It's even more insidious, because even if you like Tesla, your car may get scratched by people who don't like Tesla.
But yeah, perhaps telling allies in Europe to get fucked, and tell our friends that the US was embracing the idea to economically attack Canada and potentially militarily Denmark, supporting the idea that the US deserves to get a piece of Ukraine together with Russia, weren't probably the smartest moves among millions of other things.
I like Tesla as a product though (except the finish quality), but it's even less likely that FSD will come in Europe now...
And now, more oddly, it is a remotely controlled video and microphone, so even more creepy seeing the personalities of the people behind.
Eventually it must be possible, because humans don't come with LIDAR.
But "eventually" can be a long way off. Dunno how far we are from a pure-vision model that is simultaneously good enough for FSD and fits into the power envelope available to a car.
And even then, it feels like an unnecessary handicap to skimp on more sensor modalities.
Humans are bad at driving. I do not want an automated system to be a substitute, I want it to be vastly superior and safer. 40,000 people die each year in car accidents in the United States. I expect an autonomous system to be ZERO deaths a year. Getting there will absolutely require more robust systems than what humans come equipped with.
I think he cut the sensors because he's so used to Muntzing — save money by cutting stuff until something fails and then putting it back — being a winning strategy.
That Musk is surrounded by sycophants means that Muntzing is now not going to work in general, because so many people will tell him that everything's fine even when it isn't. Only SpaceX can get past that, because RUDs are impossible to miss.
I understand you don’t like Musk. But regardless of that -
vision vs sensors. Isn’t it about shaving costs to make a mass produced car that’s attainable by more people due to lower costs and easier manufacturing?
When considering engineering, manufacturing, and cost only - I understand why it is why it is right now. Even the current Tesla Vision FSD today is amazing. Agree that I’d love to see sensors in the future as long as it doesn’t price me out.
Musk is complicated. I recognise he has done interesting things, my personal feelings to not detract from that. Even my very claim that he is used to Muntzing being a winning strategy is because (as I understand it) it did genuinely help to make the early Tesla models into products that were simultaneously affordable and not loss-making.
As for price, LIDAR has been built into high-end smartphones since at least the iPhone 12 Pro — 4.5 years ago. When LIDAR was new it made sense to avoid it, but I don't think that argument has been viable for a while now.
There's also the loss of ultrasonic sensors, which are cheap enough to be in budget teach-kids-electronics kits.
This is a direct response to thousands of Americans being fired from their jobs by Elon's actions, with thousands more threatened and likely to lose their jobs in the future. I don't think "think of the jobs" is the right way to convince people this is a bad move.
Employees have had fair warning, and years of advanced notice. Not a one has illusions about his character. They either relish it, or are looking for new opportunities at this point.
It's very unlikely, but even the fact that they mention it as a possibility feels just crazy to me.
You don't have to worry if you live in Canada though, I think this is just politicians trolling.
I just find the rhetoric to be a bit obscene (82% of Canadians are against it according to a recent poll!), but this is a question of perspective. Also, some impact (like the additional taxes / tariffs during imports) are real, not just a joke.
So, with regard to Greenland, he specifically refused to rule out military action [0]. Which in diplomatic protocols comes very darn close to threatening a military attacks.
As far as Canada goes, Trump's national security advisors is on the record [4] saying he doesn't think there's any plans about this. Which is also an extremely uncertain way of talking about military action about your closest neighbor. Trump has repeatedly talked about making Canada the 51st state [1], and called Trudeau a "Governor" [2]. Here's a New York time article summing up the types of threats/attacks Trump made wrt. Canada[3].
> he specifically refused to rule out military action
Donald Trump has specifically ruled out a lot of things that he then promptly did. He's also followed through enough that his threats have to be taken seriously. As a result, you get a hodgepodge of half-assed threats, each of which can be plausibly denied until followed through on, at which point you're asked how you didn't see him doing the thing he said he would do.
While it's not exactly a military declaration, Trump said during the joint session to Congress, "One way or the other, we’re going to get it" in reference to Greenland.
I truly feel that his ideology mandates a separate term. Muskism? Elonism? The latter rolls of the tongue better, but I suppose future historians will lean towards the former.
No, but the GP is framing the arson and related terrorism that is scaring people from buying/driving Teslas as a "boycott" in the same way that disingenuous news media is, and justifying it by comparing it to the Bud Light boycott.
The drop in sales is from terrorism, not from a "boycott".
There is a widespread boycott and a bunch of peaceful protests. There are a few instances of arson and zero instances of terrorism.
I'm tired of right wing media sensationalizing the handful of radicals and ignoring the thousands and million of peaceful people. Just like during George Floyd protests.
it's tough to fight against fascism without the use of violence or a very heavy threat of violence. I think that most major changes in history show this to be true.
barely anyone would even mention a regular protest in front of dealerships.
> tough to fight against fascism without the use of violence or a very heavy threat of violence
Torching Teslas isn't a strategic use of violence, it's throwing a tantrum. If you're talking about revolutionary violence, you're unfortunately crossing into using violence as a political tool, i.e. killing supporters to intimidate or leadership to decapitate. Anyone who thinks we're there right now isn't versed in what happens to ordinary people during and after revolutions, even those that fail.
(That said, I do find the irony of the January 6th ally decrying political violence a bit ridiculous. If you bought a Cybertruck after 2021, you made your own bed.)
> Torching Teslas isn't a strategic use of violence, it's throwing a tantrum.
I don't know, seems about the same as throwing tea into a river. Doesn't help anyone, the tea was probably already sold so it doesn't even hurt the manufacturer. But it does send a message, doesn't it?
Interesting. My understanding of what DOGE is doing is getting American debt under control. Trying to save the country from going bankrupt from overspending on programs that do not improve the life of the average citizen. I'm failing to see how that is destroying the American government. Maybe it's just me.
If they want to get American debt under control why did they fire a bunch of people at the IRS such that it's predicted we will see half a trillion in fresh losses to tax cheats this season? https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-r...
Federal employees cost less than 5% of the fed budget which is $6000B. So if you lay off 10% of employees you are effectively reducing the budget by like $30B which leaves $5970B left.
Laying off employees will not help federal government debt or budget.
That’s completely untrue. The bureaucracy follows the rules Congress provides, and there are many checks on their power built into those processes both internal and via the courts.
The reason DOGE are asserting that they don’t need to follow the law is because the cuts they want to make are themselves in violation of the law, not because there’s no other way to do it.
Many such bureaus have been established over the years that have extralegal powers existing basically outside the Constitution. I’m thinking of the NLRB, CFPB, FBI, IRS, and several others.
We as a society have a consensus that we need such agencies to manage the hugely complex country that we have become, but that doesn’t necessarily mean these bureaucratic organizations are themselves properly managed.
Years ago, I read about a man who the IRS was trying to levy extensive fines on. After five years of court battles, he committed suicide.
Perhaps this was an extreme case, but there is nonetheless an important question that arises out of this tragedy: does the government exist to serve the people, or do the people exist to serve the government?
I believe our colonial era checks and balances no longer protect us from a bureaucracy that is automatically funded by the Treasury, that the President has limited control over, and that only an act of Congress can change.
In an era when no one political party has enough control to enact legislation (i.e. a filibuster proof majority), the bureaucracy is effectively out of control and the only real way it can be reformed is by uncovering waste and corruption.
You’re shifting the goalposts again. You not liking them doesn’t mean that they’re unconstitutional, it means you have a problem with how Congress has exercised its constitutional authority.
No it absolutely doesn't. The "permanent bureaucracy" as you call it (or people just doing their jobs as I call it) is the most compliant part of government to checks and balances.
I'm guessing what Trump is doing is not the most efficient way to do it, but isn't he trying to get rid of the "permanent bureaucracy" - the people responsible for creating policies and spend money, that are not elected and don't have a term limit?
That idea of an unelected policy maker is a work of political fiction. There are two types of federal employee: political appointees and senior executives, who do not have job security, and the merit-based civil servants who have job protection in the sense that they can only be fired for cause. All of them can act only within the bounds that Congress defines – that’s why there are lawsuits about things like whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant because the EPA can’t regulate outside of what the law authorizes.
