is scary. I get that some segments of society think that posting gay porn is scary too, but gay porn never led to death camps for anybody.
I think all ideas are worth discussing, because if theyāre hiding in quiet corners there are no voices of reason to refute them. Itās hard to take that stance nowadays with the internet working the way it does. Algorithms feeding information to people just because that information gets engagement is frightening.
I had a conversation with my neighbor yesterday about how he got interested in the whole furry thing. He said that initially, he read the critical comments online, took them seriously, thought it was funny, so he engaged in harassment of furries. His engagement led him to more furry videos. He began to like some of the people he was engaging with. Fast forward to now and heās got fursuits hanging in his closet and everyone he hangs with is also a furry.
It got me thinking about how a lot of kids end up going down these rabbit holes online. Not that I consider being a furry a bad thing. My daughter is into that stuff and I support her being herself. His example just made me think of how other people fall into extremism online.
Nazis say they want to murder people until there are enough of rhem to do so. Gay porn afaik has not murdered anyone and has no agenda to do so.
I disagree. It's better to let naziz talk so their opinions can be argued against. Nothing is solved by censorship. The opinions are still there, you just don't see them.
I don't know why people today are so sensitive? Why is it hard to see someone say something you don't agree with?
If you want to actually solve the problem that those people hate strangers for no real reason, you need to talk to them.
Elon isn't promoting naziz, he is just not censoring them. Hopefully you see the difference.
I don't know why people today are so sensitive?
I don't know, maybe because it's hard to not be sensitive about ideas that threaten your life and very existence?
Elon isn't promoting naziz, he is just not censoring them.
Twitter disproportionately take action against LGBTQ+ individuals and ignore nazis. There is no debate that Elon is promoting right wing ideas by protecting nazi speech.
So you meant that the platform is nazi because it's not supporting lgbtq+? Im not on that platform and don't know anything about it, but the word nazi has traditionally not been used for gender issues, but race issues.
It's well known that Nazis aren't very fond of lgbtq+ people, despite them being more known for being anti-Semitic and just generally racist.
But I would like to know, what would constitute promoting nazi ideals for you?
Yes of course but not liking lgbtq+ people is not nazism.
Wishing for their eradication sure is.
Again, what do you think Elon would need to do for his actions to constitute promoting nazism?
I don't know. I don't even follow what's going on there on the platform. What do you think?
This is such a naive and ignorant take that assumes everything is argued in good faith and not with an army of bots posting literal propaganda, lies, and disinformation in order to brainwash people who don't know any better.
What you're arguing for is allowing cancer to spread rather than seeing a doctor about it "because the immune system will take care of it."
We're not arguing about "a marketplace of ideas" in real life, this is about weaponizing technology to serve the interests of a select few to the detriment of everyone else.
That's a good point. Thanks.
I donāt know why people today are so sensitive? Why is it hard to see someone say something you donāt agree with?
I also used to be a free speech absolutist, but they took that and ran with it. Just like so many other things in modern life, the crazies take over. If I can no longer use the service then theyāve gone too far and Iāll move to one thatās still civil (why canāt the nazis stay in their damn subreddit instead of infecting mine?)
Then we came to the us 2016 election and all the fallout since. I was just flabbergasted when people in the public space started denying reality. They admitted denying reality and making stuff up. They admitted denying reality and making stuff up and somehow still had followers. They admitted denying reality and making stuff up and still had followers that turned into votes. We all saw the point where crazies took that free speech and ran with it, where the uneducated and gullible or desperate hung in their every word. We saw damage to society right in front of our eyes. Before this, I would have said free speech at least brings it out into the open and lets people become educated. However now I see some people will say or do anything for the notoriety or wealth, some people will follow it blindly and canāt be educated, and that directly increase divisiveness, violence, lawlessness, harassment and discrimination. I donāt know a better approach but I do know the current status is not ok.
Maybe itās as simple as consequences. You have a right to free speech but you also need to face the consequences of your words. In the past that may have meant youāre ostracized from various parts of society, or marginalized, but online that doesnāt seem to work anymore. You can say anything as long as the clicks follow, without facing the consequences of your words. Maybe the Alex Jones lawsuit will help or maybe we need to find ways to facilitate situations like that: you have free speech but also face the consequences of your words, which may include taking the fortune you made with your āalternative factsā. But when we have a presidential campaign that names it, is proud of it, and people still follow, what can we do? When thereās a huge profit motive for outrage, what can we do? Where fleecing the rubes has no consequences, what can we do? Where there are no checks and balances to keep the entire system stable, what can we do? Iāve never been so disappointed in my fellow supposedly sentient beings.
I think that free speech is okay, IF it's consensual and if each person is represented by themselves. I do not think bots and duplicate accounts are free speech. I do not think spamming messages and overwhelming media is free speech.
Imo if I dislike what people are saying, then it's up to me to look at things systemically rather than personally. Fascism seems to be akin to a societal response to external threats, almost like a scab forming. Which is why so many leftists do indeed turn to fascist methods to fight fascists - wasps swarming their hive.
If we reduced external threats, maybe modeled non-threatening behaviors, it could help every day. The Black Panthers, for instance, used to feed people (reducing the external threat of starvation). Remember how friendly everyone used to be? I try to bring some of that back by complimenting people, asking about their day. It may seem minor, but that's what communities are built on. And modeling prosocial behavior is, at its core, antifascist.
What happened in 2016 was so clear, along with Jan 6th. It is quite disturbing how many people still support him - I went on vacation to Newport.Beach recently, near LA, and there were multiple businesses there and on Balboa Beach openly supporting Trump. I saw Trump merch everywhere including hats. It was honestly insane to see something like that within 30 miles of a major city. These are people with money and access to education (not that they use it...). These are some of the people who literally own most of the American economy (California is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world by itself). And they don't want to acknowledge climate change or that fascism is bad. It's bad here.
Reducing freedom of speech wouldn't change how bad things are here.
And please give your fellow Americans some grace. Yes, it's wild they can't see what's going on, but it's kinda obvious someone took the CIA's classic plan for destabilizing a country and uno reversed it onto us, right? Like the obvious attacks on education, business, medicine, etc, this isn't happening on accident. There are countries paying billions for your mom and my dad and everyone's grandparents to be hypnotized into self sabotaging.
Wars aren't always fought with guns
That makes sense I guess. I don't live in the US and I didn't follow the election but I understand it was very strange. But just look at the political leaders there. Of course it's going to be an absurd election.
It's like picking between cartoon characters.
That being said, I appriciate your view on free speach. When it seems that people are not rational, of course you don't want them to have a voice.
I am not talking about feeling attacked, but rather to not give anti-societal movements any platform.
Also, that ideology is not based in factual arguments, so why would arguing succeed? The real solution would be for them to get to know foreigners to seez that they are just people, but that doesn't happen on twitter.
Yes, I see the difference, but its indicative of his ideology I think.
Thus website doesn't like any opinion that is anyway different to theirs. They want the echo chamber.
I am wondering why there is such a down vote count on this. I thought there was a new development that he's actually a Nazi supporter, rather than just letting them roam free on his platform.
It's not even an opinion. I'm literally curious to know more facts lol.
This website fucking insane in all honesty.
Like I'm not going to say Elon is perfect. But on here they live in fantasy land. He seems to be living rent free in their head.
Space X is the biggest one where it becomes obvious how biased it is. Space X will public announced that they are testing something and expect it to fail. Then it does better than expected but doesn't complete everything perfectly. Then everyone on here acts like the greatest space company in the world is failing singlehandedly because Elon is stupid and also an evil genius. Also that he has too much control and that is had too little.
