wrong because Teslas are the official cars of incels, there's even a Twitter hashtag about it (#IncelsForElon)

I see we're still full of classic "engineer brain" people here who think they understand the law and everything else because they know a little bit about computers. This was a very good decision, please read the actual ruling to get more information. First, please note this was 9-0 with no dissents, so you can't blame it all on MAGA judges. Second, this was a power grab by the EPA that effectively took power away from the legislative branch and gave it to the executive branch, which is not constitutional. If you don't care when it happens because you like the outcome, don't complain when the opposite political party gets elected and does the same thing against an issue you care about. Finally, go read the "Development" section of the Clean Water Rule on wikipedia to get an idea for all the uncertainty the definition of "waters of the United States" has had over the past 10 years. Uncertainty is expensive and not helpful for anyone. If you want an expanded definition for "waters of the United States," the correct fix is to have congress amend the law, not have the EPA unilaterally declare it expanded.

I can assure you oil companies are planning to support gasoline and other fuels for a very long time.

No it's that the OP doesn't understand how to read an auto maker's financial statements. Toyota has corresponding assets (leased vehicles, leases) that match those liabilities.

This is just 100% wrong, as is the now upvoted comment claiming that Toyota has hundreds of billions in debt without corresponding assets. Why did banks fail because of high interest rates? Because they were poorly run. SVB's internal committee recommended shorter duration assets because the fed made it explicitly clear we had higher rates coming and there's no pivot in the near future, but SVB didn't want slightly lower profits and also failed to hedge their interest rate risk. But they really failed because there was a run on their deposits. How are you going to cause a bank run on Toyota? Do you have a deposit you can withdraw at Toyota? Or does Toyota make more more in interest when rates go up?

100% of the profits in the auto industry in Tesla is so wrong I'm not going to bother responding.

That should be investment into nuclear, not solar, but hopefully everyone likes higher energy prices with lower reliability.

Now compare owning a traditional car and needing service to a Tesla. Good luck getting someone on the phone at Tesla, and by the way you're not getting a loaner whehttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/05/25/2254243/tesla-model-y-is-now-the-worlds-best-selling-car-first-ev-to-do-so#n your car that was made in a tent inevitably has problems.

I think you're going to find Toyota's strategy is proven correct in time. BEVs have never really made sense over PHEVs, and all the inputs for a BEV are going up in price, not down. Toyota wants to sell cars at a profit, so why would they focus on unprofitable BEVs? The only reason to sell BEVs is because of misguided policies forcing them upon the public and the fact that taxpayers have heavily subsidized what are often second cars (or one of two cars) for higher-income people. Toyota can keep on doing it what it does best, selling the cars people actually want at a profit, and at some point license technology if needed.

Please stop with the "but the traditional OEMS have hundreds of billions debt" thing, it's just FUD from Tesla-bros who don't understand what they're talking about (a common occurrence). If you gave it a minute of thought you'd realize that doesn't make any sense. I can't explain it any better than Twitter/Substack user Keubiko so I'll just link to his old article (articles on Seeking Alpha start off free to read then go behind a paywall, hence the archive.org link):

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Some quotes to illustrate what you're missing:

let's quickly look at what Yahoo! Finance reports for the "Enterprise Value" of JP Morgan, the largest bank in the United States:
(image that shows an enterprise value of negative $161 billion)
Spot the problem yet?

No, JP Morgan's business is not worth negative $161 Billion. The problem is that, just as kids shouldn't play with matches, people shouldn't be applying a shorthand financial calculation intended for non-financial businesses to banks and other financial services companies. The reasons are fairly straightforward for those with a basic understanding of how banks and finance companies operate. These businesses raise money from lenders (e.g. depositors and bondholders), and lend those funds to borrowers. The difference between what is charged to borrowers and what is paid to lenders is net interest income and the key financial driver for lending businesses.

Trying to use the basic enterprise value calculation (Market Cap + Debt - Cash) with a bank or other financial services company would have you include a massive amount of debt (especially relative to equity as these are leveraged operations), but completely ignore the entire loan book (asset) of the bank, because they are not "Cash". Hence the wonky negative enterprise value result for JP Morgan above. ...

So what does any of this have to do with Ford and other OEMs? They aren't banks, they make and sell cars, right? No and yes. While it's true that these OEMs make and sell cars, they also have substantial "captive finance" subsidiaries that operate much like banks do - raising debt financing, and lending money to creditworthy borrowers, namely consumers that purchase and lease vehicles, as well as dealer inventory financing. By using a basic enterprise value calculation on the consolidated operations of an automobile OEM, an investor would be completely ignoring the massive loan book asset, the same as in the JP Morgan example above, and get wild results. It is also why so many people wrongly conclude that that OEM debt balances appear to be enormous. In fact, at the "industrial" company level, most OEMs have a net cash balance, with cash on hand exceeds their total debt.

That's how your computer gets the first computer-based STD, be careful out there.

it's 25 million euros revenue in France AND 750 million euros worldwide

CARB in California has an exemption that allows it to make stricter laws regarding emissions than the current Federal standard, and this EO from Newsom instructs them to make them even more strict. However, Trump is currently fighting over CA's exemption in court right now, so if he gets reelected this will probably end up being unenforceable unless a future president allows CA's exemption again before 2035.

You'd have to be living under a rock to think Tesla cares about its employees or the environment.

You mean battery innovations that don't actually exist yet? Great reporting

lmao when has he delivered 80% of what he promised? Are we going to have 800k robotaxis on the road by the end of 2020 instead of 1 million? 80% functional "full self driving" which is so awesome and good they recently had to start a rewrite of it? This was going to be a stock pump but he got scared from either the Nikola thing or Tesla's D&O insurance issue, so they had to lower the pump