The idea is a sound one. However many see the approach being taken as reckless, lacking in accountability, and based on specious claims (much of what we know of the progress is self-reported by Musk, some of which has been disproven by fact checkers). Moreover, arguments against his actions are often met with straw men arguments about spending reduction instead of addressing his actions specifically.
> what DOGE is doing is getting American debt under control
I'm suprised anyone buys this line. Trump's 2025 GOP budget would increase deficits by $6 trillion [1]. Its end game is to increase tax cuts for the rich.
The cuts DOGE has done are likely to be reversed in costly court battles that will make the single-digit billions [2] Musk may have saved less than the costs of the fights. All of that is before considering the second-order economic effects of e.g. shutting down large sections of our national parks ahead of the summer season [3].
The Executive does not control what money is spent. That is for Congress to decide, no? I think this is described in a document called the Constitution.
American Government ≠ America, and I think a lot of people mix the two.
Some people want what large, vastly-reaching governments provide. They just need to be aware that the people who run the government can change. The power you give to one "side" can be inherited by the other "side". People should always be wary of giving that power away, because you never know who will have it next.
It's about the separation of powers. Law-making, adjudication, and execution should be separate branches so that no one branch gets too much power, as that will lead to dictatorship. When Trump and Musk are ignoring judges' orders and going ahead with their sledgehammering, it sets a dangerous precedent for what the POTUS can get away with.
Ofc there's more to this story than just DOGE too.
And preferably not by a bunch of Silicon Valley chads who call themselves "Big Balls" and who might've been checked for security credentials before taking the job.
If you have a short daily commute, I recommend considering plug-in hybrids.
I got a PHEV Prius Prime in 2020 and I'm delighted with it. The battery has a range of about 20-25 miles, depending on the weather. My daily commute is about 10 miles each way, so I can make it to work and back without needing gas, and I only need to fill the tank three or four times a year. In my case it works out really well: driving an electric vehicle 95% of the time, and never any range anxiety.
I've had a chevy volt since 2014 and it's amazing at this. 30+ mile range gets me all the local travel that I need daily plus the gas range makes roadtrips completely stress free since I can just go get gas.
I'm not a fan of any car company. Especially ones that eschew buttons for a touchscreen. I am however looking forward to see how the new Ramcharger does (RAM 1500 with all-electric drivetrain (145mi) and built-in V6 generator for extended range (690mi)).
Our Kia EV6 (similar platform) has been great, besides its 12V flooded battery once going flat and disabling the vehicle.
The EV6 has a big touchscreen, a touch screen for combined media/climate controls, capacitive buttons for seat heat and steering wheel heat. However, many of the controls are available as physical buttons as well.
The EV6 is the other car I've been thinking about, actually. I'm going to need to test-drive both some weekend we're not busy with the work on the new house.
I really hope other EV brands are picking up the lost sales, rather than demand being displaced back to ICE vehicles. Hating the owners of Tesla stock is one thing, but the owners of oil & gas stocks are far worse.
It seems to me, being the kind of person to want an EV and being surrounded by people who do, that the recent downturn is very much about Musk. There are other contributing factors like less competitive offering, much stronger new rivals, price, build quality issues etc. But at it's heart it seems to really be very much because everybody buying EVs thinks Musk and what he stands for awful. He has directly upset his core customer base. I can't think of anyone I know with a Tesla who just brought an EV because it was a car. Teslas weren't utility, they were a statement.
The problem is that we believe this opinion-driven effect is proved by the dip in sales, but the numbers can easily be explained by a simpler reason: the Model Y, which accounts for 2/3 of the company sales, was refreshed in mid-January. Tesla had only 12 days of inventory at the beginning of the quarter. It took 3-5 days for the production lines to get back online and even more time to ramp up. Deliveries of the Model Y started in week 2 of March (at least in Europe). And it takes time to reach out most states/markets. Tesla moves the fastest in China, and we're seeing very good sales trend: close to full volume and they should reach ~130,000 sales, as much as Q1 2024 despite the production lines being down for weeks.
It's one (good) thing to oppose Musk and his disregard for Tesla's mission (accelerate the transition to renewable energy) but it's a mistake to explain a drop in deliveries a sales issue when the missing cars just couldn't be produced due to planned downtime.