Facts don't matter here. Everyone is too fragile so free speech is scary to them.
Maybe you're right. I'm not here to argue with anyone over Elon, I'm just here for the show/trainwreck and the popcorn lol.
Yea it fills some time. Enjoy.
Nope. Lefties like to call any outspoken conservative a "Nazi" to discredit them. It's like when conservatives call lefties "communist." It's juvenile IMO, but I guess it works.
If you let Nazis in your house and kick out people saying they don't want to hang around Nazis, what does that make you?
Collaborateur! š£
If you're looking to have a public forum, you need a representative sample from all sides of the political spectrum. Look at parliamentary systems as an example of that, where you have literal fascists and communists sitting alongside one another as a very vocal, but incredibly small minority. If that's your goal, you need to take the good with the bad.
That is what Musk has stated as his goal, so what you're seeing makes absolute sense with that stated goal.
That said, I don't like Musk or what he claims to believe in politically, I just think the idea of an open town square is desirable. I hope someone can pull it off (doesn't seem like Musk is doing it), which is part of why I'm working on a Reddit/Lemmy alternative that discourages echo chambers and encourages high quality discourse. Doing that is incredibly hard, because people like to group up into tribes, and I think Musk absolutely does that as well (hence why I don't like him). However, I don't think Musk is a "Nazi" because he allows Nazis on his platform, I think he's just incapable of running the type of social media platform he wants to see exist.
What are you talking about? Who has he kicked out for that?
I don't, but there seems to be a very strong correlation between leftist political views and calling people who tolerate Trump "Nazis."
That said, I'm not a leftist or a conservative, I dislike Trump, Musk, and what they stand for. I'm libertarian, and not in the "I'm a conservative who likes weed" way (I have no desire to use weed, but it should 100% be legal), but in a "We should work toward open borders" way. I respect Musk's statement that he wants Twitter/X to be a free speech platform and understand him allowing Trump et al back on, but I think he has really lost what made Twitter interesting. I don't think he actually wants free speech, he wants people to agree with him to be heard, and "free speech" is the excuse to get them platformed again.
My issue here has nothing to do with Musk, but with the liberal (pun intended) use of the term "Nazi" to label people you don't like. There are actual Nazi movements that could apply to, such as the Proud Boys, and abusing the term just cheapens the meaning of the term.
Really? Because the right doesn't throw the Nazi card around like there's no tomorrow at the left with their disingenuous "national socialism bullshit". Only one party/political leaning is actually courting the neo-nazi vote.
Of course they don't, the Nazi card is a far-right concept. The far-left analog is communist, and they did plenty of that during the "red scare." They still use "communist" or "socialist" terminology to write off opponents.
And no, the Republican party isn't actively courting neo-nazis, it's neo-nazis that are using Republican talking points to appeal to a broader audience. There's certainly a venn diagram overlap there, so Republicans can appear to be supporting neo-nazis, but that's really just neo-nazis trying to appeal to more of the mainstream.
Don't get caught up in the partisan name-calling, it sucks when Republican do it, and it sucks when Democrats do it, it's just a really stupid version of a strawman. Democrats don't want to seize the means of product but Republicans want you to think they do, and Repbulicans don't want to kill minorities but Democrats want you to think they do. Don't buy in to the divisiveness BS, look at the facts and make your own decisions from there.
I personally hate both parties since neither actually deliver on the parts I like from their platforms, and they tend to behave similarly on the issues I care about (e.g. both largely support Israel, both seem happy to continue undeclared wars, both seem happy to run up deficit spending with little to show for it, etc). Screw the two party system and "pundits" in general.
Leftists are communist though. Liberals are the progressives that prefer capitalism
No, I disagree with each of your definitions. Here's how I see them:
leftist - anyone left of center; this is a big tent with both capitalists and communists
progressives - leftists who want significant, but moderate political change (e.g. universal healthcare, high minimum wage, etc)
liberals - anyone who believes in individual rights and private property, so basically the capitalist wing of leftist ideology; originally, liberals were more synonymous w/ modern libertarians, but now they tend to prefer larger government
So in terms of size of the groups: leftists > liberals > progressives. The communist part of the left is largely mutually exclusive from progressives and liberals, though some progressives are in favor of some elements from socialism.
At least that's how I see it. I'm neither leftist or conservative, I'm a pretty centrist libertarian. I'm left of many leftists and right of many conservatives, depending on the issue.
You may disagree, but it is a pretty widely agreed upon distinction. It's a symptom of the issue of a fractured left wing. The left leaning communists wanted to distinguish themselves from the left leaning capitalists, so they started calling themselves leftists and not liberals.
It's just a bunch of different labels, it's not really set in stone or definitive. I totally understand why you disagree.
My point really was just that a conservative calling someone a communist isn't insulting to a lot of self described leftists because they are communist, it's mostly just considered an insult to a conservative. Kinda like calling an alt right person a Nazi is an insult from a leftist, but plenty of alt righties wouldn't be insulted because they are (jk but not really but jk)
The left leaning communists wanted to distinguish themselves from the left leaning capitalists, so they started calling themselves leftists and not liberals.
I don't really care what they call themselves, I care what people in general mean by the terms they use. Academics use "leftist" to mean anyone on the left, "liberals" to mean those who prioritize individual liberties and private property (e.g. founders of the US), and "progressives" to mean those interested in utilitarian changes to existing systems to improve outcomes. "Liberal" has change a bit recently with the right using it to describe the left, but it's also not wrong because both Dems and Reps are liberals, Reps are just socially conservative liberals, and Dems are socially progressive liberals. Those have clear definitions that are generally understood by the public, and changing their meaning just confuses things IMO.
My point really was just that a conservative calling someone a communist isnāt insulting to a lot of self described leftists because they are communist
But most aren't. Calling Biden a communist because he wants to expand access to medical care is similar to calling Trump a fascist because he wants stronger border protections. They're just inflammatory, inaccurate labels used for political gain. The communist label is relying on the "red scare" nonsense, and the fascist label is relying on holocaust imagery. Both are inaccurate and harmful IMO.
Yes, there are legitimate communists on the left and legitimate fascists on the right, but they're such a minority that using them for any public figure is almost guaranteed to be inaccurate.
Liberalism is not necessarily capitalist. It is possible to be an anti-capitalist liberal by recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy @technology
I don't think that's true, at least not given the classical definition found here on Wikipedia. In general, I think John Locke embodies liberalism really well, and he believed in a natural right to life, liberty, and property. So to me, property has been a foundational part of liberalism since its creation.
Then again, a lot of people use "liberal" to essentially be the same as "leftist," meaning anyone left of center. But I think that's silly, because in my eyes and using the academic definition of liberalism, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have strong liberal roots, and they're different in where they deviate from that (Democrats are weak on property rights and free markets, Republicans are weak on civil liberties and secularism).
If you're anti-capitalist, by definition you're not a liberal IMO. And I think most people who claim to be anti-capitalist aren't actually anti-capitalist (can't speak for you though), they're just frustrated at our corrupted form of capitalism. A purer form of capitalism (less protectionism, i.e. fewer IP protections, fewer options to limit liability, etc) accompanied with a healthy safety net (e.g. something like UBI) and worker protections is probably more than adequate to most who espouse anti-capitalist sentiment.
