Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | LanceJones's commentslogin

Some fair points, but Model Y was the #1 selling SUV in China in Feb and Mar, and 2nd place vehicle was almost half the price.

BYD has two SUVs in the ranking, which added together brings them to parity with the Y.

That aside though, in total sales, BYD is selling 2.5x the amount of EVs.

Tesla ranked 9th, behind Toyota and Volkswagen for total sales in Feb and March.

Globally, Tesla has a tight lineup, so there is only one SUV choice. Other brands outsell Tesla model Y, but it's splintered across their many offerings in the SUV space. Tesla really wants you to know that the model Y is the top selling car globally. They don't want you to know that other SUV brands outsell them, but in the form of many different models.

This is exactly the kind of nonsesne flexing I am referring to that comes out of Tesla for the last few years. Things that on the surface seem "wow", but underneath are just shady or misdirection.


Tesla sales numbers are perpetually skewed by their limited model numbers. Other car manufacturers (rightly or wrongly) have many more SKUs, so any one particular version is unlikely to hit the #1 spot.

I really used to enjoy Fred's writing on Electrek. But after the Roadster referral debacle, Fred's tune changed and has gotten more negative... so negative now that you cannot find any positive articles about Musk or Tesla (some articles you might classify as 'neutral'). If you look at comment counts, it's clear Fred is playing to the "I hate Musk" crowd now for clicks (comments and clicks have similar outcomes for Google Adsense). Electrek's other articles' comment counts pale in comparison. So the incentive is pretty obvious now. Too bad.

I find it funny how stealing 500,000 $ from a fan is a "debacle". In most places that would be considered a felony instead of a justification to smear the victim and call them a whiner.

You think $500K was stolen? Hmm, doesn't sound hyperbolic at all...

You are totally right. In accordance with the Tesla Referral Program contract a estimated ~250,000,000 $ in sales were referred to Tesla by major referrers earning those major referrers ~80 free Tesla Roadsters [1], announced as a 250,000 $ value and used a explicit contractual incentive to the program, in accordance with that legal contract. Having engaged in work on behalf of Tesla on the contractual guarantee of compensation and having earned that compensation in accordance with the contract, Tesla legally owes those fans ~20,000,000 $ in aggregate which it has so far rejected compensating for nearly 7 years.

I am not sure what term you use for having people work on your behalf according to the terms of a contract and then not paying the agreed upon compensation, but "theft" or "steal" would be the colloquial term. Only the intentionally biased would claim a trillion dollar company not paying fans for their work in accordance with their own contract is not "stealing" in common parlance.

I am sorry I was downplaying Tesla's bad behavior by just highlighting that individual fans were jilted out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of their work instead of pointing out how they screwed hundreds of their most loyal fans out of tens of millions of dollars of earned compensation. Anything other than praise for such a upstanding company is unwarranted and smearing their victims is the only unbiased move.

[1] https://electrek.co/2019/01/17/tesla-roadster-free-killed-re...


Can you explain the $500k being stolen? All I could find was something about the roadster and some rebate program, but not actual cash being stolen.

Elektrek went from insufferably pro Tesla to insufferably anti Tesla. If you liked it before and not now, your quarrel is with the direction of the propaganda.

Why do you want the articles to be "positive" or "negative"? Why do you not want them to simply be the fact of the matter?

If you want more good news about Tesla then perhaps Tesla should be better run. Perhaps Tesla should abandon their policy of constantly lying. Tesla's been lying continuously about full self-driving for a decade. Tesla lies about dumb things there's no need to lie about like how fast the Cybertruck is:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/tesla-cybertruck-beast-vs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0AJmLvKjxw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J3H8--CQRE

Tesla never ran that quarter mile, a lie which the lead Cybertruck engineer pathetically tried to defend. When even your engineers can't achieve basic honesty then you've got a sick company culture:

https://x.com/wmorrill3/status/1746266437088645551

What "positive" spin do you want to see on these lies?


But also more deaths. It's the delta that's important.

Old people don't go to war, how is that important. All that matters is who has the most 20 year olds they don't care about killing.

$200/mth USD for me. Anthropic's oAuth Max20 subscription via their SDK. I've had several 100M+ token days without even a blip.


There's no need to run local models with OpenClaw. I use Anthropic's oAuth Max20 Plan subscription via their SDK...


It will have simulated gear changes if that helps at all...


To be honest, it may help for the modern Ferrari driver. It doesn't help for those who appreciate the Ferraris from the '90s and before.


> Ferraris from the '90s and before

That was potentially 36 years ago. 36 years from 1990 would have been 1954.

What changed in technology from 1954->1990, vs change in technology from 1990-2026? Quite a lot.


Today's cars are a lot more similar in technology to those of the 1990s than they were to those of the 1950s.


I can fix a 90s car with 2026 car tools, but I can't fix a 2026 car with 90s car tools.

Because of the electronics. They're vastly different, there's tons more, and they're proprietary.


Really? Simulating a transmission has been tried a few times over the last decade, but it's flopped repeatedly as just silly. It's not likely to impress Ferrari buyers.

The only successful vehicle which has that is a driver-training car built in China. It's electric, but has a clutch pedal and shifter which are inputs to the software. You can even "stall the engine".[1]

[1] https://www.jalopnik.com/this-chinese-electric-car-designed-...


Hyundai Ioniq 5 N nailed it perfectly.

I think by simulating a transmission you mean those internal combustion engined cars with CVT transmissions. Those are terrible yes.


It's a 4-door, 4-seater. Sporty?


Well, maybe if I win the lottery, I'll be able to afford a Ferrari minivan? I'm so confused.


It worked for the M5.


Assuming this experiment involved isolating the LLM from its training set?


Of course it didn't. Not sure you really can do that - LLMs are a collection of weights from the training set, take away the training set and they don't really exist. You'd have to train one from scratch excluding these books and all excerpts and articles about them somehow, which would be very expensive and I'm pretty sure the OP didn't do that.

So the test seems like a nonsensical test to me.


BYD sales in January 2026 are down 30% YoY. Not looking great for them in 2026.


When I search for this, I find about equal numbers of stories with two opposing narratives.

One matching what you say; the other saying they're up significantly, e.g. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/byd-overtakes-tesla-world-lar...

I do not know what to make of this.

However, it is unimportant, as the main concern for your argument should be all Chinese brands combined rather than any specific brand. Unfortunately, given I'm seeing two narratives that seem to be mutually exclusive for BYD, I don't think I can trust web searches to tell me about all brands combined either.

However, even that is unimportant, as my point was more focused on the price and value for money, how Chinese models compete on AI for less cost; even to do badly in this regard (which they might or might not be given the mutually incompatible news stories I've seen) is less a narrative about Chinese market failure and more of a demonstration that hardly anyone really cares about the AI in the first place.


OpenAI could be profitable (easily) if it stopped training new models. Whether they will make that choice or not, who knows.


That would be short-termist though. So, quite unlikely. In my usage (code) they are still better than everything else I have tried. Point being that I am looking predominantly for the one llm that gives me the best code output. If they risk losing that advantage for immediate profit, guess I will cancel like I did for claude... (I still got a gemini subscription, for some reason it has a good UI, fast for common non technical requests).

Seems to have been my pattern of behavior with all these tools.


>If they risk losing that advantage for immediate profit, guess I will cancel

We call that "when the bubble pops". Can't wait.


Google and Anthropic probably won't stop training though.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: