Mediaboss Marketing

Ashok Elluswamy, Teslas director of autopilot software, elaborated that unlike laptops and our cell phones, self-driving cars computing power would be totally under Teslas control. So its easier to distribute the workload across different nodes as opposed to asking users for permission on their own cell phones, which Elluswamy called very tedious. Tesla chief financial officer Vaibhav Taneja added that capital expenditure for all that computing power in such a scenario would be shared by the entire world, sort of everyone wants a small chunk, and they get a small profit out of it, maybe. It wasnt clear from the call whether only Tesla-owned-and-operated cars computing power would be monetized, or if vehicles owned by drivers and then rented out to the companys cyber cab service would be utilized, as well.

Musk also said that Optimus, the humanoid robot Tesla has been developing, ostensibly as a means to automate factory operations, will be more valuable than everything else combined, seemingly in reference to the rest of Teslas offerings. Because if youve got a sentient humanoid robots that is able to navigate reality and do tasks at request, there is no meaningful limit to the size of the economy. The same technology, he said, could constitute a terminator-level risk and follow you indoors if theres not some meaningful level of influence over how that is deployed. He said he hopes to start selling Optimus by the end of next year.

Teslas greatest contribution to the world, Musk said, will be solving autonomypresumably by making and selling a bunch of robots. Is autonomy a problem that needs solving? If it were, would a flailing car company be up to the task?

Read the original here:

What the Hell is Elon Musk Talking About? - The New Republic

I was in the car listening to Elon Musks lethargic answers to investor questions yesterday and a long-simmering theory felt like it was being confirmed: Elon Musk doesnt want to be CEO of a car company. Hes bored! Im saying this not as a critique of Musk, because if Im right and hes right then hes creating a company many times more valuable than it is right now.

Is he right? Im less sure. Musks whole life has been a constant doubling-down on every bet and, thus far, its worked out for him. There are signs its not working out as well and thats important.

If you can get through a Musk-heavy Morning Dump I shall reward you with a discussion of Volvos financials, an update on Stellantis and its idiotic quest to alienate all of its suppliers, and a video of me trying to convince GM to build a PHEV Aztek.

Reutershad a story that Tesla was abandoning its $25,000 car, which seemed like a wild assertion and one that Elon Musk said was wrong. Yesterday, Tesla released its Q1 financials and they were bad. Whereas GM saw improving financials and more revenue, Tesla experienced exactly the opposite. The most interesting part of the day, though, was the investor call where CEO Elon Musk answered a bunch of questions.

Musk didnt confirm theReuters story, but he clarified it, and it makes a lot of sense. Heres the full transcript, by the way, that Im quoting from. Heres the key bit:

Weve updated our future vehicle lineup to accelerate the launch of new models ahead, previously mentioned start of production in the second half of 2025. So, we expect it to be more like the early 2025, if not late this year. These new vehicles, including more affordable models, will use aspects of the next-generation platform as well as aspects of our current platforms, and well be able to produce on the same manufacturing lines as our current vehicle lineup.

If youre not a close watcher of Tesla this doesnt mean that much to you, but Ill try to do a quick version of explaining it. Basically, Tesla has been working on an unboxed platform that will allow the automaker to build cars cheaper than anyone else can build cars, including Tesla itself. What I think happened is Tesla moved a lot of people off that team, which is what tipped off Reuters.

What does that mean? Tesla has decided (the timing is unclear and it could have been decided after a negative response to the story) that it is going to build the newer models on a more traditional Tesla platform, which will allow the company to introduce much-needed models much faster by using more of its existing manufacturing footprint.

Thebigquestion about this is can Tesla make a $25k car without the new platform? Fred Lambert, who pays more attention to this than anyone, doesnt think so:

Without the unboxed system, its likely that we can kiss goodbye to the previously mentioned $25,000 price point.

I will have to defer to his judgment on that, though one would think that saving money on re-tooling would help.

This becomes extremely important when considering the companys financial results. Which were bad.

Tesla reported a 9% drop in Q1 revenue, which is the biggest drop in more than a decade and below Wall Streets already lowered expectations. And, yet, shares jumped after the call.

FromCNBC:

The stock jumped in extended trading after CEO Elon Musk told investors that production of new affordable EV models could begin sooner than expected.