It is exactly people's right to property that rules out capitalism. The principle behind property is getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. The capitalist employer-employee relationship has the employer appropriating 100% of the positive and negative fruits of workers' labor while employees receive 0% of the property rights to the produced output and liabilities for the used-up inputs. The only way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is in worker coops @technology
No, the way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is to not sell their labor, but instead sell the fruits of their labor. Worker coops are one way to do that, or they can become independent contractors. Both of those are capitalist, since the only real requirement for capitalism is for property ownership to be owned by an individual or small group, not collectively. A coop is essentially the same thing any other corporation, but the workers are the shareholders. There's still a well-defined system of exclusive ownership of the means of production (i.e. the workers become capital owners).
But a lot of people don't actually want that. Owning your own business (or having a share of your business) means taking on a lot of risk. If times get hard, your income takes a big hit because you're absorbing the risk. If the venture fails, that capital disappears.
That's why a lot of people prefer to sell their labor, they like the consistent paycheck. If the company loses money, they still get paid at their agreed-upon rate, or they lose their job and find a job elsewhere. It's the same reason why a lot of people prefer to rent instead of owning their own property, they don't want the risk associated with capital ownership. I create more value for my company than I earn, and that's 100% okay because I'm looking for stability (I have a wife and kids), so I'd rather someone else get the rewards for hustling than have the stress of having to do that myself. I tried contracting for a few years, and that all ended when COVID happened and all of my clients disappeared. So now I'm content selling my labor and getting stability in return.
If worker coops are what you want, then you're not anti-capitalist, you're just against selling your labor and are comfortable taking on some risk. That's completely valid in a capitalist society, and you have every right to start or join a coop. If you're okay with labor unions, then you mostly just want to empower workers to get more leverage over their employers to force them to have thinner margins (but they'll still need to be compensated for the risk). If you're truly anti-capitalist, you wouldn't be satisfied with coops or unions since those are capitalist systems.
Employment is a core aspect of capitalism.
The tenet behind property is based on the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to create outputs, so they should be held legally responsible. Notably, not wanting to be held responsible for the results of your actions doesn't change de facto responsibility, so your point is not relevant.
Coops provide stable jobs not pay. Self-insurance can stabilize pay. @technology
It's really not. The core aspect of capitalism is ownership of private property. Whether I hire someone to help me deploy that capital successfully is an implementation detail.
The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to create outputs, so they should be held legally responsible.
But workers don't want the responsibility, that's why they seek out employment from someone who will take that responsibility. If they wanted the responsibility, they'd start their own private venture instead.
The responsibility should be on the property owner. They own the inputs and the outputs, so they're responsible if something goes wrong. That's the main problem with our corporate model, those in charge (capital owners) are largely immune from the consequences of their actions. If we put execs in jail if they knowingly allow sale of unsafe products, the system would self-correct. If the worker is jailed instead, that just encourages a system of scape-goating. The worker should never be legally culpable for following orders, that responsibility should lie on the owner of the capital.
Coops provide stable jobs not pay.
They provide neither, what they provide are organizations where workers have a say in how things are done. Stability is not on the list whatsoever. However, since workers have more of a say, they can help make decisions to improve stability of both, so workers feel more empowered and interested in the future of the business.
Unions provide stable jobs and pay. Salary positions provide stable pay, but not stable jobs.
Capitalism's critics focus on its labor relations.
Not wanting responsibility is irrelevant as there is no de facto action they can take that transfers de facto responsibility (DFR) to be solely the employer's.
There is no moral reason for the last legal owner of the inputs to "swallow" the "cost" rather than the party DFR for using them up compensating them. Execs r workers here. R u saying that workers aren't responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?
It certainly seems that way. I think social media has made people turn on eachother. Everything is dumbed down. Sides are calling eachother names. Its all so useless.
Then again, politics has always been divisive and resorting to name-calling isn't anything new. The research, however, seems to indicate that it has gotten much worse with social media.
Yes, it's obvious even without any research papers, at least to me who grew up before social media. It has changed and weaponized people against eachother. People assume the worst about people just from reading a comment.
Funny actually.
Exactly!
And it's kind of ironic, it's closer to "anti-social media" than "social media." It works to bring together small groups (e.g. book groups), but anything of any real scale and it breaks down into us vs them mentality.
Someone actually did phrase the term "anti-social media" for stuff like Lemmy. I like the term a lot but it actually is a better fit for describing all forms of social media where people are instantly judging and fighting eachother, because that's not what we do in real life.
Someone says something we don't agree with in real life, and we just move on. It's their opinion and we don't have to fight it. We can express what we think and that's it. But on these platforms, some people are instantly going to war over it. They block people, they block entire instances, and they think they are fighting some kind of battle, such as fighting against nazism appearently.
It's just silly.
If I don't like gay people, as an example, then I'm appearently part of the third reich and want to send them all to gas chambers. Yeah sure, not an overreaction at all is it? :)
Good? Even if Tesla wasn't shit it's probably for the best if one company doesn't make up the majority of an industry.
And normally this would be good for Tesla as it'd indicate the industry is growing a lot. So even if they aren't most of it their total sales would probably increase.
Surprisingly their sales have actually gone down YoY, and considering the hugely growing EV market, that is hard to do.
Idk, the EV market has stagnated quite a bit, which is why used EVs are getting a lot cheaper. They just don't have the range for broad market appeal, so those who want them largely have them.
It's still growing, but a lot of EVs are sitting on the lots longer instead of being a waitlist. Essentially, supply has caught up with demand.
I wouldn't say supply has caught up with demand, there's a lot of other factors that contribute to people WANTING an EV, but being aware that it's not feasible yet for them due to things like average price, charging access issues, etc.
That's a demand issue then. The supply has saturated demand at current prices, so prices need to come down to align with demand at lower price brackets.
But demand is sti higher, it's just mitigating factors, I want an EV but I live in an apartment so I can't easily charge it, so I went with a hybrid instead as an in-between till I own a home and the infrastructure and battery tech improves.
Tesla will probably be a case study one day in how to get the lead in a market that is hard to break into and somehow squander it.
Are we all pretending that the investment in Tesla was organic and for the company?
You guys have seen the man with creepy world leaders. Multiple countries investing in and pumping Tesla stock to get favors from Elon is PRETTY BLATANTLY what's going on.
the problem is tesla basically got in early and did literally nothing to actually innovate and improve
They did that prior to Musk getting involved.
i saw a Hyundai Ioniq6 this morning was like, damn! They have great performance, great reviews, and great warranties. they're nice on the inside, too.
can't remember ever thinking that about a Tesla
I saw a KIA the other day that I was surprised looked as slick as it did. Decided to look into it and saw a lot of positive reviews from owners. Was refreshing to see, but definitely surprising. The market is definitely changing and evolving. Tesla isn't the only game in town.
exactly. next to every other car company, Tesla looks like it's been standing still for years.
and that's not even considering the toxic association Musk brings...
A couple of years ago KIA hired new designers and changed their logo, they basically turned from being the butt of a joke to one of the hottest car makers around.
I weirdly love their logo.
KN
I didn't know Nine Inch Nails was making cars. It's a big change but I know Trent and Atticus can get it right
Nothing weird about it
Kia poached their designers from Audi of all places.
I have a friend who got a brand new EV6 and LOVES IT. He's the absolute last person I'd expect to love Kias, his previous car was a Lexus SUV. And he loves everything about his EV6 and would buy it again ig. So yeah, the company does seem to be different these days
I have a 2017 ioniq hybrid and I've been happy with it.
I was referring to a 2024 Ioniq6. I saw this and was obsessed all day. This car was hot. I especially liked its backside.
Itās an automotive design trend Iāve seen for 2 decades in the Mercedes CLS and CLA series, and even as far back as the original Infiniti i35 back in the mid-90s. The whole body of the car is just one big arc. I love it. Itās so elegant and sporty.
