this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
516 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

69913 readers
3930 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
516
Things at Tesla are worse than they appear (edition.cnn.com)
submitted 2 days ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Things are undoubtedly bad at Tesla. Its sales are dwindling. Its profits are plunging, as is its share price. There are regular protests outside its showrooms. The Cybertruck is a flop. And somehow, it’s actually a lot worse than that.

The 71% drop in net income it just reported may have been overshadowed by CEO Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping back from his controversial duties at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that drop is just one indication of serious financial sickness at the EV maker, problems brought on by falling sales for the first time in its history and falling prices for electric vehicles.

The bottom line problem at Tesla is its vanishing bottom line. A deeper look at its first quarter report shows it’s now losing money on what should be its ostensible reason for existence – selling cars.

It was only able to post a $409 million profit in the quarter thanks to the sale of $595 million worth of regulatory credits to other automakers.

But if the Trump administration gets its way, the company can kiss those regulatory credits keeping it in the black goodbye, too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

We already have that

Yes, we have the definitions, but I haven’t read about whether they’re effectively required. Is there a test, a certification authority, rules for liability or revocation? Have we established a way to actually require it.

I hope we wouldn’t let manufacturers self-certify, although historical data is important evidence. I hope we don’t aid profitability of manufacturers by either limiting liability or creating a path to justice doomed to fail

[–] tfm@europe.pub 2 points 16 hours ago

This stuff is highly regulated https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_self-driving_cars

Mercedes has the first autonomous car (L3) you can buy, which you can only activate at low speeds on certain roads in Germany. It's only possible because of Lidar sensors and when activated you are legally allowed to look at your phone as long as you can take over in 10 or so seconds.

You aren't allowed to do this in a Tesla, since the government doesn't categorize Teslas as autonomous vehicles which requires L3+.

No car manufacturer can sell real autonomous vehicles without government approval. Tesla FSD is just Marketing bs. Others are far ahead in terms of autonomous driving tech.