Heres the thing, Tesla spent a lot of time working on robots, self-driving, AI, and Cybertrucks instead of focusing on expanding its model line, which is what a normal CEO of a car company likely would have done. This meant that when the EV market slowed down Tesla was forced to heavily discount its inventory because instead of a mix of models it mostly had the same old cars build on the same old platforms to offer.

Ok, back to my premise. When the death of the $25,000 car was reported, I wrote this as my theory for why:

What if Teslas business isnt really cars? I know this is a wild statement since thats a big chunk of the companys value, but Musk is out there working on AI and robots and flamethrowers and tunnels. There are fundamental limitations to the amount of money to be made in the car business and its possible that Musk would rather pivot to the next thing rather than focus on the arduous, slow, and kind of boring work of making cars now that hes got to compete with BYD, and. Xiaomi and a bunch of other companies.

This call confirmed this theory. There was way more talk of everything that wasnt cars than actual cars. And Musk explicitly said the following on the call:

If you value Tesla as just like an auto company, you just have to fundamentally, its just the wrong framework and if you ask the wrong question, then the right answer is impossible. So, I mean, if somebody doesnt believe Tesla is going to solve autonomy, I think they should not be an investor in the company. Like that is, but we will and we are and then you have a car that goes from 10 hours of use a week, like an hour and a half a day to probably 50%, but it costs the same.

Thats it. If you think Tesla can make humanoid robots, autonomy, AI, et cetera work then it is so much more valuable than the company is today and the share cost is way low and you should buy shares in Tesla. If you think thats all a shell game you should run like hell.

Ive got my sense of what reality is, but that sense has to contend with a universe in which betting against Elon Musk has almost never worked out for anyone.

Volvo definitely isa car company, and its Q1 financials reflect that. Sales were up in Q1 2024 by about 12% compared to Q1 2023 and EBIT margins hit 7.2%, compared to the same period in 2023 when margins were 6.6%.

The company is actually well-positioned in the marketplace with a strong mix of EVs and PHEVs. Total revenue for the company did fall, and the company blamed contract manufacturing (ahem, Polestar):

That and foreign exchange rates have been a bit of a drag. Volvo has a solution to the Polestar issue, though, and thats giving back Polestar to its investors (and Geely).

Stellantis, under CEO Carlos Tavares (pictured above), is playing a dangerous game with its suppliers, which is what the company does when its not antagonizing governments.

As previously reported, Stellantis is trying to keep parts costs low and has told suppliers they can no longer submit claims related to price increases.

On the Stellantis side, the company is essentially saying that it has contracts and its tried to help out as much as possible to offset inflation/supply chain-related pressures on its suppliers but it also has to worry about its own margins.

On the supplier side, these companies are pointing out that during the pandemic Stellantis made humongous profits while they got the squeeze and havent been made whole yet.

Suppliers have threatened to stop delivering parts and Stellantis has decided to stop paying certain suppliers. This has led to a flurry of court cases, and the most recent has come down against Stellantis. Heres the key bit fromAutomotive News:

Two of the cases are being handled by Judge Victoria Valentine, who granted court orders this year forcing Yanfeng and Kamax to continue supplying parts while the cases work through the court.

But Judge Michael Warren, the circuit courts other business judge, departed from those decisions by denying a preliminary injunction against MacLean-Fogg Component Solutions LLC. Despite FCAs oral argument that such circumstances will cause other suppliers to similarly threaten to stop shipping parts when they want a price increase, causing disruption of the entire United States auto industry, FCAs argument is speculation and conjecture, Warren said in the order.

Hold on, it gets better:

In the April 9 lawsuit filed against the supplier, lawyers for Stellantis argued the financial impact on FCA will be catastrophic and will cause tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in shutdown damages, in addition to the incalculable losses from being shut out of future supply work with its suppliers and losing various employees due to forced layoffs.

In Tuesdays order, Judge Warren shot down the automakers claim of a risk of irreparable harm. This cascade will only occur if FCA refused to pay under protest, the judge said in the opinion. Akin to a civil contemnor, who holds the key to her own jail cell, FCA can avoid this impending economic disaster by paying under protest.

Looooooool. Its not fun to pay under protest, but thems the breaks (unless, of course, Stellantis tries to short its brakes supplier).

I had a great chat yesterday, above, with ABC 12 and a familiar voice around here (spartanjohn113). Mostly we talked about GMs Q1 results, and it did give me an opening to float my pet theory of what GM should do next.