Not a fan of the Ioniq6 design personally, but I know where youāre coming from; Iām obsessed with the Abarth 500e Scorpionissima in acid green! š¤¤
It reminds me of old Porsches. It just looks sporty as hell!
I have a great deal of experience of Porscheās. I actually hate them. Theyāre expensive, impossible to maintain, and extraordinarily uncomfortable. I believe these cars are far more enjoyable to drive and own.
I don't doubt that they aren't ideal for everyday commuting. I was talking about how they look.
The new Toyota Prius has a Lambo tint as well. EV's are ditching the weird blocky designs and make it look good
This is not surprising. When Tesla started out they had not much competition. Now that all the other carmakers have entered the market it is much harder to maintain their lead. Tesla losing market share was pretty much to be expected and Musk alienating their customers and the laughable Cybertruck certainly did not help.
When Tesla started out they had not much competition.
Half the joke of the company was how they stepped in and bought a bunch of the EV-1's patents and plant infrastructure for a song, then spun around and sold EV production credits to the Big 3 auto companies so they could greenwash the SUV industry. Had GE simply kept turning out EV-1s, they'd have cleaned up during the late Bush Era gas price explosion. Instead, Musk got top dollar to churn out heavily subsidized sports cars while racking in government subsidies and deposits on cars that wouldn't be built for half a decade.
Musk alienating their customers and the laughable Cybertruck certainly did not help.
Americans have a downright neurotic fixation on big trucks. I don't think his Cybertruck idea was necessarily all that bad on its face. But he's so fucking slow, he's such a shitty product manager, and he was so heavily derailed by the promise of Robotaxis that Ford and Rivian beat him to EV Truck delivery.
Now his brand new flagship vehicle is barely more than a punchline.
The lack of CarPlay/Android Auto makes Tesla a non-starter
I honestly don't care about that. For me, it's price, both for purchase and if I ever need to replace the battery pack.
Used Bolts and Leafs are right in the price range I'm looking at, and I only want it for a commuter, so I don't need a ton of range or a vast charging network. I imagine a lot of other consumers feel similarly.
Imagine a $5-10k commuter vehicle with little/no fuel cost. You could have another vehicle for longer range trips if you need to.
Yup. I'm considering getting an ebike, but that's not going to be pleasant in the winter. I honestly don't need much, I just need to get to work and back, and maybe grab a few groceries on the way.
Tesla's sales in the second quarter of 2024 fell to 49.7 percent of all US EV sales.
Unless the other 50.3% were of a single company, which i highly doubt, i fail to grasp how Tesla lost market dominance.
They lost dominance because they aren't the majority anymore, just the plurality. It's not a hard concept.
Their point was clearly that they are still the majority out of all other companies in comparison, just not the most compared to literally the aggregate of all other manufacturers.
That is the definition of plurality.
Right but I'm not sure why you said, "It's not a hard concept" when the person was responding to the headline that says they lost market dominance, when that seems a bit misleading.
I think the statistical nature of the comment you're replying to kinda flew right past you.
chinese EVs are cheap, plentiful and work just as fine as teslas
And aren't for sale in the USA. If they were Tesla would have lost that 50% a few years ago.
That said overall EVs are taking up a larger part of the overall market, so this is just a headline number. This was always going to happen as the other manufacturers started making competitive EVs.
This deserves a pay package in the billions.
Its all good, Elon got paid.
If that was the cost of BEVs getting a toehold in the auto industry...
... Nah that still sucks, bad deal
It was a joke. The fact he got paid for doing nothing to right what is a failing car company is a condemnation of the stock market.
giving elon another bonus should fix it
I'm still absolutely flabbergasted they gave him that bonus. Like, legitimately, what success has the company had recently that was worth it?
Iām sure there will be someone to lick up Elonās Nazi tears
Can't send links to actual tweets as the site is terrible now and won't let me enter it without an account. The second link is notable for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, like the Great Replacement.
Thatās crazy they had above 50%, though I guess they were the only EV-only company in North America (I believe?).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
"EV sales exceeded expectations during a record-breaking quarter," said Cox's industry insights director Stephanie Valdez Streaty.
Much of the growth in electric vehicle sales is due to new kit from General Motors, Cox said, with additional strong showings from Ford, Hyundai and Kia.
A recent study on EV adoption from Cox reiterates those points and predicts US car buyers are keen on electric tech.
Increased competition "is leading to continued price pressure, helping push EV adoption slowly higher," she opined.
2024 hasn't been a great one for Tesla, which has seen worsening sales declines, an arson attack, mass layoffs, fallout from the Cybertruck launch and more lawsuits than you can shake a stick at - and all that's before the troubles owner Elon Musk has caused for the company.
It's not clear how far that market share could dip in coming years as EV buyers begin to migrate away from startups toward companies with established histories.
The original article contains 638 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
arson attack
š® What? I missed some juicy news, I see.
Good, tesla looks like a shit.
My buddy at work just bought one and I am not impressed or at least it doesn't feel the same as the first time I sat in one about 5 years ago.
It looks cheap on the inside I noticed paneling off. The only thing I truly love about it is how quiet it is when he is driving. It is insanely peaceful and the car does look clean just cheap. It's unfortunate because they are good looking cars in the outside but damn they just aren't impressive when you are in one.
I wouldn't tell him that he loves it and if he loves it then he loves it.
I rode in a 3 a while back, and to me it felt like a futuristic econobox.
Subjective i know: on the outside it's just the model S that can compete to the same design level you get with that kind of money.
BMW at the same price range are better designed for example
Audi? Same
Choke on shit, elon - You little emerald toting fuck.
So is the shares increasing cause of the Chinese EV tariffs?
If I wanted a death trap I'd buy a Ford Pinto!
Credit where credit is due, Tesla makes some of the safest cars on the road if we exclude the Cybertruck.
What other company sells cars that self-drive themselves into fatal collisions?
I'm talking about crash ratings but as far as I know actual collisions data is in favor of Tesla vs non-self driving/assisted driving cars.
because that 3 1/2 ton monstrosity will absolutely demolish anything it collides with.
The cybertruck seems ultra safe for the driver. RIP to who gets hit by it, though
It actually doesn't absorb the impact well because it's too rigid
not to mention that having 3 1/2 tons slamming into you at however-many mph tends to end poorly, regardless of the crumple zones on your car and especially when it's mounted that high up.
Yeah, genius thought that creating CyberTruk and turn full Nazi will expand his consumer base.
Sucks for real founders of Tesla, but hey, at least you helped bootstrapping switch to EVs.
seriously, I think if Elon could just sit back and shut the fuck up about everything since the beginning, he could have went down in history as one of the greatest man alive.
Apartheid Space Karen just had to go and call the Thai cave diver a pedo because his tech bro submarine idea was dumb as fuck, and his fragile ego couldn't handle the L.
I wondered if that was the trigger or just a symptom. I suspect, given his upbringing and previous reputation from other startups, it was just a symptom.
Definitely. But it was the moment where a LOT of people started seeing the real elon
Oh, billionaires and their submarines. I wish Elon wanted to tour the Titanic.
He's a Nazi? Like, literally? What's the latest?
Edit: we're discussing the down votes for this comment below. I'm baffled, because I'm merely asking for info. Please, if you want to down vote, reconsider, and consider replying to me why instead. š I don't care about the votes, I'm just curious why a simple request could be so unpopular. Thank you.
