Valuation is not important. These are private market transactions. Ultimately all the investors made out well, and it seems the company is more profitable than it was before. At least expenses are way down and if those expenses are correct then they are paying off the debt and making a good profit.
I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. Since the acquisition Twitter/X has had far more features at a far faster pace than in the 10 years prior. They've added all sorts of great stuff, and recently have been near the top of the charts in the Apple App Store.
Rails powers nearly 15 percent of the US e-commerce. I love it. Any time I have to use another framework it feels like a huge downgrade. Rails has so many things that make it nice to use
It's terribly painful to go and have to import everything you want to use when you want to use the Elixir console. That alone makes it not worth it to me.
You can find specialized roles than Rails and usually more experienced (understandably) but most companies would be really open if you told them you have a Rails background but want to learn Elixir.
The pool size is less, but the pay is more (depending on your demographics, experience, etc) in my personal experience.
But, honestly I chose it not for the market, it's just a better programming language to build stuff, period.
They claim have a pretrial agreement to reduce it to 3x compensatory damages (which would make the total judgemnet 160 million instead of 243 million).
Appealing is expensive because they have to post a bond with 100% collateral, and you pay for it yearly.
In this case, probably around 8 million a year.
So in general its not worth appealing for 5 years unless they think they will knock off 25-30% of the judgement.
Here it's the first case of it's kind so i'm sure they will appeal, but if they lose those appeals, most companies that aren't insane would cut their losses instead of trying to fight everything.
They will 100% fight it regardless. This is a massive verdict against them and it sets a bad precedent. There's no way they don't fight it. It's a ridiculously large verdict.
When my spouse worked in the area of determining "the value of an individual" (economically, not morally), it was computed as present value lifetime earnings: the cumulative income of the individual, converted back to its current value (using some sort of inflation model). IIRC, the PVLE averaged out to about $1-10M.
You shouldn't be down voted. Regardless of the moral or technical issues involved, there are established formulas used to calculate damages in wrongful death civil suits. Your range is generally correct although certain factors can push it higher. (Punitive damages are a separate issue.)
There are not "established formulas" or, to the extent that they are, the coefficients and exponents are not determined. The parties always argue about the discount rates and whatnot.
"""Results. At a discount rate of 3 percent, males and females aged 20-24 have the highest PVLE — $1,517,045 and $1,085,188 respectively. Lifetime earnings for men are higher than for women. Higher discount rates yield lower values at all ages."""
Because it’s completely different. The US subsidized American buyers of the cars. The Chinese government is subsidizing foreign buyers in order to help eat foreign marketshare
Those profits have also gone down; the only year they made lower-but-still-positive profit than 2025 ($3794m) was the first year since their founding in which they made any profit (which was 2020 and $721m).
Tesla's total profits over its entire existence ($37,883m [0]) is about as much as Musk has personally made by selling Tesla shares ($40bn ish [1]), but of that profit I can find $12.8bn can be attributed to government incentives[2] that have now largely or completely gone away.
Not sure what relevance Musk selling shares has to do with profit they've made. That seems completely irrelevant.
That being said, yeah, profits were down a bit but a lot of that was stock compensation and other things. In practical terms they went from a cash position of 36 billion to 44 billion.
They are in a phenomenal position financially as they have very little debt. By comparison GM made 2.7 billion and Stellantis lost 20 billion.
Tesla is in such a great cash position that Apple only has about 10 billion more than them in cash.
> Not sure what relevance Musk selling shares has to do with profit they've made. That seems completely irrelevant.
Selling shares for more than the company made in its entire existence, demonstrates the shares are overvalued.
> By comparison GM made 2.7 billion and Stellantis lost 20 billion.
2.7/3.7 = 0.73; GM's market cap is $77.67bn, using them as your framing of the problem gets you to a Tesla market cap of $106.40bn, not their actual ~$1.5T.
And Toyota made 40-45 billion USD profit for each of the last few years, i.e. more than Tesla in its lifetime, while having a market cap that's currently $316.8bn.
Telsa, market cap $1551bn, about 5x that of a company which makes more each year than it did in total, is overpriced. Especially given how harshly both Tesla's profits and sales are declining even in otherwise growing markets.
Telsa could shift the decimal point on its market cap one place and still be overpriced.
Given what they are as a business, they are not in "a phenomenal position financially", they are in an OK position for a normal boring traditional car company and a terrible one for a trillion-dollar market cap club company.
(Numbers from companiesmarketcap.com, in case anyone complains those are out of date).
No, they're not. The only thing they sell are cars and car-stuff. They have yet to sell those humanoid robots they show off. Hell, there's other car companies who also make humanoid robots, who have more than twice Tesla's revenue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Motor_Group
Even Tesla's subsidiary, Tesla Energy, which breaks out beyond "cars" is only about 10% of revenue of the car company, so even if you argue their ownership structure makes the group "more", it's still not "far more", but rather "rounding error".
Tesla's AI is just car AI, which other car manufacturers also have, and bluntly seem to be doing a bit better with it.
Even if they were "much more", a 90% drop in market cap would still see it priced like a high-growth tech firm, of the kind which people are independently worried may be in a bubble.
When the market prices this in, Tesla's share price will go down 90-99% on the international market. Perhaps not in USD though, depends how hard that goes weird.
Not too bad. It’ll only improve from here and some of the accidents are reversing into poles and what not. Most of which isn’t counted in human accidents.
It depends on what exactly Europe needs to defend itself against.
And Europe is quite rightly starting to regard this US-dependence as a problem to be solved without further delay, rather than an eternal and immutable fact of the world.
reply