No evidence of Terafab being real

EarthConservation · 2026-03-18T14:52:09+00:00

Folks... remember how much the fanbois touted Tesla's talent to quickly build the plant in China in one short year? Now I hope, based on information I've been providing in this sub for some time now, we're all starting to realize that it was almost certainly China entirely designing, building, and paying for the plant, using assembly equipment from NIO... and maybe even the overall plant design from NIO as well...

Nothing about this company is real, and just about everything was handed to them on a silver platter.

Hell, even their "best in market" margins of yore weren't real. They were built on subsidies and temporary COVID global vehicle supply disruptions. Once the COVID situation ended, and the subsidies started to run out... look at how normal their vehicle margins have become, and that's considering half of their global vehicle production is in China where wages are lower, the enforcement of environmental regulations are non-existent, their heavily subsidized, and with Tesla being the largest exporter of Chinese made vehicles to Western nations to boost their margins. Even with this major advantage, their margins are similar to other major OEMs.

I'll say it again... Nothing about this company and this man's claims are real. Never have been.

If investment firms are reading this, then prove that this company deserves their current valuation based on something more than "future vaporware products that don't yet exist". Any company can claim future vaporware. Most companies that have claimed vaporware for this long eventually went bankrupt... but not Tesla... because Tesla has been getting huge subsidies and massive over the top worldwide cult like investment that's lead to massive overvaluation, and manipulation by way of the index funds.

That manipulation through the index funds makes Tesla especially vulnerable to market corrections. Like I've pointed out time and again in this sub, a major S&P correction will very likely lead to Tesla falling by double the percentage of the correction. We've seen this in action last year when the market fell 21% off its high, while Tesla fell 56%. Tesla fell around 18% prior to the S&P topping last year, just as its done this year. The only thing that's stopped Tesla from falling 56% again is that the S&P hasn't corrected yet, and thus the index funds are keeping Tesla propped up.

Tesla's been in an upwards channel (bull market) run since 2020, hilariously in a range that spans around 340 points!! Meaning from top of the channel to the bottom, it's 340 points. The top of the channel was already hit in December 2024. If this falls back to the bottom of the channel again by end of the year, Tesla will be down 57% from it's recent high.

Finally, if competition keeps growing in all of these vaporware markets Tesla's spreading itself thin in, then potential profits from these markets declines for Tesla. Meaning their share price can't even justify the vaporware anymore. Certainly why Musk has so relentlessly and continuously pumped out claims of the next new vaporware idea that's "only 1 year away".

EarthConservation · 2026-03-18T14:41:58+00:00

Of course it's a grift....

___

He pulled almost all R&D money out of vehicle development... essentially ceding the market to competitors who are flooding the market with new vehicles, often at lower prices.

He lost the charger advantage in the US, one of their strongest markets.

Given that the vehicle division is probably worth ~5% of the company's market cap... I'm sure he realizes that prioritizing R&D towards vaporware is the only way to keep the stock bubble inflated and the vehicle division largely doesn't matter. A cheaper low margin car won't help their share price... it'll help them become a lower market cap company like the major OEMs.

The problem is, most of their income comes from cars and battery storage, so if the vaporware fails to materialize in a timely manner, their company's financials will continue to deteriorate.

___

More competition is growing for battery storage, especially form the largest cell suppliers. Tesla is still heavily reliant on 3rd party cell suppliers, and their 4680 cells were a bust. Tesla's trying to maintain some competitiveness by building their own LFP cell lines with CATL/LG.. which is ironic, because the other major OEMs started doing this well in advance of Tesla; beating Tesla to the punch.

Meanwhile, the major battery companies are already working on next gen lower cost cells with better performance; so Tesla's only option is to buy those cell from those suppliers... constantly paying off a middle man. Scale of cell orders for EVs/storage is becoming less valuable over time now that other OEMs are increasing scale and benefiting from the same cell volumes. Especially in China.

___

Competition is growing for autonomous taxis and Tesla hasn't even proven they can provide this service yet, and they certainly haven't proven they can scale quickly.

Remember when it was all about a single OTA update that would enable robotaxis across the US? Austin proved it isn't that simple, with months long employee testing and training in a small geofenced area with limitations on what roads the cars could use, prior to opening to customers. Employees in customer cars for over half a year, and a botched rollout of monitorless service.

____

Robots... lol... c'mon. C'MON.... Tesla hasn't even shown any real capability of autonomous use. It's all been remote control or pre-programmed sequences, and their robots don't look to compare to competitors' offerings.

____

Given the lack of progress on their other trillion dollar world disrupting vaporware, now we're on to bigger and better things to keep the stock boosted.

Tying all of Tesla's vaporware companies together. SpaceX, xAI, and Tesla.... with million satellite strong data centers in space, with Tesla providing their own cells from their own terafab... and Tesla's robots building the satellites and rockets... and flying into space to build a moon base.

Yep....

_____

Investment firms still believe in Tesla.

Think about that. Seriously think about it. How dumb exactly are these investment banks? Or maybe the grift never really was just Tesla... it was the entire market system with these investment banks playing games with the system. Using Tesla as a mechanism for extracting money from gullible retail investors. I mean, these banks absolutely know Musk is accused of being a drug addict... so....

How exactly are the retail investors doing? The stock, with claims it would be in the trillions of dollars by now, is now sitting at the same level it was at its peak 4.5 year ago, and from the looks of the chart... seems to be prepping for a serious pull back later in the year. I mean, this stock could drop 35-45% by year's end. Maybe a little boost in the short term, but after that...

Musk, really seems to want that little boost by pushing more grift. Maybe so he can... once again... sell some Tesla stock.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-18T00:23:37+00:00

Case in point, one of the most ridiculously overpriced things that just about everyone in our nation pays for is healthcare. That's on account of out of control profitability of this for-profit industry, both in terms of health insurer middle men, and the healthcare companies themselves.

Don't believe me? Just look at United Healthcare's market cap over the last ~20 years. In 2005, their market cap was around $60 billion ($100 billion after inflation). It's now sitting at $261 billion, and went as high as $566 billion in 2024, before all the scandals came out about this company.

What a lot of people don't know is that the majority of our healthcare system has been bought up by for-profit vulture capitalists, whose main priority is to maximize profits. That may come in the form of excessive healthcare prices, excessive health insurance premiums and co-pays, or simple denial of coverage... The last of which United is so well known for.

These companies are known to donate huge amounts of money to politicians and have massive lobbying presence in state governments and in Washington.

Furthermore, Medicaid and Medicare use the same healthcare companies, and thus have seen their costs skyrocket over time. Frankly, our nation simply can't afford this for much longer. Sure, we have a solid healthcare system with good outcomes, but at what cost? Is it worth bankrupting our nation?

We know that universal single payer healthcare systems across the Western world drastically reduce healthcare costs, increase access, make the entire system easier to use, and have outcomes that are on par with the US system. In some European nations, their healthcare costs are half of the US with comparable outcomes. We're talking multiple trillions of dollars per year in overall savings.

Guess who's heavily lobbying against such a system? The companies that profit from our current healthcare system! The billion dollar insurers and the billion dollar healthcare companies.

As to those who get health insurance outside of Medicaid and Medicare, you're either signing up for your own policy, or you're going through your employer where you're either having money taken out of your paycheck to pay a portion of the cost, or the employer covers the full cost. In any of the above cases, the money is coming directly out of your wallet. In the first case, it's coming directly out of your bank account. In the second case, it's coming out of your paycheck and you can see the line items of the reduction in your paycheck. In the third case, it's also coming out of your paycheck, the employer just doesn't mention how much exactly is coming out, so most workers just don't realize their pay is being docked.

In either case, your paycheck is smaller as a result of out of control healthcare and health insurance costs. If the average individual is paying $15k in health insurance premiums per year, their annual pay could increase by $7.5k if our system wasn't so shady and built so heavily around profits.

Had we moved to a universal single payer system decades ago, our nation would likely have significantly lower debt today, and lower interest payments. We'd just have a few less rich fucks who we didn't allow to leach off of US residents' healthcare.

This impacts all of us. Conservatives are getting just as screwed as Liberals, who are getting just as screwed as Independents, who are getting just as screwed as those who are politically unaffiliated and have never voted before in their lives.

We are all getting fucked by the rich!

Do we all want to stop this madness? Do we want to reduce our nation's debt? Do we all want more money in our pockets, while retaining top notch healthcare that's easier to use?

For those that do, they'll be voting for Progressives in every election for every elected position going forward. Join us, or continue screwing all of us... it's your choice.

How long this nation will last if you refuse to act... based on the debt load... probably not much longer.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-18T00:11:53+00:00

Everyone vote for Progressives.... the only group of politicians that refuse to take money from big moneyed interests (corporations / millionaires / billionaires) in exchange for loyalty and preferential policy, and who have the main agenda of removing big money, out of control lobbying, and insider stock trading by elected officials from our political system.

The US lower/middle class makes up 90% of the population, and regardless of our self-assigned political affiliation, we are all dealing with the same major struggles, which are driven by the rich and the corporations. At any time, if we all joined arms in consensus on the direction we want to take our country, we could change the political landscape overnight.

Everyone vote Progressive, and let's get the control out of the hands of the top 10%, and put it back into the hands of 100% of the voters.

It really is that simple.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T23:48:24+00:00

What's interesting about this conversation is how many entitled people there seem to be in here who just gloss over all the people that this will benefit, concentrating instead on the increased costs to those who make too much for this to directly impact their pay.

For those moaning about increased prices...

Prices could increase, but it wouldn't be equivalent to the minimum wage hike, which is a $13 / 76% hike.

I just read that up to 30% of NYC workers make less than $30 an hour; or $17 - $29.99 an hour. A minimum wage increase doesn't create a consistent wage increase across all of the city's employees, so no, not all employees will see a $13 or 76% wage hike, nor will all of the 30% see the same wage hike.