He lets Nazis use his platform and calls it "freedom of speech", although this exact freedom is limited by the wellbeing of others. And promoting Nazis is harmful to not only minorities, but the society in my opinion, as they strive to split the society with populist arguments.
Calling someone a Nazi is quite a serious accusation, and it's going to need a lot better justification than that. I post gay porn on Twitter, and Elon lets me do that. Does that mean he's gay too?
Youāve tied my head up in knots with this one. Haha
As to the argument above yours, fostering a space for Nazis to grow their movement is scary. I get that some segments of society think that posting gay porn is scary too, but gay porn never led to death camps for anybody.
I think all ideas are worth discussing, because if theyāre hiding in quiet corners there are no voices of reason to refute them. Itās hard to take that stance nowadays with the internet working the way it does. Algorithms feeding information to people just because that information gets engagement is frightening.
I had a conversation with my neighbor yesterday about how he got interested in the whole furry thing. He said that initially, he read the critical comments online, took them seriously, thought it was funny, so he engaged in harassment of furries. His engagement led him to more furry videos. He began to like some of the people he was engaging with. Fast forward to now and heās got fursuits hanging in his closet and everyone he hangs with is also a furry.
It got me thinking about how a lot of kids end up going down these rabbit holes online. Not that I consider being a furry a bad thing. My daughter is into that stuff and I support her being herself. His example just made me think of how other people fall into extremism online.
Nazis say they want to murder people until there are enough of rhem to do so. Gay porn afaik has not murdered anyone and has no agenda to do so.
I disagree. It's better to let naziz talk so their opinions can be argued against. Nothing is solved by censorship. The opinions are still there, you just don't see them.
I don't know why people today are so sensitive? Why is it hard to see someone say something you don't agree with?
If you want to actually solve the problem that those people hate strangers for no real reason, you need to talk to them.
Elon isn't promoting naziz, he is just not censoring them. Hopefully you see the difference.
I don't know, maybe because it's hard to not be sensitive about ideas that threaten your life and very existence?
Twitter disproportionately take action against LGBTQ+ individuals and ignore nazis. There is no debate that Elon is promoting right wing ideas by protecting nazi speech.
So you meant that the platform is nazi because it's not supporting lgbtq+? Im not on that platform and don't know anything about it, but the word nazi has traditionally not been used for gender issues, but race issues.
It's well known that Nazis aren't very fond of lgbtq+ people, despite them being more known for being anti-Semitic and just generally racist.
But I would like to know, what would constitute promoting nazi ideals for you?
Yes of course but not liking lgbtq+ people is not nazism.
Wishing for their eradication sure is.
Again, what do you think Elon would need to do for his actions to constitute promoting nazism?
I don't know. I don't even follow what's going on there on the platform. What do you think?
This is such a naive and ignorant take that assumes everything is argued in good faith and not with an army of bots posting literal propaganda, lies, and disinformation in order to brainwash people who don't know any better.
What you're arguing for is allowing cancer to spread rather than seeing a doctor about it "because the immune system will take care of it."
We're not arguing about "a marketplace of ideas" in real life, this is about weaponizing technology to serve the interests of a select few to the detriment of everyone else.
That's a good point. Thanks.
I also used to be a free speech absolutist, but they took that and ran with it. Just like so many other things in modern life, the crazies take over. If I can no longer use the service then theyāve gone too far and Iāll move to one thatās still civil (why canāt the nazis stay in their damn subreddit instead of infecting mine?)
Then we came to the us 2016 election and all the fallout since. I was just flabbergasted when people in the public space started denying reality. They admitted denying reality and making stuff up. They admitted denying reality and making stuff up and somehow still had followers. They admitted denying reality and making stuff up and still had followers that turned into votes. We all saw the point where crazies took that free speech and ran with it, where the uneducated and gullible or desperate hung in their every word. We saw damage to society right in front of our eyes. Before this, I would have said free speech at least brings it out into the open and lets people become educated. However now I see some people will say or do anything for the notoriety or wealth, some people will follow it blindly and canāt be educated, and that directly increase divisiveness, violence, lawlessness, harassment and discrimination. I donāt know a better approach but I do know the current status is not ok.
Maybe itās as simple as consequences. You have a right to free speech but you also need to face the consequences of your words. In the past that may have meant youāre ostracized from various parts of society, or marginalized, but online that doesnāt seem to work anymore. You can say anything as long as the clicks follow, without facing the consequences of your words. Maybe the Alex Jones lawsuit will help or maybe we need to find ways to facilitate situations like that: you have free speech but also face the consequences of your words, which may include taking the fortune you made with your āalternative factsā. But when we have a presidential campaign that names it, is proud of it, and people still follow, what can we do? When thereās a huge profit motive for outrage, what can we do? Where fleecing the rubes has no consequences, what can we do? Where there are no checks and balances to keep the entire system stable, what can we do? Iāve never been so disappointed in my fellow supposedly sentient beings.
I think that free speech is okay, IF it's consensual and if each person is represented by themselves. I do not think bots and duplicate accounts are free speech. I do not think spamming messages and overwhelming media is free speech.
Imo if I dislike what people are saying, then it's up to me to look at things systemically rather than personally. Fascism seems to be akin to a societal response to external threats, almost like a scab forming. Which is why so many leftists do indeed turn to fascist methods to fight fascists - wasps swarming their hive.
If we reduced external threats, maybe modeled non-threatening behaviors, it could help every day. The Black Panthers, for instance, used to feed people (reducing the external threat of starvation). Remember how friendly everyone used to be? I try to bring some of that back by complimenting people, asking about their day. It may seem minor, but that's what communities are built on. And modeling prosocial behavior is, at its core, antifascist.
What happened in 2016 was so clear, along with Jan 6th. It is quite disturbing how many people still support him - I went on vacation to Newport.Beach recently, near LA, and there were multiple businesses there and on Balboa Beach openly supporting Trump. I saw Trump merch everywhere including hats. It was honestly insane to see something like that within 30 miles of a major city. These are people with money and access to education (not that they use it...). These are some of the people who literally own most of the American economy (California is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world by itself). And they don't want to acknowledge climate change or that fascism is bad. It's bad here.
Reducing freedom of speech wouldn't change how bad things are here.
And please give your fellow Americans some grace. Yes, it's wild they can't see what's going on, but it's kinda obvious someone took the CIA's classic plan for destabilizing a country and uno reversed it onto us, right? Like the obvious attacks on education, business, medicine, etc, this isn't happening on accident. There are countries paying billions for your mom and my dad and everyone's grandparents to be hypnotized into self sabotaging.
Wars aren't always fought with guns
That makes sense I guess. I don't live in the US and I didn't follow the election but I understand it was very strange. But just look at the political leaders there. Of course it's going to be an absurd election.
It's like picking between cartoon characters.
That being said, I appriciate your view on free speach. When it seems that people are not rational, of course you don't want them to have a voice.
I am not talking about feeling attacked, but rather to not give anti-societal movements any platform.
Also, that ideology is not based in factual arguments, so why would arguing succeed? The real solution would be for them to get to know foreigners to seez that they are just people, but that doesn't happen on twitter.
Yes, I see the difference, but its indicative of his ideology I think.
Thus website doesn't like any opinion that is anyway different to theirs. They want the echo chamber.
I am wondering why there is such a down vote count on this. I thought there was a new development that he's actually a Nazi supporter, rather than just letting them roam free on his platform.
It's not even an opinion. I'm literally curious to know more facts lol.
This website fucking insane in all honesty.
Like I'm not going to say Elon is perfect. But on here they live in fantasy land. He seems to be living rent free in their head.