Specifically, I challenged GM, Mark Reuss, and Mary Barra to build a cool, affordable crossover PHEV with a tent and call it Aztek. I also said, specifically itll sell. However, I did add: You have my word which is not trustworthy at all in this case.

Its not! Never build a car an automotive journalist asks for, it only ends in heartache.

Mark (who, in addition to being a car dude is also President of GM) found it funny, at least:

Maybe not confirmation of a GMC Aztek, but at least Im getting a sweet lapel pin! Thats a consolation.

I love Chromeo. I got to see them perform in Houston at a Basquiat exhibit (the most Millennial sentence ever written) and met Dave 1 and P-Thugg and they were delightful. Not only is their music smooth and funky as hell, all their videos seem to feature great cars, including the white Camaro in this video.

Fast forward a few years and Im living in Brooklyn and Im in search of a parking garage to ditch press cars. There are a few to choose from, but the best choice seems to be the one run by a guy with an Infiniti M30 convertible. He gets me.

One day while Im down there I go exploring the cars in the garage and theres a white Camaro convertible. I blurt out very Chromeo and he goes Oh yeah, thats P-Thuggs cars, he keeps some of his rides here. So, for a few years, I shared a parking garage with Chromeo. I will never get cooler.

Is Elon Musk running a shell game or is Tesla the future of everything? Or some other answer?

Top photo: NBC Universal/SNL Screenshot

See more here:

Elon Musk Clearly Doesn't Want To Be CEO Of A 'Car Company' Anymore - The Autopian

Musk is considering implementing "a small fee" for new users if they want to post, bookmark or like on the platform, he said in a post on X.

Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly known as Twitter), says he is considering implementing "a small fee for new user[s]" to tackle the issue of automatised accounts, or "bots".

Posting on the social media platform, he added that "current AI (and troll farms) can pass 'are you a bot' with ease".

No details regarding how much the fee would be or its implementation date have been disclosed but Musk said that the measure would last three months in another post on X.

It will still be possible to access the social media platform without paying; however, new users would be prevented from creating content, tweeting, liking, or bookmarking a post.

A similar measure started last October in New Zealand and the Philippines where new unverified users were charged 0.94 per year to interact with posts.

Currently, the only paid features for X are for premium subscribers which gives access to the monetisation programme, an ad-free version, access to Xs generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) chatbot, and more reply visibility.

Musk has long been concerned regarding bots on Twitter, vowing to tackle the problem when he finalised his takeover of the platform in late 2022

However, the issue with bots have worsened, according to experts, and is now powered by AI.

The platform lost nearly a quarter of its US users since November 2022, the firm Sensor Tower told NBC News last month.

The value of the social media also plummeted and the company saw a decline in advertising revenues.

Excerpt from:

Elon Musk is planning to charge new users to post on X - Euronews

Last week in a post on X, owner of the platform Elon Musk recommended people look into disc replacement if theyre experiencing severe neck or back pain.

According to a biography of the billionaire, hes had chronic back and neck pain since he tried to judo throw a 350-pound sumo wrestler in 2013 at a Japanese-themed party for his 42nd birthday, and blew out a disc at the base of his neck.

In comments following the post, Musk said the surgery was a gamechanger and reduced his pain significantly.

Musks original post has so far had more than 50 million views and generated controversy. So what is disc replacement surgery and what does the evidence tells us about its benefits and harms?

Disc replacement is a type of surgery in which one or more spinal discs (a cushion between the spine bones, also known as vertebrae) are removed and replaced with an artificial disc to retain movement between the vertebrae. Artificial discs are made of metal or a combination of metal and plastic.

Disc replacement may be performed for a number of reasons, including slipped discs in the neck, as appears to be the case for Musk.

Disc replacement is major surgery. It requires general anaesthesia and the operation usually takes 24 hours. Most people stay in hospital for 27 days. After surgery patients can walk but need to avoid things like strenuous exercise and driving for 36 weeks. People may be required to wear a neck collar (following neck surgery) or a back brace (following back surgery) for about 6 weeks.

Read more: Elon Musk says ketamine can get you out of a 'negative frame of mind'. What does the research say?

Costs vary depending on whether you have surgery in the public or private health system, if you have private health insurance, and your level of coverage if you do. In Australia, even if you have health insurance, a disc replacement surgery may leave you more than A$12,000 out of pocket.

Disc replacement surgery is not performed as much as other spinal surgeries (for example, spinal fusion) but its use is increasing.