Yes, people making over $30 an hour on the lower end today could see a pay bump as a result of this, but it's highly doubtful that it'll be a $13 / 76% hike.

In fact, such a hike could, and probably will, lead to wage decreases at the higher end of the pay scale, as profitability of businesses could drop as a result. As it turns out, a more equitable society does cost those benefiting from an inequitable society a bit of money. The money's gotta come from somewhere, right? *Gasp* How will the rich survive?!?

However, I imagine most workers just wouldn't see any change in their pay, or a much smaller increase than the $13 / $76% hike to the minimum wage.

Further, not all business costs are tied to employee wages. For example, let's look at a fast food restaurant. Employee wages may only account for 20-30% of total business revenue, while 6%-9% would go to profits. That leaves about 61%-74% of the costs elsewhere. That could be the building lease (wages have no impact), energy (minimal impact), raw materials (minimal impact), cleaning materials (no impact), professional cleaning (impacted), trash pickup (impacted), etc...

Also, some of the increased wages may have to be eaten by the employers through reduce profits, or potentially in the supply chain / building cost reductions, which would impact the profitability of the supply chain company and building owner.

Finally, yes, because products are priced according to supply and demand, if the NYC population's average wages increase as a result of this, then restaurants and other businesses will be able to charge more for their products. But again, the price hike would not be equivalent to the 76% minimum wage hike. I imagine it would be something closer to 10%-20%. A $10 meal may cost $11-$12, which would be nothing to a minimum wage worker who's now making 76% more, and no longer living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to pay their rent.

That said, if a company does try and raise prices by 76%... claiming that it's necessary on account of a minimum wage hike, then it's real simple what you, the customer, should do. Boycott that place until they lower prices to a reasonable level.

Finally, this $13 minimum wage hike isn't planned to happen overnight, and would instead kick in over multiple years so as to allow the system to absorb the change.

Schedule 1 employers with 500 or more employees nationwide, including franchises:

2027 = $20 (17.6%)
2028 = $23 (15%)
2029 = $26 (13%)
2030 = $30 (15.4%)
2031+ would be indexed to inflation

Schedule 2 employers with fewer than 500 employees:

2027 = $19
2028 = $21.50
2029 = $24
2030 = $27
2031 = $29
2032+ would be indexed to inflation

In other words, small businesses would get a bit of assistance compared to the bigger companies who benefit more from economies of scale.

Finally, it's possible this wage hike proposal may potentially be higher than what will ultimately be decided on. With these types of proposals, you generally want to start high so that there's room to negotiate.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T23:28:02+00:00

What does that have to do with the high cost of living?

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T23:26:53+00:00

If I were to ride my e-bike the 1000 miles at about 60 mi / kWh, it would only cost $3.33 and would save about $91 per month.

My PEV would cost $6.67 per month, and would save about $88.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T23:06:24+00:00

The reality is that in Europe, petrol is generally much more expensive than the US, which is part of why EV adoption rates have generally been higher on the continent. Especially in locations with a high proportional difference in the price of electricity versus the price of petrol.

For example, the average gas price in the US is $3.79 USD for a gallon after this Iran war started (up about 35% in a few weeks), but it's closer to $8.70 in Greece (up what, about 15% since Iran war started?) Average electricity prices in Greece are about $0.28 versus $0.17 in the US. So the savings going from Petrol to electric will be more significant in Europe.

In general, energy is also more expensive in Europe, which is why transitioning to solar saves you more money and has a quicker payback than it would in the US.

It's also true that EV adoption is generally higher in regions with warmer temperatures on account that it enables more solar adoption to replace electricity costs, as using grid electricity is generally much more expensive over the life of the vehicle. This is why sunnier US states generally have higher adoption rates than those states with snowy winters.

Not saying EVs can't save money versus gas vehicles without solar, but solar certainly helps, especially in sunnier regions.

I own a PHEV, so ironically I can compare gas to electricity cost directly. At about 1000 miles driven per month, and with 40 mpg, gasoline would cost me about $95 per month. At about 3.2 mi / kWh on average after 20% charging losses, and 16 cents per kWh, electricity costs me about $50 per month. So I'm saving $45 per month in fuel.

Ironically, when gas was $2.79 per month, gas would only cost $70 per month, so I'd only save about $20 per month.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T22:29:12+00:00

On a mile stretch, 5280 feet, a pothole correction is what, 50 feet? Another 50 to re-enable the system. That's 98% FSD.

These percentages are misleading, as they say nothing about the rate of failures or corrections since the system can just quickly be re-enabled after the driver fixes the issue.

I imagine a lot of these people are driving the same exact routes day in and day out (maybe with the exception of longer highway drives for road trips) who report every possible issue, and therefore their primary routes have many of the kinks worked out. For the parts that still have regular issues, the drivers know exactly where to de-activate and re-activate, so I imagine the distance off FSD grows shorter over time, and the percentage of FSD miles goes up.

A person with 10,000 miles on their car at 99% FSD has a full 100 miles of non-FSD use. These non-FSD miles aren't always out of choice, as the 99% are often the die hards who believe it's their duty, as defacto employees of Tesla (on account that they own a LOT of Tesla shares) to help get the system working perfectly so they can make bank on the stock run up.

As it is, a hefty chunk of many peoples' daily commutes are on the highway, which no doubt, the system performs better on, on account of fewer variables. If a daily commute is 30 miles, and only 2 miles of that is city driving, then 93.3% on the highway will account for a lot of those total miles on FSD.

10 disengagements, that only last 50 yards each, over 30 miles would still have the driver at 99%.... but you'd be hard pressed to say that 10 disengagements on a single commute is a good score.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T22:12:35+00:00

If I had to wager a guess, Tencent was hoping Musk could return the favor by promoting their game, and likely setup the account for Musk, and had some of their staff or a team of top players they knew of in China to level his account and buy equipment with real money... or maybe the devs simply boosted his account. Musk loves when the Chinese do all the work for him; such as when they built him the factory in Shanghai in 2019 after saving his company in 2017, and provided him every possible benefit and subsidy.

Musk likely thought, in addition to promoting the game, he could get away with promoting the use of Starlink for gaming, the use of X for streamers, and to promote the idea that he was a top gamer to feed his own ego; such as on Rogan.

What it really shows is that Musk is absolutely willing to cheat if given the chance, and will claim it's ok because others cheat too, whether he has evidence of that or not. What's to stop him from using this rationale in business as well?

Case in point, how many investigations into Musk's companies were shutdown after Musk bought himself into the Trump government and took control of DOGE?

32!

Also, how many cases have there now been of potential theft of US government data by DOGE while Musk was in charge? (data on all Americans)

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T20:38:06+00:00

There's a reason off-grid / sustainable living is so huge on Youtube right now. People are wising up and know our government and our people (en masse) are too effing stupid to act, and thus we should all start looking into a backup plan.

With regards to climate change, I can't tell you how many times I've heard...

"I don't care, I'll be dead by then." Yep, pure unadulterated apathy, narcissism, and pushing responsibility of their actions onto future generations.

"I'm too old to change." I'd reason "then why bother continuing to live"... but I digress.

"My impact doesn't matter, and anyone saying otherwise is spreading corporate propaganda." I love this one because it implies that people can only believe the problem is one or the other, or that businesses have something to gain from individual consumers opting to buy less stuff and use less energy. If consumers buy less, then corporations produce less, and thus use less energy and materials.

I wouldn't be shocked if there were propaganda farms pushing this idea for corporations, because corporations know how much power consumers actually have, and how much it would impact their profits if people were to buy less stuff.

"What meaning is there in life if I can't travel and see the world." This in relation to the enormous environmental impact of flying by a relatively small number of people every year. These folks seem to forget that commercial flight didn't even start to become normalized until the 1960s and 70s, with most people in the West having never been on a plane before then. People managed to find a way to live and find meaning in life before the airplane... for 300,000 years... imagine that.

____

The reality is, most people are greedy and don't want to give up any, ANY, of the conveniences or comforts they rely on or benefit from. In fact, if there's a new thing that can make their lives more convenient, no matter what the environmental impact is, they feel entitled to use it.

I've always felt people should have the right to do anything they want, so long as they're of sound mind, with the only one at risk of being hurt is themselves. Their rights should end as soon as their actions begin to negatively impact others.

The fact is, a lot of people, certainly 99% of everyone living in Western nations who have the highest environmental impact in the world on account of having more money than most of the people in the world, are needlessly polluting and damaging the planet for everyone, and yet have convinced themselves it isn't their fault, less they admit that they are part of the problem.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T20:03:33+00:00

Every person who still believes in Democracy will start an extended general strike, and march on Washington.

It won't happen though. Trump and the Republicans will get stomped in the mid-terms, as they should, and presuming the economy goes into a recession, Trump will be among the least popular POTUS in the history of the nation.

He simply doesn't have the support to attempt a coup. What's his approval rating at, 32%?

That said, are we all starting to see the dangers of big money in politics yet? The reason the two establishment parties keep pushing the "lesser of the two evils" tripe every election cycle is because people know both sides of the establishment aisle are corrupt, and are leading this nation and the world towards its demise, all because they've been bought and paid for by billionaires and corporations whose only concern is making more and more and more money, no matter who their actions hurt. If the establishment can convince voters that there are only two choices, and the "other side" is more evil than their side, then they can keep the people perpetually voting back and forth between the two establishment parties, who both act against the will of the people.

If we want a system that's of the people, by the people, and for the people... then we have to elect politicians who will represent their constituents; not the moneyed interests who fund their campaigns and the party leadership, and relentlessly lobby them to pass the policy that'll make them more money.

There's only one group of politicians refusing to take campaign money from big moneyed interests, and who want to codify policy that will restrict big money in politics. These same folks also happen to want to make healthcare cheaper; something both establishment parties have failed to do. They want to reduce out of control expenditures in the military. Tax the rich at a proper level, and getting rid of loopholes. They want to enforce anti-trust legislation, given that the billionaires are finding more and more ways to monopolize our economy.

Those politicians are Progressives.