Space X is the biggest one where it becomes obvious how biased it is. Space X will public announced that they are testing something and expect it to fail. Then it does better than expected but doesn't complete everything perfectly. Then everyone on here acts like the greatest space company in the world is failing singlehandedly because Elon is stupid and also an evil genius. Also that he has too much control and that is had too little.
Facts don't matter here. Everyone is too fragile so free speech is scary to them.
Maybe you're right. I'm not here to argue with anyone over Elon, I'm just here for the show/trainwreck and the popcorn lol.
Yea it fills some time. Enjoy.
Nope. Lefties like to call any outspoken conservative a "Nazi" to discredit them. It's like when conservatives call lefties "communist." It's juvenile IMO, but I guess it works.
If you let Nazis in your house and kick out people saying they don't want to hang around Nazis, what does that make you?
Collaborateur! š£
If you're looking to have a public forum, you need a representative sample from all sides of the political spectrum. Look at parliamentary systems as an example of that, where you have literal fascists and communists sitting alongside one another as a very vocal, but incredibly small minority. If that's your goal, you need to take the good with the bad.
That is what Musk has stated as his goal, so what you're seeing makes absolute sense with that stated goal.
That said, I don't like Musk or what he claims to believe in politically, I just think the idea of an open town square is desirable. I hope someone can pull it off (doesn't seem like Musk is doing it), which is part of why I'm working on a Reddit/Lemmy alternative that discourages echo chambers and encourages high quality discourse. Doing that is incredibly hard, because people like to group up into tribes, and I think Musk absolutely does that as well (hence why I don't like him). However, I don't think Musk is a "Nazi" because he allows Nazis on his platform, I think he's just incapable of running the type of social media platform he wants to see exist.
What are you talking about? Who has he kicked out for that?
Verified pro-Nazi X accounts flourish under Elon Musk https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-twitter-elon-musk-nazi-extremist-white-nationalist-accounts-rcna145020
IBM pulls advertising from X/Twitter after report says they appeared next to pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi content https://fortune.com/2023/11/17/ibm-pulls-advertising-from-x-twitter-antisemitism-elon-musk-nazi-hitler/
Elon Musk Will Reinstate Neo-Nazi on Twitter https://lamag.com/internet/elon-musk-will-reinstate-neo-nazi-on-twitter
Elon Musk expresses support for antisemitic post on X, calling it "the actual truth" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-x-post-actual-truth/
Elon Musk Is Turning Twitter Into a Haven for Nazis https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zm9q/elon-musk-twitter-nazis-white-supremacy
None of this addresses my question
when you're sitting with these people guess what? you're a nazi
How do you know they are left?
I don't, but there seems to be a very strong correlation between leftist political views and calling people who tolerate Trump "Nazis."
That said, I'm not a leftist or a conservative, I dislike Trump, Musk, and what they stand for. I'm libertarian, and not in the "I'm a conservative who likes weed" way (I have no desire to use weed, but it should 100% be legal), but in a "We should work toward open borders" way. I respect Musk's statement that he wants Twitter/X to be a free speech platform and understand him allowing Trump et al back on, but I think he has really lost what made Twitter interesting. I don't think he actually wants free speech, he wants people to agree with him to be heard, and "free speech" is the excuse to get them platformed again.
My issue here has nothing to do with Musk, but with the liberal (pun intended) use of the term "Nazi" to label people you don't like. There are actual Nazi movements that could apply to, such as the Proud Boys, and abusing the term just cheapens the meaning of the term.
Really? Because the right doesn't throw the Nazi card around like there's no tomorrow at the left with their disingenuous "national socialism bullshit". Only one party/political leaning is actually courting the neo-nazi vote.
Of course they don't, the Nazi card is a far-right concept. The far-left analog is communist, and they did plenty of that during the "red scare." They still use "communist" or "socialist" terminology to write off opponents.
And no, the Republican party isn't actively courting neo-nazis, it's neo-nazis that are using Republican talking points to appeal to a broader audience. There's certainly a venn diagram overlap there, so Republicans can appear to be supporting neo-nazis, but that's really just neo-nazis trying to appeal to more of the mainstream.
Don't get caught up in the partisan name-calling, it sucks when Republican do it, and it sucks when Democrats do it, it's just a really stupid version of a strawman. Democrats don't want to seize the means of product but Republicans want you to think they do, and Repbulicans don't want to kill minorities but Democrats want you to think they do. Don't buy in to the divisiveness BS, look at the facts and make your own decisions from there.
I personally hate both parties since neither actually deliver on the parts I like from their platforms, and they tend to behave similarly on the issues I care about (e.g. both largely support Israel, both seem happy to continue undeclared wars, both seem happy to run up deficit spending with little to show for it, etc). Screw the two party system and "pundits" in general.
Leftists are communist though. Liberals are the progressives that prefer capitalism
No, I disagree with each of your definitions. Here's how I see them:
So in terms of size of the groups: leftists > liberals > progressives. The communist part of the left is largely mutually exclusive from progressives and liberals, though some progressives are in favor of some elements from socialism.
At least that's how I see it. I'm neither leftist or conservative, I'm a pretty centrist libertarian. I'm left of many leftists and right of many conservatives, depending on the issue.
You may disagree, but it is a pretty widely agreed upon distinction. It's a symptom of the issue of a fractured left wing. The left leaning communists wanted to distinguish themselves from the left leaning capitalists, so they started calling themselves leftists and not liberals.
It's just a bunch of different labels, it's not really set in stone or definitive. I totally understand why you disagree.
My point really was just that a conservative calling someone a communist isn't insulting to a lot of self described leftists because they are communist, it's mostly just considered an insult to a conservative. Kinda like calling an alt right person a Nazi is an insult from a leftist, but plenty of alt righties wouldn't be insulted because they are (jk but not really but jk)
I don't really care what they call themselves, I care what people in general mean by the terms they use. Academics use "leftist" to mean anyone on the left, "liberals" to mean those who prioritize individual liberties and private property (e.g. founders of the US), and "progressives" to mean those interested in utilitarian changes to existing systems to improve outcomes. "Liberal" has change a bit recently with the right using it to describe the left, but it's also not wrong because both Dems and Reps are liberals, Reps are just socially conservative liberals, and Dems are socially progressive liberals. Those have clear definitions that are generally understood by the public, and changing their meaning just confuses things IMO.
But most aren't. Calling Biden a communist because he wants to expand access to medical care is similar to calling Trump a fascist because he wants stronger border protections. They're just inflammatory, inaccurate labels used for political gain. The communist label is relying on the "red scare" nonsense, and the fascist label is relying on holocaust imagery. Both are inaccurate and harmful IMO.
Yes, there are legitimate communists on the left and legitimate fascists on the right, but they're such a minority that using them for any public figure is almost guaranteed to be inaccurate.
Liberalism is not necessarily capitalist. It is possible to be an anti-capitalist liberal by recognizing the inalienable right to workplace democracy @technology
I don't think that's true, at least not given the classical definition found here on Wikipedia. In general, I think John Locke embodies liberalism really well, and he believed in a natural right to life, liberty, and property. So to me, property has been a foundational part of liberalism since its creation.
Then again, a lot of people use "liberal" to essentially be the same as "leftist," meaning anyone left of center. But I think that's silly, because in my eyes and using the academic definition of liberalism, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have strong liberal roots, and they're different in where they deviate from that (Democrats are weak on property rights and free markets, Republicans are weak on civil liberties and secularism).
If you're anti-capitalist, by definition you're not a liberal IMO. And I think most people who claim to be anti-capitalist aren't actually anti-capitalist (can't speak for you though), they're just frustrated at our corrupted form of capitalism. A purer form of capitalism (less protectionism, i.e. fewer IP protections, fewer options to limit liability, etc) accompanied with a healthy safety net (e.g. something like UBI) and worker protections is probably more than adequate to most who espouse anti-capitalist sentiment.
It is exactly people's right to property that rules out capitalism. The principle behind property is getting the positive and negative fruits of your labor. The capitalist employer-employee relationship has the employer appropriating 100% of the positive and negative fruits of workers' labor while employees receive 0% of the property rights to the produced output and liabilities for the used-up inputs. The only way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is in worker coops @technology
No, the way for workers to get the fruits of their labor is to not sell their labor, but instead sell the fruits of their labor. Worker coops are one way to do that, or they can become independent contractors. Both of those are capitalist, since the only real requirement for capitalism is for property ownership to be owned by an individual or small group, not collectively. A coop is essentially the same thing any other corporation, but the workers are the shareholders. There's still a well-defined system of exclusive ownership of the means of production (i.e. the workers become capital owners).
But a lot of people don't actually want that. Owning your own business (or having a share of your business) means taking on a lot of risk. If times get hard, your income takes a big hit because you're absorbing the risk. If the venture fails, that capital disappears.
That's why a lot of people prefer to sell their labor, they like the consistent paycheck. If the company loses money, they still get paid at their agreed-upon rate, or they lose their job and find a job elsewhere. It's the same reason why a lot of people prefer to rent instead of owning their own property, they don't want the risk associated with capital ownership. I create more value for my company than I earn, and that's 100% okay because I'm looking for stability (I have a wife and kids), so I'd rather someone else get the rewards for hustling than have the stress of having to do that myself. I tried contracting for a few years, and that all ended when COVID happened and all of my clients disappeared. So now I'm content selling my labor and getting stability in return.
If worker coops are what you want, then you're not anti-capitalist, you're just against selling your labor and are comfortable taking on some risk. That's completely valid in a capitalist society, and you have every right to start or join a coop. If you're okay with labor unions, then you mostly just want to empower workers to get more leverage over their employers to force them to have thinner margins (but they'll still need to be compensated for the risk). If you're truly anti-capitalist, you wouldn't be satisfied with coops or unions since those are capitalist systems.
Employment is a core aspect of capitalism.
The tenet behind property is based on the tenet of legal and de facto responsibility matching. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up inputs to create outputs, so they should be held legally responsible. Notably, not wanting to be held responsible for the results of your actions doesn't change de facto responsibility, so your point is not relevant.
Coops provide stable jobs not pay. Self-insurance can stabilize pay.
@technology
It's really not. The core aspect of capitalism is ownership of private property. Whether I hire someone to help me deploy that capital successfully is an implementation detail.
But workers don't want the responsibility, that's why they seek out employment from someone who will take that responsibility. If they wanted the responsibility, they'd start their own private venture instead.
The responsibility should be on the property owner. They own the inputs and the outputs, so they're responsible if something goes wrong. That's the main problem with our corporate model, those in charge (capital owners) are largely immune from the consequences of their actions. If we put execs in jail if they knowingly allow sale of unsafe products, the system would self-correct. If the worker is jailed instead, that just encourages a system of scape-goating. The worker should never be legally culpable for following orders, that responsibility should lie on the owner of the capital.
They provide neither, what they provide are organizations where workers have a say in how things are done. Stability is not on the list whatsoever. However, since workers have more of a say, they can help make decisions to improve stability of both, so workers feel more empowered and interested in the future of the business.
Unions provide stable jobs and pay. Salary positions provide stable pay, but not stable jobs.
Capitalism's critics focus on its labor relations.
Not wanting responsibility is irrelevant as there is no de facto action they can take that transfers de facto responsibility (DFR) to be solely the employer's.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/what-do-americans-want-from-private-government-experimental-evidence-demonstrates-that-americans-want-workplace-democracy/D9C1DBB6F95D9EEA35A34ABF016511F4
There is no moral reason for the last legal owner of the inputs to "swallow" the "cost" rather than the party DFR for using them up compensating them. Execs r workers here. R u saying that workers aren't responsible for employer-sanctioned crimes?
@technology
It certainly seems that way. I think social media has made people turn on eachother. Everything is dumbed down. Sides are calling eachother names. Its all so useless.
Yup, and that's more than a feeling, there's a lot of evidence for it. Here's a PDF research paper about polarization in social media, here's an article, and here's a related poll of people in emerging markets.
Then again, politics has always been divisive and resorting to name-calling isn't anything new. The research, however, seems to indicate that it has gotten much worse with social media.
Yes, it's obvious even without any research papers, at least to me who grew up before social media. It has changed and weaponized people against eachother. People assume the worst about people just from reading a comment.
Funny actually.
Exactly!
And it's kind of ironic, it's closer to "anti-social media" than "social media." It works to bring together small groups (e.g. book groups), but anything of any real scale and it breaks down into us vs them mentality.
Someone actually did phrase the term "anti-social media" for stuff like Lemmy. I like the term a lot but it actually is a better fit for describing all forms of social media where people are instantly judging and fighting eachother, because that's not what we do in real life.
Someone says something we don't agree with in real life, and we just move on. It's their opinion and we don't have to fight it. We can express what we think and that's it. But on these platforms, some people are instantly going to war over it. They block people, they block entire instances, and they think they are fighting some kind of battle, such as fighting against nazism appearently.
It's just silly.
If I don't like gay people, as an example, then I'm appearently part of the third reich and want to send them all to gas chambers. Yeah sure, not an overreaction at all is it? :)
I wish people would calm down and breathe.
Good? Even if Tesla wasn't shit it's probably for the best if one company doesn't make up the majority of an industry.
And normally this would be good for Tesla as it'd indicate the industry is growing a lot. So even if they aren't most of it their total sales would probably increase.
Surprisingly their sales have actually gone down YoY, and considering the hugely growing EV market, that is hard to do.
Idk, the EV market has stagnated quite a bit, which is why used EVs are getting a lot cheaper. They just don't have the range for broad market appeal, so those who want them largely have them.
It's still growing, but a lot of EVs are sitting on the lots longer instead of being a waitlist. Essentially, supply has caught up with demand.
I wouldn't say supply has caught up with demand, there's a lot of other factors that contribute to people WANTING an EV, but being aware that it's not feasible yet for them due to things like average price, charging access issues, etc.
That's a demand issue then. The supply has saturated demand at current prices, so prices need to come down to align with demand at lower price brackets.
But demand is sti higher, it's just mitigating factors, I want an EV but I live in an apartment so I can't easily charge it, so I went with a hybrid instead as an in-between till I own a home and the infrastructure and battery tech improves.
Tesla will probably be a case study one day in how to get the lead in a market that is hard to break into and somehow squander it.
Are we all pretending that the investment in Tesla was organic and for the company?
You guys have seen the man with creepy world leaders. Multiple countries investing in and pumping Tesla stock to get favors from Elon is PRETTY BLATANTLY what's going on.
the problem is tesla basically got in early and did literally nothing to actually innovate and improve
They did that prior to Musk getting involved.
i saw a Hyundai Ioniq6 this morning was like, damn! They have great performance, great reviews, and great warranties. they're nice on the inside, too.
can't remember ever thinking that about a Tesla
I saw a KIA the other day that I was surprised looked as slick as it did. Decided to look into it and saw a lot of positive reviews from owners. Was refreshing to see, but definitely surprising. The market is definitely changing and evolving. Tesla isn't the only game in town.
exactly. next to every other car company, Tesla looks like it's been standing still for years.
and that's not even considering the toxic association Musk brings...