In New South Wales for example, rates of privately-funded disc replacement increased six-fold from 6.2 per million people in 201011 to 38.4 per million in 201920.

People considering surgery will typically weigh that option against not having surgery. But there has been very little research comparing disc replacement surgery with non-surgical treatments.

Clinical trials are the best way to determine if a treatment is effective. You first want to show that a new treatment is better than doing nothing before you start comparisons with other treatments. For surgical procedures, the next step might be to compare the procedure to non-surgical alternatives.

Unfortunately, these crucial first research steps have largely been skipped for disc replacement surgery for both neck and back pain. As a result, theres a great deal of uncertainty about the treatment.

There are no clinical trials we know of investigating whether disc replacement is effective for neck pain compared to nothing or compared to non-surgical treatments.

For low back pain, the only clinical trial that has been conducted to our knowledge comparing disc replacement to a non-surgical alternative found disc replacement surgery was slightly more effective than an intensive rehabilitation program after two years and eight years.

Complications are not uncommon, and can include disclocation of the artificial disc, fracture (break) of the artificial disc, and infection.

In the clinical trial mentioned above, 26 of the 77 surgical patients had a complication within two years of follow up, including one person who underwent revision surgery that damaged an artery leading to a leg needing to be amputated. Revision surgery means a re-do to the primary surgery if something needs fixing.

The first thing to consider is whether you need surgery. Seeking a second opinion may help you feel more informed about your options.

Many surgeons see disc replacement as an alternative to spinal fusion, and this choice is often presented to patients. Indeed, the research evidence used to support disc replacement mainly comes from studies that compare disc replacement to spinal fusion. These studies show people with neck pain may recover and return to work faster after disc replacement compared to spinal fusion and that people with back pain may get slightly better pain relief with disc replacement than with spinal fusion.

However, spinal fusion is similarly not well supported by evidence comparing it to non-surgical alternatives and, like disc replacement, its also expensive and associated with considerable risks of harm.

Fortunately for patients, there are new, non-surgical treatments for neck and back pain that evidence is showing are effective and are far cheaper than surgery. These include treatments that address both physical and psychological factors that contribute to a persons pain, such as cognitive functional therapy.

Read more: Surgery won't fix my chronic back pain, so what will?

While Musk reported a good immediate outcome with disc replacement surgery, given the evidence or lack thereof we advise caution when considering this surgery. And if youre presented with the choice between disc replacement and spinal fusion, you might want to consider a third alternative: not having surgery at all.

Read more from the original source:

Elon Musk says 'disc replacement' worked for him. But evidence this surgery helps chronic pain is lacking - The Conversation Indonesia

Elon Musk announced that Tesla may start selling its Optimus humanoid robot next year. The automaker plans to use the robot in its own factory by the end of the year.

A few months ago,Tesla unveiled Optimus Gen 2, a new generation of its humanoid robot that should be able to take over repetitive tasks from humans.

The new prototype showed a lot of improvements compared to previously underwhelming versions of the robot, and it gave some credibility to the project, which was laughed off by many when first announced witha dancer disguised as a robot for visual aid a few years ago.

Tesla believed it to be possible by leveraging its AI work on its self-driving vehicle program and expertise in batteries and electric motors. It argued that its vehicles are already robots on wheels. Now, it just needs to make them in humanoid forms to be able to replace humans in some tasks primarily repetitive and dangerous tasks.

In a previous update on Optimus, Tesla CEO Elon Musk claimed that the Optimus stuff is extremely underrated. The CEO said that the demand could be as high as 10 to 20 billion units.

He went as far as confidently predicting that Optimus will account for a majority of Teslas long-term value.

The CEO sees everyone having a Tesla Optimus robot at home on top of them taking over a lot of manufacturing and service jobs.

With the release of Teslas Q1 2024 financial results, Musk gave an update on the timing for the rollout of Optimus. The CEO says that Optimus is already performing factory tasks inside its lab. He believes that Optimus will be used to perform real tasks inside actual Tesla factories by the end of the year.

Furthermore, Musk said that he believes Tesla could start selling its Optimus humanoid robot to customers outside of the company by the end of 2025.

The CEO again reiterated that he expects Optimus to represent most of Teslas revenue and overall value eventually.

Musk previously said that he expects Optimus to cost less than half of a car so closer to $25,000.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Read more here:

Tesla may start selling its Optimus humanoid robot next year, says Elon Musk - Electrek