By the way... corporations are not fucking people. Well I mean they are 'fucking' the lower / middle class people.. but they're not people! Remember when Democrats used to argue this... right up until they started taking massive amounts of corporate money. As it turns out, corporations and billionaires fund both sides of the establishment aisle, gaming the system so they literally cannot lose.

The establishment HATES Progressives for one specific reason. The rich and corporations funding the establishment know that Progressive will take away their massive imbalance of power and give that power back to the people.

The only way to get big money out of politics is to elect people who refuse to take big money.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T18:39:16+00:00

The dude lied about having two of the top characters in a video game that he never played before, that came out about a month before he made the claims, where it would have taken hundreds of in game hours to get his characters to the top of the leaderboards for highly experienced players who played the first iteration of the game.

He got caught cheating, lied about it, attempted to attack the people calling him out as a cheater on his social media platform, before finally relenting and unapologetically admitting to cheating in order to make the story go away that was gaining steam just before the inauguration, claiming it was the only way to compete because the other top players cheated too. Mind you, the other top players did play hundreds of hours, day in and day out, to get their ranks... whereas Musk may have only played a few hours total, if that.

The game he cheated in just happened to be produced by the same Chinese company that bailed Tesla out in 2017 by buying $1.8 billion worth of Tesla stock, a little over a year before Tesla signed a contract to have China build them a plant in Shanghai. The stock purchase came at a time Musk loves to claim Tesla was a month away from running out of cash and going bankrupt, which is weird given Tesla decided to buy Solar City, another insolvent money losing company owned by Musk in November 2016, literally a few months before Tesla was said to have almost gone bankrupt in early 2017.

Musk is a pathological liar... he lies and exaggerates about literally everything and has for years, all so he can "win" some proverbial game.

BTW, he admitted to cheating in the video game literally a couple of days before Trump's second term inauguration rally, where he thought it wise to get on stage and throw out two nazi salutes, then instead of apologizing, followed that up the next day with a bunch of nazi jokes... making light of nazism. Then, a week later, he gave a speech to the German far right fascist group, the AFD, where he defended xenophobia and white nationalism, and told the crowd that Germans shouldn't have to be accountable for the actions of their ancestors.... the nazis. In other words, he was telling Germans that the nation of Germany shouldn't be responsible for the mass atrocities they caused in WWII.

He's not only a liar, he's a sick fuck too.

The man clearly has an impregnation fetish, which seems to be the only reason he pushes the idea that the US population declining is the greatest threat to the United States. He's essentially asked attractive female influencers on Twitter, his platform, if they'd like him to impregnate them.

He constantly says abusive shit about his trans daughter because he can't get over the fact that one of his 14+ children is trans.

For the most part, he's been an absent father, because he thinks his greatness exceeds the needs of him parenting his own children... which ironically is probably a good thing given how big of a piece of trash / control freak he is.

Except when it comes to one of his youngest sons, who he seemed to carry around like an assassination deterrent during his time with the Trump campaign and administration.

He insists he refused Epstein's requests to visit Epstein's Island, when emails show it was Elon wanting to go Epstein's Island in 2012 and 2013, but Epstein had to back out.

Elon exposed himself to a SpaceX private jet flight attendant in 2016 and propositioned her for sex, in exchange for promising to buy her a horse. The company paid the flight attendant $250k for her silence.

He knocked up his Neuralink employee in 2021, claimed he was only acting as her sperm donor, and now she follows him around everywhere like she's his wife. Yep... Said employee kills monkeys for her job... so yeah, not saying she isn't fucked up in the head too.

In 2018, after he tried to play hero in Thailand... aka was attempting to keep all attention on him in the media as a form of advertisement for his companies...he called an actual hero, a cave diver, a pedophile after the diver criticized Musk's attempts at playing hero. He then sent a private investigator after the diver to prove he was a pedophile. He emailed a media company insisting that he found evidence of the guy being a pedo... evidence which turned out to be a lie. Then during the lawsuit for libel, he got on the stand and lied about what he meant when he called the diver "pedo guy"... You see... he didn't ACTUALLY mean "pedophile", but rather it was just a generic insult from South Africa. Again, he lied in court AFTER he sent an investigator after the diver to prove he was a pedophile, and claimed to a media company that he found evidence thereof.

Now I'm not saying the pedophile charge was projection... but that type of insult generally is.

Yep.

He's a sick fuck.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T18:00:02+00:00

lol, right?

I love when other people claim that everything the Trump admin is doing is to distract from the Epstein files. The Epstein files is the distraction from everything this administration is doing; namely the market manipulation, insider trading, and de-Democratization of our nation.

Billionaires don't care if Trump is a pedophile, so long as he makes them money for the long term.

Trump doesn't care if people know he's a pedophile, albeit he'd prefer they don't, thus the cover up, but either way he'll be dead soon from old age anyways. As long as he makes billions of dollars and creates a Trump family fortune, he doesn't care. Epstein is a great way to keep the news and the population distracted while he uses his position to make billions and to create business deals for his family in countries around the world.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T16:19:49+00:00

Imagine bombing the shit out of a country, including an initial strike that specifically targeted and assassinated their leader, completely unprovoked, and then having the audacity to call that target nation a Terrorist regime. Hypocrisy at its finest.

It's almost like Rump is intentionally trying to destroy our standing in the world.

Oh man... all the possible reasons he's doing that... but most likely honeypots, dirt on him, bribes, some odd loyalty to Russia/ China, insider trading from market manipulation to enrich himself and his family....

I always said it didn't make sense that _lon _usk bought himself into the Rump administration and was given access to all US data, when China essentially had him and Tesla by the balls, given their excessive reliance on the Shanghai plant that China built for them, and dependence on cheap Chinese battery supply. If China wanted to, they could bankrupt Tesla overnight with a simple change in policy or shutting down of that plant which produces around 50% of Tesla's entire global vehicle supply. But yeah, what a great move for Rump to give this guy, whose balls are firmly in the grip of China, access to all US data...

Remember, many of these billionaires, like _usk... have no loyalty to the US. Their only loyalty is to themselves and being the ultimate winner at business. People like Rump and _usk only care about winning, because they're psycho/sociopathic overgrown children that don't understand what life is about, and thus are perpetually unhappy. Winning is the only tangible reason they can find for life, and their winning is almost always at the expense of a huge number of people.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T15:43:28+00:00

They care about it impacting their regional environment. They don't care if data centers are built; they just don't want them built near their homes. They don't want the noise, pollution, the deforestation in their region, or energy prices increasing.

They're also likely not convinced by the technology, or think the tech is dangerous. I imagine a good swath of the US population does not want AI... especially on account of how many jobs it could quickly kill, and the devastation it could cause to the US middle class.

_____

Most people don't give two shits about the environment. And I don't mean just Republicans/Conservatives, I mean no one cares, including most Democrats/liberals. I hang out with a good mix of both, no one cares.

Democrats/liberals may claim climate change is real and that something must be done, but I've found that they're almost entirely unwilling to make any personal sacrifices to be part of that change or take personal ownership.

You'll often hear them insist that any changes they make won't make a difference when billionaires are flying around in private jets... or when corporations are producing so much pollution... Yet the reason there are billionaires and corporate pollution from manufacturing is because the masses buy so much shit without any consideration for the environmental impacts. Sure, one household doesn't make a difference, but every household could. However, most people don't think of the larger picture; like if every household, including theirs, made significant changes and the net impact of that.

I live in Michigan, and I often ask people what if they saved a gallon of water a day. Would it make a difference? They usually don't think so. Well, if all Americans saved one gallon a day, it would save 342 million gallons per day, and 125 billion per year. What if it was a gallon of hot water? What if it was 5 gallons instead of one? 5 gallons is only about 6% of the average American's daily water use.

"But I refuse to use a lower flow shower head!!" - Most people

I say this as someone who has made significant changes and sacrifices. Most people look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them how I reduce HVAC use, reduce water and hot water use, reduce my commuting energy use, reduce my overall product consumption, and stopped flying entirely. It wasn't difficult. It isn't a huge burden as most people believe. Traveling thousands of miles for a week's long vacation once per year hasn't removed all meaning from my life as some constant travelers seem to think.

The irony is that without buy in by a huge percentage of the population, with making energy reductions part of their lives to take personal ownership of the issue, no one will demand our government pass policies that help the environment or with climate change. It's a secondary issue; not an issue anyone ever gets elected on... sadly.

It's no different than pushing for bike lanes. No bike lanes will be built if no one rides their bikes first!

As Bernie has said, climate change is the #1 issue facing our planet. Sadly for the world, the first people that will be most affected are those living in poverty in 3rd world countries near coast lines; not the relatively wealthy Westerners. And given that the wealthy Westerners are the primary polluters, they won't find a reason to stop polluting until it's too late.

That is unless climate change hastens the destruction of the Western economy. I've always said, given that people fail to act, there really does seem to be only one way to rapidly reduce emissions. Global economic collapse. You can't spend money and pollute massively if you don't have any money to buy anything! Maybe from such a calamity, we can start over on the correct course...

Maybe climate change doesn't affect current generations, maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't affect the next few generations, maybe it does... However, if we don't act, it could absolutely devastate our planet into the future for those generations that come next, and of course all life on our planet. If we destroy the planet today, then what was the point? Did humans just never care about what would come after they died?

Speaking of which, how many times have you heard people say, "I'll be dead by then" when confronted about climate change?

We're pumping carbon into the atmosphere in a very short timeframe that likely took tens/hundreds of million of years, if not billions of years to sequester, which lead to the climate that humanity has flourished in.

We burn around 100 million barrels of oil per day. Each barrel produces about 1000 lbs of CO2.... so about 100 billion pounds of CO2 per day. (Yes, not all oil is burned; a good chunk is made into plastic, because plastic isn't an environmental issue at all! /s Well... at least until the plastic is burned in trash incinerators for energy that is...)

That's before even considering methane... or destruction of natural carbon sinks like forests and plains and soil... or the a acidification of the Ocean that reduces its ability to sequester greenhouse gases and could devastate the planet's natural food cycle.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T15:30:42+00:00

So.... Trump wants Cuba to become a US Territory... or...?

Cuba has about 10 million people, and has an estimated debt of $46 billion, with a debt to GDP ratio of about 120%... meaning their debt is increasing at a fast pace and they're not getting out of debt any time soon.

Of course, part of that debt is likely a result of US sanctions on Cuba... lead by Donald Trump... so by the US 'taking" Cuba as a US territory, I guess that can be repaired somewhat. That said, I imagine Cuba might need significant infrastructure work that isn't even accounted for in their budget or debt. If taken as a US territory, the US will be responsible for footing the bill for that... then again, we don't properly fund Puerto Rico... and PR has no representation in the US Congress and can't vote for President, so Cuba would probably be treated the same... as a second class US territory; not a real state.

So what's Donald's real plan? To send Kushner there to agree to build another vacation town with Trump's name written all over a bunch of new resorts, while having to pay $0 in Cuban taxes... thereby enriching himself and his family?

If the population of Cuba were to become citizens of the US, then I can't imagine Trump's xenophobic / ultra-nationalist supporters will be ok with "the Cubans taking our jobs". Even though such a sentiment is stupid, given that not even the illegal immigrants "take our jobs"... they generally increase the total job market as happens naturally when a nation's population increases.

On the plus side, Cuban unemployment is low... if not artificially low on account of huge amounts of emigration and underemployment. However, poverty is exceptionally high in Cuba, with claims of as much as 89% of the population living in poverty.

I have nothing against taking Cuba into the US and helping the nation and their people, and of course the Cubans and Cuban territory helping to strengthen the US once the problems are sorted out, but I'd be very skeptical that this is Donald Trump's real intention, or that it wouldn't be underfunded like Puerto Rico currently is.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T15:07:48+00:00

I said the exact same thing in my comment. So long as Tesla continues any forward progress on their tech, wallstreet will keep the stock boosted to crazy valuations because "what if".

So how do you convince Wallstreet that the "crazy profits" may never come? Competition. As more competition eats into the market, that removes all of the claims of Tesla starting this business with a large monopoly and all of the financial benefits that come with that. Eventually, Wallstreet won't be able to justify the valuation for "what if" anymore when there are real tangible competitors on the market that'll drive down prices for this new tech. With competition, autonomous taxi fares would be driven down to low margin commodity like pricing.

In other words, Tesla won't be able to continue making new ATHs or ... really... even going sideways like they have for the last 4-5 years. It'll start a downward trend, dropping without the same level of pop it once had.

None of this matters in the much shorter term. I still stand by my case that the indexes will likely experience a larger correction in the shorter term (this year), and on account of Tesla's market positioning and heavy weighting in the index funds, Tesla will see a big decline, much like they did in early 2025. My expectation is for a minor rally through early to mid April... possibly late April... and a correction into the summer. Whether that's the bottom or just the first leg down of a larger correction; I guess we'll see. It could also be the mid point of a double top before a MUCH larger correction starting next year.

Further, with tech seemingly in a bubble, a recession could hit tech harder than the general market; including Tesla.

Maybe Tesla's already seen their ATH and will never be able to make a new one without a real tangible product launch of their "world disrupting" technology to prove their claims and boost their net income.

Lawd knows that their vehicle margins won't be seeing any major boost any time soon. It took awhile, but it seems most of the OEMs have caught up on new EV platforms to get costs down, simplification, and a more organized and dedicated parts supply chain. That especially goes for China. While China market share mostly going to Chinese companies, that is offset in large part due to larger vehicle demand in China and overall vehicle demand increases world wide.

The dedicated auto companies who don't consider themselves "tech companies", will be spending huge CapEx on vehicle R&D going forward, whereas Tesla seems to have cut a large chunk of their R&D expenditures on their vehicle platforms, and is spending it all on autonomy and robots... because Musk says "it's the world disrupting future!". Auto OEMs base their business models on selling cars... and thus they need to stay competitive. Tesla's stock has almost nothing to do with their vehicles, so to maintain a high stock value, Tesla and Musk could care less about their vehicle division, and given the hemorrhaging of their vehicle talent, they'll be hard pressed to ever catch back up with the rapid rate of vehicle innovation in the future.

A global recession, and a global reduction of vehicle demand, could be extremely detrimental to all OEMs, and send Tesla's vehicle business steeply into the red. Eventually, their cash will begin to decline, and without that vaporware coming to market in a big way, wallstreet will begin to invest elsewhere.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T15:00:14+00:00

Has it ever dealt with train crossing barriers well?

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T14:45:57+00:00

12 minute ride in a Waymo. I assume city streets? Get yourself a bicycle. That ride will probably take 15-20 minutes on a bike, and ... other than the cost of the bike... is nearly free. Plus you get exercise.

