|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dylan16807
1790 days ago
|
|
|
> So the truck doesn't exist in any manner in which they claim, be it speed, hauling capacity, range or price. But what they claim also isn't "fake"? Where did all those come from? You just said range and price before, and range is easy to fix. And if a product costs more than expected to build, it still exists. > shareholders/astroturfers Shove off. > solar shingles They installed a couple dozen roofs, didn't they? Based on my existing knowledge I'd call it garbage but not fake. How long was this demo before those installations, and did any of the parts work? |
|
|
Who cares "what I said before". These are claims they've made that have no basis in reality. Claiming "we have a truck that can do all this" and can't is not that far away from claiming "we have a working truck" when you don't.
>They installed a couple dozen roofs, didn't they?
So you don't even know, you're guessing. They literally installed fake roofs that didn't function on a Hollywood neighbourhood set piece, then bought the company who claimed to be able to make these (a related party) within days. Is that much different than rolling a truck down a hill to raise money?
This information is free on the internet, people have been reporting on it for years. But the Tesla PR machine is strong. Try reading the law suit deposition, and then go try to order the shingles they advertised during the event. Then go visit the Buffalo factory where they were to produce these shingles (received hundreds of millions in subsidies for it). Then go look at what they are actually installing, years later, at jacked prices (generic shingles anyone can order from Chinese producers). And if you're still keen, you can read the reporting on the lawsuit happening right now about how all this came together to bail out Solar City.
Here is an opinion piece about some of it:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-07-30/nikola...
Not sure about you, but slapping an inferior product together, years later at a higher price, that isn't what you demonstrated when you took the money, is fraudulent:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/22410075/tesla-solar-roof...
"We can't actually deliver the product for the price we told you". Huh.
We can also talk about the "Paint it Black" FSD video, which was heavily edited to demonstrate full self driving capabilities which still don't exist today (and may never, but for which they have received billions in revenue) as a marketing piece. After that, maybe the battery swap (earned millions in subsidies from California), which also was not a feasible technology with a faked demonstration. Here's a little read on that one:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swa...
>Based on my existing knowledge I'd call it garbage but not fake.
I guess one could argue the Nikola truck was "garbage" because it had no drivetrain, but not "fake" because it existed? We did see it roll down the hill, after all.
Nikola was a fraud. Other companies are doing the same thing, because it works.
>Shove off.
Boy, you were pretty quiet when people were accusing me of trolling and being a shortseller above, eh. Why is that?
I'm going to let you in on something cool: I'm not a shortseller, I have no financial stake in Tesla other than what I own, long, in S&P500 ETFs. Meanwhile, there are Tesla shareholders and owners in this thread and others, who don't offer any disclaimer when they praise the company.
Interesting how your preconceived biases can lead you to conclusions that are in fact the opposite of reality. Fancy that.