A couple of years ago KIA hired new designers and changed their logo, they basically turned from being the butt of a joke to one of the hottest car makers around.
I weirdly love their logo.
KN
I didn't know Nine Inch Nails was making cars. It's a big change but I know Trent and Atticus can get it right
Nothing weird about it
Kia poached their designers from Audi of all places.
I have a friend who got a brand new EV6 and LOVES IT. He's the absolute last person I'd expect to love Kias, his previous car was a Lexus SUV. And he loves everything about his EV6 and would buy it again ig. So yeah, the company does seem to be different these days
I have a 2017 ioniq hybrid and I've been happy with it.
I was referring to a 2024 Ioniq6. I saw this and was obsessed all day. This car was hot. I especially liked its backside.
Itās an automotive design trend Iāve seen for 2 decades in the Mercedes CLS and CLA series, and even as far back as the original Infiniti i35 back in the mid-90s. The whole body of the car is just one big arc. I love it. Itās so elegant and sporty.
Not a fan of the Ioniq6 design personally, but I know where youāre coming from; Iām obsessed with the Abarth 500e Scorpionissima in acid green! š¤¤
It reminds me of old Porsches. It just looks sporty as hell!
I have a great deal of experience of Porscheās. I actually hate them. Theyāre expensive, impossible to maintain, and extraordinarily uncomfortable. I believe these cars are far more enjoyable to drive and own.
I don't doubt that they aren't ideal for everyday commuting. I was talking about how they look.
The new Toyota Prius has a Lambo tint as well. EV's are ditching the weird blocky designs and make it look good
This is not surprising. When Tesla started out they had not much competition. Now that all the other carmakers have entered the market it is much harder to maintain their lead. Tesla losing market share was pretty much to be expected and Musk alienating their customers and the laughable Cybertruck certainly did not help.
Half the joke of the company was how they stepped in and bought a bunch of the EV-1's patents and plant infrastructure for a song, then spun around and sold EV production credits to the Big 3 auto companies so they could greenwash the SUV industry. Had GE simply kept turning out EV-1s, they'd have cleaned up during the late Bush Era gas price explosion. Instead, Musk got top dollar to churn out heavily subsidized sports cars while racking in government subsidies and deposits on cars that wouldn't be built for half a decade.
Americans have a downright neurotic fixation on big trucks. I don't think his Cybertruck idea was necessarily all that bad on its face. But he's so fucking slow, he's such a shitty product manager, and he was so heavily derailed by the promise of Robotaxis that Ford and Rivian beat him to EV Truck delivery.
Now his brand new flagship vehicle is barely more than a punchline.
The lack of CarPlay/Android Auto makes Tesla a non-starter
I honestly don't care about that. For me, it's price, both for purchase and if I ever need to replace the battery pack.
Used Bolts and Leafs are right in the price range I'm looking at, and I only want it for a commuter, so I don't need a ton of range or a vast charging network. I imagine a lot of other consumers feel similarly.
Imagine a $5-10k commuter vehicle with little/no fuel cost. You could have another vehicle for longer range trips if you need to.
Yup. I'm considering getting an ebike, but that's not going to be pleasant in the winter. I honestly don't need much, I just need to get to work and back, and maybe grab a few groceries on the way.
Unless the other 50.3% were of a single company, which i highly doubt, i fail to grasp how Tesla lost market dominance.
They lost dominance because they aren't the majority anymore, just the plurality. It's not a hard concept.
Their point was clearly that they are still the majority out of all other companies in comparison, just not the most compared to literally the aggregate of all other manufacturers.
That is the definition of plurality.
Right but I'm not sure why you said, "It's not a hard concept" when the person was responding to the headline that says they lost market dominance, when that seems a bit misleading.
I think the statistical nature of the comment you're replying to kinda flew right past you.
chinese EVs are cheap, plentiful and work just as fine as teslas
And aren't for sale in the USA. If they were Tesla would have lost that 50% a few years ago.
That said overall EVs are taking up a larger part of the overall market, so this is just a headline number. This was always going to happen as the other manufacturers started making competitive EVs.
This deserves a pay package in the billions.
Its all good, Elon got paid.
If that was the cost of BEVs getting a toehold in the auto industry...
... Nah that still sucks, bad deal
It was a joke. The fact he got paid for doing nothing to right what is a failing car company is a condemnation of the stock market.
giving elon another bonus should fix it
I'm still absolutely flabbergasted they gave him that bonus. Like, legitimately, what success has the company had recently that was worth it?
Iām sure there will be someone to lick up Elonās Nazi tears
Elon Musk Will Reinstate Neo-Nazi on Twitter https://lamag.com/internet/elon-musk-will-reinstate-neo-nazi-on-twitter
Elon Musk expresses support for antisemitic post on X, calling it "the actual truth" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-x-post-actual-truth/
Can't send links to actual tweets as the site is terrible now and won't let me enter it without an account. The second link is notable for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, like the Great Replacement.
Thatās crazy they had above 50%, though I guess they were the only EV-only company in North America (I believe?).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
"EV sales exceeded expectations during a record-breaking quarter," said Cox's industry insights director Stephanie Valdez Streaty.
Much of the growth in electric vehicle sales is due to new kit from General Motors, Cox said, with additional strong showings from Ford, Hyundai and Kia.
A recent study on EV adoption from Cox reiterates those points and predicts US car buyers are keen on electric tech.
Increased competition "is leading to continued price pressure, helping push EV adoption slowly higher," she opined.
2024 hasn't been a great one for Tesla, which has seen worsening sales declines, an arson attack, mass layoffs, fallout from the Cybertruck launch and more lawsuits than you can shake a stick at - and all that's before the troubles owner Elon Musk has caused for the company.
It's not clear how far that market share could dip in coming years as EV buyers begin to migrate away from startups toward companies with established histories.
The original article contains 638 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
š® What? I missed some juicy news, I see.
Good, tesla looks like a shit.
My buddy at work just bought one and I am not impressed or at least it doesn't feel the same as the first time I sat in one about 5 years ago.
It looks cheap on the inside I noticed paneling off. The only thing I truly love about it is how quiet it is when he is driving. It is insanely peaceful and the car does look clean just cheap. It's unfortunate because they are good looking cars in the outside but damn they just aren't impressive when you are in one.
I wouldn't tell him that he loves it and if he loves it then he loves it.
I rode in a 3 a while back, and to me it felt like a futuristic econobox.
Subjective i know: on the outside it's just the model S that can compete to the same design level you get with that kind of money.
BMW at the same price range are better designed for example
Audi? Same
Choke on shit, elon - You little emerald toting fuck.
So is the shares increasing cause of the Chinese EV tariffs?
If I wanted a death trap I'd buy a Ford Pinto!
Credit where credit is due, Tesla makes some of the safest cars on the road if we exclude the Cybertruck.
What other company sells cars that self-drive themselves into fatal collisions?
I'm talking about crash ratings but as far as I know actual collisions data is in favor of Tesla vs non-self driving/assisted driving cars.
because that 3 1/2 ton monstrosity will absolutely demolish anything it collides with.
The cybertruck seems ultra safe for the driver. RIP to who gets hit by it, though
It actually doesn't absorb the impact well because it's too rigid
not to mention that having 3 1/2 tons slamming into you at however-many mph tends to end poorly, regardless of the crumple zones on your car and especially when it's mounted that high up.
Tesla Model Y 2024 scores near-perfect in IIHSā crash tests