It's a convenient theory, but if the refresh were the only reason for the dip in sales, Trump wouldn't be on the Whitehouse lawn begging people to buy Teslas, like the corrupt car salesman he is.
> While their European production lines were down because of the switch to the new Y "Juniper" version?
Prediction: the new cars will sell worse than the current ones. With an old Tesla model, you can plausibly deny your connection to Musk. With a new one you can't.
The most popular car colours are black, white and grey. People generally don't buy opinionated cars, even if we like looking at them. Teslas are a politically-opinionated car. That restricts their market.
Protesters views on either "side" do not represent the majority views. I imagine most people who were interested in buying a Tesla, are not interested in being the victims of vandalism, violence, or hate.
I imagine, if the cultural signal is not the issue (which would be weird cars are perhaps the second most signaling purchase someone makes) it’s the resale value.
All teslas have cratered in value a minuscule number of them have been vandalized.
> cars are perhaps the second most signaling purchase someone makes
Exactly this.
In addition to outside signaling, buying a Tesla is a decision people often made for moral reasons. They decided to buy an expensive, relatively poorly made car with a limited range (compared to an IC car) because they could mentally offset the disadvantages of the car by morally justifying the purchase. Today, though, this is a pretty difficult justification to make.
It's also possible that people who were interested in buying a Tesla are not interested in buying a car from a man who will sig heil twice in public. There are actually still a lot of people that find Nazis revolting.
Not according to the oh so moderate and reasonable HN comments. Having an opinion about that to the point of painting signs or showing any sign of protest is an extreme view.
I think Nazism is terrible, nor do I think it was an attempt at a Nazi salute. Some people will call it a "dog whistle", but it definitely wasn't a Sieg Heil.
It was definitely a sig heil. And he did it twice. Clearly intentionally. Everyone who's saying it wasn't sound like they're gaslighting the country: we all know what we saw.
If a large bit of the US had thought I'd one a sig heil at a large event, I would certainly clarify that it wasn't one instead of making fun of the folks who ere "confudsed". The lack of clarification is all the clarification I need.
"Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes" only goes so far for most of us. Not everyone, I guess, but really, hoss we're not idiots and can tell what it was.
> The lack of clarification is all the clarification I need.
Even if he'd clarify it, his twitter posts/retweets are very much leaning in the nazi-esque direction. So any benefit of the doubt is already out of the window when not just looking at that event in a vacuum.
I'm not on TwitterX, nor do I follow clickbate stuff online. The nuances I'm seeing do not support the narrative that he is essentially Hitler reincarnated.
I'm not saying I support what he's doing; he's definitely not taking the best approach to his stated goals. But I give people the benefit of doubt (on both "sides") until proven otherwise.
Can you please link to ones you think support the Nazis or Nazi ideology?
I did a quick search and all I'm getting are the recent stupid Nazi jokes in response to people's outrage about what Musk did, or the one where Musk was talking about how government workers did Hitler's bidding.
I guess you all have never seen an autistic person make unusual gestures.
Do you have any pictures of actual Nazis making weird faces while saluting, or grabbing their chest before saluting, or raising their hand so it's not in a straight line with their extended arm, or with their body leaned back and head tilted?
Have you ever been accused of something you didn't do? Did it ever make you want to lash out? Imagine half of the country that you think you're trying to help, calling you "Hitler" and you have practically unlimited resources and are practically untouchable, how would you react? How many people do you think would choose, "Oh, I guess I should stop because people are accusing me of things I didn't do and are making me out to be a monster, and if I stop people will automatically believe I'm not a monster." Or do they harden their resolve and double-down. Human nature seems to be the latter.
Regardless of what Elon Musk thinks, what do you think are the potential outcomes of everything that is going on with Elon Musk?
- Someone assassinates him, and Donald Trump isn't happy (what do you think he would do).
- He leaves the political / government scene, and people still think he is a monster no matter what he does or where he goes.
- He continues to see to it that he accomplishes what he believes.
This is a huge change. These kinds of boycotts and protests usually barely impact sales. The Bud Light boycott had a relatively strong impact on sales, resulting in a 26% decrease in in-store sales in the US. The effect on Tesla seems to be way bigger, and it's not limited to only US sales.
