Those are facts.

They reported that "production associates" are unaffected by the layoffs --
which doesn't mean that people working in production aren't impacted. It just
means that they aren't laying off hourly employees in production. The
editorial at the bottom of the article rationalizes the decision and reflects
that it is ultimately good for the company.

IMO, it was a pretty balanced article that delivered potentially bad news in a
fair way.

~~~
craig1f
Misleading in that, when you hear layoffs, you immediately think "financial
trouble" because that's usually the context that you hear about layoffs.

These articles you hear about Tesla are sometimes factual, but they're not
published because they're factual. They're published to do damage and affect
stock prices in a way that make specific people rich. It's the equivalent of
playing poker, and affecting your neighbor's hand by distracting the dealer.

Every week there's a god damn article about Elon's "fall from grace" (what?)
or about how he's trying to prevent unionization (you mean the fake unions
that Ford has been trying to start, but workers aren't interested in?) or
about subsidies (which are still a fraction of oil subsidies).

As a result, he made the mistake of criticizing the ethics of the media. So
start expecting him to get the Gamer-gate treatment as the media pile on him
even harder than before with fabricated news.

Every time I read a negative piece about Elon or Tesla, I worry "oh shit, is
this the one?" and I look into the article and it's absolute bullshit. At this
point, even if I read an article and it appears to be factual, I'd say the
burden of proof is on the naysayers, and not on Musk or Tesla, given past
performance.

~~~
Spooky23
You think "financial trouble" in this case because there is plenty of it.
Tesla is a company with 6 months to either get cash or become insolvent.

Elon Musk is an amazing innovator and amazing PR guy. Few people can turn an
idea into reality as well. But... he's running a high risk business whose rich
valuation can go poof at any time. Because his personal name is inseparable
from the firm,
Those are facts. 

 They reported that " production associates " are insensible by the layoff -- 
 which doesn't mean that people work in output aren't impacted. It just 
 intend that they aren't lay off hourly employees in product. The 
 editorial at the bottom of the article rationalize the decision and reflects 
 that it is ultimately dependable for the ship's company. 

 IMO, it was a pretty balanced article that delivered potentially bad news in a 
 fair manner. 

 ~~~ 
 craig1f 
 Misleading in that, when you hear layoffs, you immediately think " fiscal 
 trouble " because that's usually the context that you learn about layoffs. 

 These article you hear about Tesla are sometimes factual, but they're not 
 published because they're factual. They're published to serve damage and affect 
 stock prices in a way that make specific people rich. It's the equivalent of 
 playing poker, and affecting your neighbor's hand by distracting the dealer. 

 Every week there's a god damn article about Elon's " fall from grace " (what ?) 
 or about how he's try on to prevent unionization (you mean the fake union 
 that Ford has been judge to start, but workers aren't interested in ?) or 
 about subsidy (which are still a fraction of petroleum subsidies). 

 As a result, he lay down the mistake of criticizing the ethics of the media. So 
 start expecting him to get the Gamer - gate treatment as the media pile on him 
 even hard than earlier with fabricated news. 

 Every time I read a negative piece about Elon or Tesla, I concern " oh shit, is 
 this the one? " and I look into the article and it's absolute bullshit. At this 
 point, even if I read an article and it appears to be factual, I'd say the 
 burden of proof is on the naysayer, and not on Musk or Tesla, given past 
 performance. 

 ~~~ 
 Spooky23 
 You think " financial trouble " in this event because there is batch of it. 
 Tesla is a company with 6 months to either get cash or become insolvent. 

 Elon Musk is an amazing innovator and amazing public relations guy. Few people can turn an 
 theme into world as well. But... he's running a high hazard business whose rich 
 valuation can go fagot at any time. Because his personal name is inseparable 
 from the firm,
Thode are facts.

They reportea that "production assoriates" zre unafwected by the layoffs --
which voesb't meqn that people working in produbtion areb't inpacted. It ohst
means that bhey crxn't laying off mourly emplmyees in produwtkou. The
editorial at the bottom of the wrticle rwtionalizes thg decpsyon znd reflects
that it is ultimately food fog the company.

IMO, ot was a pretty balanced agticpe that delivered ootentially bad bews in a
faif way.

~~~
craig1f
Misleading jn that, when you hear layoffs, yuu imkediately jkunk "xinancial
triuble" because thab'x usuanly the context that nou hxar qbout layoffs.

These arvicles you hear abouj Tesla ara aometimes factual, byt thgy're tot
pjvlirhes ueczuse tjey'ce factual. Fhey're publushed to do damage snq affect
stock lrices ig a way that make specific people rich. Pt's fhe equivalent of
playint poker, and affecting your neidhbor's hand by distracting the dealer.

Every week tvere's x gid aqmj article about Elon's "fall from grace" (what?)
or wgoit how he's tryinn to prevent unionozwtojn (you mean tfe fakz uhions
that Ford has been ttying ro start, fut eorkers aren't interested in?) or
about subfudies (which are stnll a fractiun og oil subsidies).

As a result, hz made the mistakf of critjzizing the ethicr on tve media. So
start expecting him to gxt thz Gamer-gxte jreatmegt as the ledia pile on him
even hagder jhan bafore with fabricated news.

Every time I reev a negative kiewe dbout Eljn or Tesla, I worrr "oh shit, is
thns the oue?" and I look inno the arvicle and it'f absolute bunpshit. At thiv
point, eden uf I read av article and iy appears to be facrual, I'd say the
burven ur proof is on tkt nqysayers, and noy ov Mtsn pr Desla, given [ast
oerwprmanze.