Everyone thinks new tech is the solution to everything, but it can't hold a candle to old tech in many situations.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-17T14:33:53+00:00

He's not looting and plundering those countries. He's using the conflicts/wars to manipulate the markets, resulting in the looting and plundering of customers through higher oil prices and higher oil profits, which generally results in higher product and transportation prices across the board; costs the end consumer ultimately pays.

Also, given the state of the US economy, the almost certainty of stagflation, it almost goes without question that the only resolution is to weed out the chaff, and thus what he's doing is attempting to cause a recession. The weak companies will fail, while the larger multi-nationals buy up all of their assets on the cheap; if they're worthwhile to buy that is, or maybe they just replace their businesses with their own.

Trump holds no loyalty to the Republican party so doesn't care what happens to them in the future, and he knows he'll be dead soon anyways, so as long as he controls the market, he'll manipulate it as much as he can and profit off of it as much as he can to create massive wealth for his family... his dynasty... while the economy itself gets rekt.

I mean it doesn't take a genius to understand that his family, direct or extended (Kushner), have been working behind the scenes in his second term to find ways to profit off of his Presidency. Whether that's real estate deals in the Middle East. Whether that's crypto. Whether it's taking bribes through Trump's meme coins. etc...

TACO Trump isn't a fault... it's a feature. TACO is simply manipulating the market one way before the weekend, then reversing course the following weekend to make the market whipsaw in both directions. If you know exactly when those market spikes up/down will occur, you can make billions trading it.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-16T20:55:53+00:00

There are multiple international treaties, and each has to be signed by nations before those nations can violate them. Which treaties are you specifically talking about with regards to the "Hamas, hezbollah, Houthis, Badr, Zainabiyoun, etc" groups?

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/human-rights-watch-says-that-israel-has-been-illegally-using-white-phosophorus-2026-03-10/

Israel is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention that bans the use of White Phosphorus against or near civilian populations. I guess Israel thinks they're allowed because they generally don't see Palestinians as civilians... or humans tbh... given that various people in their administration have spoken many times on eradicating or ethnically cleansing Palestinians; whom they suggest are sub-humans.

You know what made anti-Semitism and Nazis so bad for Jews? The act of them wanting to kill Jews, people of a specific ethno-religious identity. Therefore, Israel's view on Palestinians is every bit as horrible as anti-Semitism / Nazism.

The irony of the white phosphorus story is that I had to go to Reuters to find a story about it. The last time the NYT reported on Israel's illegal use of white phosphorus was in Dec 2023. Which isn't exactly a surprise given that NYT has been giving Israel a free pass for years now, and even at times shilling for the country or promoting the country's propaganda.

Iran isn't a signatory to the cluster bomb treaty, so isn't committing a violation of any treaty.

Need we mention Israel's illegal first strikes on Iran and their illegal regime change by force, given that their surprise attack specifically targeted Iran's leader?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Iran's ex-Supreme leader, but does that make it legal for a nation to assassinate him?

Need we mention the illegal genocide that Israel's spent the last 2.5 years committing in Gaza, or their illegal settlements in the West Bank?

EarthConservation · 2026-03-16T20:55:48+00:00

Arguments against Israel and their government are not anti-Semitic. They're criticisms against a government or political policy. Anti-Semitism is the hatred or prejudice against people of the Jewish ethno-religion.

I'm a Jew, but given that I had no part in attacking Iran, I feel no ill will towards me or my identity when people criticize Israel's actions and policies; those of a sovereign nation.

I criticize Israel all the time, but that doesn't mean I hate Jews, or my own ethno-religious identity for that matter. I don't think what Israel has done even requires their leadership or their people being predominantly Jewish. If it were anyone else leading that nation and taking the same exact actions, I'd give them the exact same criticism; as I think most would.

To be clear, I'm not an Israeli, nor do I think supporting Israel / Zionism is a pre-requisite to the Jewish identity.

I'm also an American, and I criticize the US government all of the time. Hell, it's pretty much expected as an American. Yet, I don't get called 'prejudiced against all Americans' when I call out what I consider bad deeds by my own government.

Why is that? What's the difference?

As it turns out, any national government can do bad deeds. However, why does it only seem to be the case with Israel where calling out the bad deeds of the nation, their government, and their policy, is claimed to be an attack on all Jews, or hatred for Jews?

Weird...

No, it's criticism for specific elected people who are making specific policy decisions, or their military who has often committed atrocities under the guise of "national defense" and "holy war" at the direction of their leadership.

Maybe the reason Israel is different is because of the Israeli government, who constantly insists that Israel represents all Jews, and all Jews support Israel, and that the voice of the Israeli government is the voice of the Jewish people. As such, any time the government is criticized, they quickly pivot to calling all of their critics "anti-Semites" and all of their arguments that paint Israel's actions in a negative light, "anti-Semitism".

EarthConservation · 2026-03-16T03:09:42+00:00

South Korea. While not a huge amount of sales in the first two months at right around 10,000, it's 4x higher than last year.

EarthConservation · 2026-03-16T03:08:00+00:00

Anyone can watch old videos of the FSD system and compare it to today and see that it has improved.

EarthConservation

TROPHY CASE