Another prominent example of a global boycott is Nike during the 1990s, but despite the widespread coverage, their revenue actually continued to grow.
Boycott is not the same a burning cars. The sales of the car I own are going down in general, but the only way it affects me is that I know the software bug won't be fixed.
Hopefully they can keep things in perspective and direct their frustrations at the CEO who became a facist and not the millions suffering who want to oppose him.
It's not, if you realize they started the quarter with almost no inventory (12 days in end of December, which is nothing for an OEM with no dealership).
More importantly, they shut down the production lines for the Y model to convert them to the new 2025 Juniper version. That's 2/3 of their total sales.
You can't sell cars you have no produced, obviously. It's April-May that you have to watch for deliveries, now that they finally started shipping the new Y out of Texas.
A 35% change in one month, when the production lines are being retooled for a new version of the most popular model… is nothing special. Because it was planned and couldn't be managed differently (except by stuffing inventories, which is stupid when you annonce a new model). This can easily be compensated with raising sales of the most popular vehicle being sold globally. That what's the Chinese market is proving already with ~130,000 units to be sold this quarter (same as last year).
Tesla's non-truck vehicles all look the same and the design is dated. They have yet to prove they can do a car redesign successfully to my knowledge. It takes a lot of effort for a car company to redesign and re-tool their factories to produce a quality new version of a vehicle. They had massive problems when initially launching and until proven otherwise they could repeat those problems if/when they do a re-design.
If Musk would step aside as CEO, they do a successful re-design of each model, offer an affordable bare bones EV (200mi range, slow 0-60, FWD), then I think the company would be rock-solid as an investment and sales would go through the roof and they would break past the 5% of total car sales barrier.
Some of your comment is wrong, IMO. Some of it is correct. Last year I would have jumped in to correct your errors. But I've since sold my stock and am considering selling my car.
One of Tesla's greatest assets were its fans. We've been burnt. Let the haters win.
My comment is my opinion, its neither correct or incorrect.
Car designs get dated and need refreshes every few years (my opinion). Tesla has not gone through this cycle that all other car manufacturers go through (fact?) so I think to prove itself it needs to successfully navigate that cycle.
Opinionated, politicized CEOs of consumer products is not a good idea, doesn't matter what party affiliation. Its going to cause issues with the company and the board of directors would be justified in ousting someone like that. There's just not going to be a good outcome with someone like that at the helm.
There is no major component of the Model 3/Y that has not seen a major redesign over the years: frame, motor, battery, Heat & A/C & battery/engine cooling/warming, suspension, computer, windows, auxiliary battery, et cetera.
I'm talking about external design of the vehicle. Kia and Hyundai are absolutely killing it with their design refreshes in the last few years. Its really hard to discern any Tesla model year from any other. After a while US consumers move on from past designs and want something new to look at.
Almost all automobile manufacturers are valued with P/Es around 4-15. This is true for GM, Ford, Stellantis, VW, BMW, Toyota, Hyundai, SAIC, Nissan, Honda, Suzuki, etc. Why? Because no-one expect them to grow much.
Right now, after losing almost half of its value, Tesla's stock still has a whooping 122 P/E; Tesla is still valued as a growth company while their sales are collapsing in the US, in Europe and in China, and with no other obvious market to compensate. Tesla hasn't launched a new mass market vehicle since March 2019, when Model Y was presented. That's 6 years ago! What other car manufacturer would survive so little innovation for so long? There are no new mass market vehicles in sight, just some robot taxis and robots and dreams of somehow generating a trillion dollar market on that in the very urban markets in the US and Europe where politicians and consumers despise Musk. Good luck with that. Already in 2024 - long before Musk went full throttle MAGA - Tesla stopped growing.
By now, European and Asian competitors have caught up with Tesla. Yes, Tesla is among the best on some measures, like price and range, but notby much, and it's also far down on the list on other aspects; the market is saturated with its 2 main models, it's not very luxorious, it's not of very good quality, etc. It's one good choice out of many good choices. The growth is gone, the moat is gone, and the Musk brand is now a liability.