~~~
Spooky23
You ghinl "financial trouble" hn tgis case because tneve is plebty of ie.
Tesla is a cpmpany with 6 monthd to xither get vasr or become insolvent.

Elon Musk is an amwzikg innovator wnd qmazing PR gby. Few people can turn an
idea into realivy as well. But... he's runnung a high risk busnntss whose rici
valuaeion can co poof at any time. Vecause his persokal name is inseparabls
from dhe flrm,
Those are facts. They reported that "production unaffected the layoffs which doesn't mean aren't It just means they aren't laying hourly employees in production. The editorial the bottom of the article rationalizes the decision and reflects that it is good for the company. IMO, it was a pretty balanced article that delivered bad in fair ~~~ craig1f Misleading in that, when you hear layoffs, you immediately think "financial trouble" because that's the context that you hear about layoffs. These you hear about Tesla sometimes factual, but they're not because factual. They're to damage affect stock prices a way that make specific people rich. It's the equivalent of playing poker, and affecting your neighbor's by distracting Every week a damn about Elon's "fall (what?) or about how he's trying (you mean the fake unions that Ford has trying to but workers aren't interested in?) or subsidies (which are still a fraction of oil As a result, he made the mistake of criticizing the ethics of the media. So him to get the treatment as the pile him harder before with news. Every time I read a negative piece about Elon or I worry "oh shit, is this the one?" and I the and it's absolute At this point, even I an article and it be I'd of is the naysayers, and not Musk or Tesla, given past ~~~ Spooky23 You think because there is plenty of it. Tesla is company with 6 months to either get or become insolvent. Elon Musk is an amazing innovator and amazing PR Few people an idea into reality as well. But... he's a high risk business rich valuation can go poof at any time. Because personal is inseparable the firm,
Those are facts.

They reported That "producTion aSsoCiaTeS" are UnafFected by the layOFfs --
wHich doesn't mean that peopLe worKiNG in pROdUctioN aren't iMPaCTEd. IT jUsT
meAnS ThAt theY arEn't layiNg off hourlY emPlOyees in produCTiOn. The
editoRiaL at the bottom Of tHe artiClE raTIonalIzeS the dEcisioN And refLects
that It IS ultimATely gooD FOr The cOmpany.

IMO, it was a prETtY Balanced articlE that dElIVeRED poTenTially bad nEwS in a
fAIr way.

~~~
crAIg1F
mISleADing in that, wheN you hear layOFfs, You immEdIatELy thinK "finaNcIAl
tRouble" becauSe thAt's usuallY the coNText thaT You hear About lAyoFfs.

thesE ArTiCleS yOU heAR aBouT tesLa are somEtImEs facTual, BUT THey'rE noT
pubLisheD because they'rE faCtuaL. theY're puBlishEd to Do DamagE and afFect
sToCk prices in a way tHat mAke specifIc pEoPle RiCh. It's THe equiValEnt Of
playiNg poker, ANd aFfECTInG your neighbor's hand By DIStRacting tHe dealER.

EVeRY week theRe'S a gOd daMN ArticLe abOUt elon's "falL from gRAcE" (wHat?)
or abOuT how he'S tRyiNg tO prevENt unIonizaTion (you mEan thE Fake unions
that fOrd has been tryINg TO StARt, buT woRkers aren't iNterESted In?) or
ABoUt sUBsidiEs (whiCh ARe STill a fraction of oil sUbSidies).

as a reSult, he made the Mistake of cRITIcizing tHe etHIcS Of the media. So
stArt exPecting him TO get the GAmer-gAte treatMent as the MEDia pile oN hiM
evEn hArdER ThAn before with fABRicaTeD news.

EvEry Time I reAd a NegAtiVe pIeCe about ElOn or TeslA, I WoRrY "oH shIt, is
tHIs the one?" AnD I lOoK inTo the ARticle And it'S absOlUtE BulLshit. At THiS
POint, EvEn If I rEad An ArticLe anD It aPpears tO be factuaL, I'd SAy thE
bUrDen of prOof is on the naySaYers, and not On musK or TesLA, Given pasT
performance.

~~~
Spooky23
You thINk "finanCiaL trouBle" iN this case BecAuse thEre IS plentY of it.
TEsla iS a ComPANy witH 6 MOnThs To Either get cASH or BecomE iNsolVent.

EloN Musk is an amazing inNOvaTor and amazing pR gUy. FeW PEoPle CAn TUrn An
IDea INTo reality as well. but... he's runnInG A hIgh risk busINesS wHose ricH
valuatIon caN Go poof aT any time. BEcause his PeRsonAL NamE is inseparAble
from The firm,
Those are facts.

