And what evidence do you base those assumptions on? According to the journalists at electrek despite Tesla having capacity to manufacture 250k cybertrucks per year, they're only selling 20-25k per year
I actually get a kick out of Eletrek’s roasting of Elon and Tesla, but if you read a few of their articles, it’s clear they don’t like him. Lots of opinions and editorializing in the articles. I have no problem with that, you just have to realize where they are coming from and base your interpretation accordingly
Its not that they dont like him, its more of Editor was big believer until Tesla scammed him out of half a $mil worth of fake roadsters that never materialized.
If that's really the reason, that's the most idiotic reason possible. So he "earned" a couple of Roadsters by spamming his referral code, and it turns out his free cars might be a decade late, and maybe not as awesome as promised?
If your employer said they'd pay you half a million if you worked for them, and then you did and they didn't pay you, I doubt you'd be dismissing it so frivolously
Is it fraud if he paid $0 for non-existent roadsters? Referral credits are legal fictions, much like how Tesla Roadsters are physical fictions. Trading one fiction for another isn’t fraud, it’s cosplay.
>Is it fraud if he paid $0 for non-existent roadsters?
Is it fraud if you worked for a startup that promised you options, and then refused to honor/issue those said options? After all, because those options never existed, you also "paid $0 for non-existent [options]"?
> Leveraging an existing monetised readership for referral credits isn’t “work”.
> Is it fraud if he paid $0 for non-existent roadsters?
How do you think readership gets monetised in the first place? The biggest way is ads, which includes referrals.
Do you dismiss paid ad placement the same way you dismiss referrals? If not, what makes it different?
> Referral credits are legal fictions
A promise for $100 of stuff isn't exactly the same as a promise for $100, but it's close. Debt is a "legal fiction" but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate, or that you can pretend it doesn't exist.
The reason for that is actually very funny. Electrek guy (Fred) was one of the main propagandist for Tesla's cult - he 'earned' 2 free Tesla Roadsters for his convincing enough people to buy a Tesla.
It was only once he realized that he has been duped and those will never materialize that the coverage turned negative.
Thanks for this - I've paid much less attention to Tesla over recent years, but my memory of Electrek was that it was a distinctly-pro Tesla outlet, but this was a few years back now.
No I said
“ Even if the truck has been a flop I doubt their whole battery program has been “
The replier then went off on one about the truck actually being a flop. I already conceded it had been. The main point was that their battery program probably hasn’t been a flop