With hindsight it's interesting to consider what a vulnerable position Musk is in.
Tesla stock has been massively over-valued for years - it's been clear that a company selling less cars than most other name-brand auto manufacturers shouldn't be one of the top ten most valuable companies in the world, but had a valuation that was propped up by Musk's massive fame and visibility.
(Of course shorting Tesla was always a risk, because "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".)
As Musk, the worst thing you can do in that position is to wildly
pivot into right wing politics and piss off a huge chunk of the world's population who can both afford your cars and care about climate change.
Right wing fans who can afford $100,000+ for a Cybertruck aren't going to make up that gap.
Tesla is not just cars. Their large scale solar power storage business is growing, they manufacture batteries, they have the largest charging infrastructure for end users, massive super computing to crunch fsd data, a lithium refinery in Texas starting up this year, and their humanoid robotics division.
Perhaps their stock was overpriced, perhaps not. Long term, there’s tremendous upside and right now it’s arguably a buying opportunity. Musk’s involvement with DoGE will end in a matter of months or maybe a year, and the people keying cars and engaging in political theatrics outside Tesla dealerships will soon move on to the next cause.
> large scale solar power storage business is growing, they manufacture batteries, they have the largest charging infrastructure for end users
Tesla’s infrastructure-sales prospects outside America have basically been hobbled for years to come. I’d argue similarly for our most-populous states.
Like, on what planet is a Canadian or California politician surviving greenlighting a Tesla project? For that matter, how many places currently leasing space to Tesla for charging infrastructure want a permanent protest magnet on their property?
Musk is inextricably tied to MAGA and global rightwing populism at this point, DOGE or no DOGE. If and when the US starts invading allies and sending Democrats to El Salvador, the brand will become unsalvageable barring Musk’s complete eviction from the company — and maybe not even then.
Part of the reason that Tesla has been so valuable, is that is was/is seen as an investment in Elon Musk as a person, not specifically just Tesla. SpaceX is a private company, so people can't invest in that. But Tesla's stock price has in the past seen spikes and dips associated with successes and failures by SpaceX.
Right now, Musk has a decent amount of power over the domestic functions of the US Government. Regardless of your opinions about that fact, it's an objective truth that that is an economically valuable position for a person to be in. And so, Tesla stock remains high, independent of the performance of Tesla the automaker, and frankly independent of many people's opinions of what Musk is doing.
Were Musk to get booted from the current administration, and Tesla sales to increase 30%, I think the net effect of that would be a drop in Tesla stock.
Like many unicorns. During the Dot Com era, when Oracle chief Larry Ellison was briefly thought to be lost at sea on his sailing yacht, Oracle’s stock tanked, then recovered after he was found safe.
Apparently Tesla got caught cooking their books to the tune of 1.4B [1], so the numbers reported on the earnings call might not be as precise as one would expect.
San Diego County was D+17 at the presidential level in 2024, not exactly right-leaning in national terms. It's slightly right of California (D+20) as a whole, I suppose.
They're just trying to dump old inventory ahead of the launch of the new Model Y next month. If the new Model Y doesn't sell then Tesla can start to worry.
I agree that his companies have done more good than harm.
I am no longer sure that remains true, if we also consider the good/harm that Musk himself has done independent of his companies, as a political figure.
The Tesla stock is really interesting. It has dropped yes, but the value it lost is basically only what it gained from Elon Musk supporting Trump from October and until earlier this month. The value removed, while large, was only because the market apparently expected Tesla to benefit from the Musk-Trump relationship, when that turned out to be a fluke the added value was swiftly removed and the stock price returned to it's original trajectory.
It's almost as if recalls, slowing sales and damage to the brand doesn't affect it all. The conspiracy nut in me believe that someone is artificially keeping the price high.
Why do you think Tesla stock prices doubled after Trump's election? Obviously Tesla is more than just Elon, but it is pretty clear that a huge portion of its market cap can be attributed to Musk and hype that he generates.
Electric cars do have an effect on urban air pollution, though. Chinese cities have really cleaned up the air and become more breathable recently, for example. You used to have black soot coming out your nose; it was awful.
So now people are boycotting Tesla for destroying American government and promoting fascism in Europe.