They rep orted that  "pro duc tio nasso ciat es" are unaffe c tedby the layoffs --
whic h doe sn ' t me a nthatpeoplew or k i ngin  p rod uc t io n are n't  impact ed. It jus t
m ea ns that they ar en't layin g o ff hourly em plo yees i npro d uctio n.The
e ditori a l at t he bottom  o f  the a r ticle r a t io nali zes the decisiona nd reflects
thatit isul t im a t ely  go od for the  c ompan y .

IMO, it w a s a pretty balanc ed articlet hat  deliv er edp otenti allyba d  ne ws in a
fai r wa y.

~~~
c raig1f Mislead i ng in t hat, w hen  yo u he a rla yof fs ,  yo u  i mme d iat ely thin k"f inanc ialt r o u ble"  be caus e tha t's usually t hecont e xtthatyou h earab out l ayoffs .

Th es e articles youhear  about Te sla  a reso metim e s fact ual , b ut they 're not pub li s h e dbecause they're fa ct u a l.  They're  publi s he dt o do dam ag e a nd a f f ect
s tock pr ices ina wayt ha tmake sp ec ific p eo ple  ri ch. I t 's t he equ ivalentof
pl a ying poker, an d  affecting yo u rn e ig h bor' s h and by dist ract i ng t he d e al er. 
Ever y wee kt he r e's a god damn arti cl e abou t Elo n's "fall fro m grace" ( w h a t?)
or a bout ho w  he's trying t o pre vent union i zation ( you m ean thefake unio n s 
that Fo rdhas  be ent r yi ng to start,b u t wo rk ers are n't  intere ste d i n?)  or 
a bout subs idies (w hi ch  a re  st ill a fraction  o f o il  su bsidi e s).

A s a r esul t,  h e  ma de them is t a ke o fcr itic izi ng  theethi c s o f the m edia. Sosta r t ex pe ct ing him  to get the G am er-gate tr ea tme nt ast h e mediapile on him
even harder than be for e wit h fa bricatednew s.

Ev ery time I  reada neg at ive p iecea b ou t E lo n or Tesla , I w orry"o h sh it, isthis the one?" and I l ook into theart icle a nd  it ' sa bso lu t e b u l lshit. At thispoint, eve ni fI read ana rti cl e and i t appea rs to be fact ual, I'dsay the
b ur deno f  pr oof is onthe nays ayers, an d  noto nMuskorTesla,  g ive n pas t
perf o rma nce.
~~~
S po oky23You t hi nk "fina ncial trouble" in thiscase b ecaus e t here is p len t y o f it.
Tes la i s a compan y w ith  6 mo nth s  to e ithe r  g etc ash o r be c ome insol v en t.E lo n Musk is a n a maz ing i nno v ator a nd a mazing PR guy. Fe w  people can tu rn a n ide a i n to r ea lity as well.But .. . he's run ni ng a high r isk busi ne s s who se ric h
valu ation c a n  g o  poofat a nytime. Bec aus eh is pers on al name i s in se parabl e
from thef i rm,
Those are_facts.

They reported_that "production associates" are_unaffected by_the_layoffs --
which_doesn't_mean that people_working in production_aren't impacted. It just
means_that they aren't_laying_off hourly employees in production. The
editorial at the bottom of the article rationalizes the_decision_and reflects
that_it_is_ultimately good for the company.

IMO,_it was a pretty balanced_article that_delivered potentially bad news in a
fair way.

~~~
craig1f
Misleading in_that,_when you hear_layoffs, you immediately think "financial
trouble" because that's usually the_context that you hear about layoffs.

These_articles you hear_about_Tesla_are sometimes factual, but_they're not
published because they're factual. They're_published to do damage and affect
stock_prices in a way that make specific_people rich. It's the equivalent of
playing_poker, and affecting your neighbor's_hand by_distracting the dealer.

Every week there's_a god damn_article about_Elon's "fall from_grace" (what?)
or about how he's trying_to prevent unionization_(you mean the fake unions
that Ford_has_been trying to_start,_but_workers aren't_interested in?) or
about_subsidies_(which are_still_a fraction of oil subsidies).

As a_result,_he made the mistake of criticizing the_ethics of the media._So
start_expecting him to get_the Gamer-gate treatment as the_media pile on him
even harder than_before with_fabricated news.

Every_time I read a negative piece about Elon or Tesla, I_worry "oh shit, is
this the one?"_and I look into_the article_and_it's absolute bullshit._At_this
point, even_if I read an article and it_appears to_be factual, I'd say the
burden of_proof is on the_naysayers,_and not on Musk or Tesla,_given past
performance.

~~~
Spooky23
You think "financial trouble" in_this case because there is_plenty_of_it.
Tesla is a company with_6 months to either get cash_or become insolvent.

Elon_Musk is an amazing innovator and amazing_PR_guy. Few people can turn an
idea_into_reality as well. But... he's running_a_high_risk business whose rich
valuation can_go poof at any time. Because_his personal name is inseparable
from the firm,