Anyone buying a Rivian?

[JOhnH]

I don't know much about electric cars,

Thank you for admitting that.

and don't believe most of the marketing because
...marketing.

I can't blame you for that.

In another thread, a guy said

Think about that for a second and decide if that's what you want people to base their opinion of you on.

that if you commuted more than 50 miles a day, you'd need to charge every night, all night.

He was wrong. If a car gets 300 miles on a charge, and you drive 50 miles a day, why would you have to charge every night. My friend does charge every night so that he has a "full tank" every morning, but he only has to replace the energy he used the previous day. Not 100% of his battery.

I should have clarified that driving more is possible if you have chargers for every car in your garage and driveway.

With the current technology, I don't think very many mult-car households have ALL EVs. Maybe one day that will be viable,but today, most multi-car households have a mix. Everyone has to buy the car that fits their needs. Buying 9 EV cars when you need to drive each one hundreds of miles per day would be ludicrous if you only have one or two chargers.

 

[kyleb]

I think there are the types of people that drive everywhere and the people who fly when the trips exceed a couple of hours. So far, electric cars really only work for the people who either commute five miles every day/work from home, and don't do road trips or have the ability to charge all night, every night and don't mind longer breaks on any road trips taken.

Bullsnit. I'm not an EV owner, nor is an EV on my list for the next vehicle.

But EV's are a wonderful solution for everyday use, up to a 150 mile (or more) round trip commute with enough leftover range for "what if". Even if they are limited to 200 mile(ish) legs on longer trips, that works unless you're trying to cross the Sahara. The out of pocket is less for the EV owner since there are no fluids, plugs, filters, oil, etc. to replace AND the the vehicle has lower direct costs of operation (i.e. fuel) than the IC vehicle. Also, EV owners don't have to spend as much quality time rubbing elbows with the clientele at the local gas station.

So unless someone is taking an unusual number of long trips, the EV is probably a fine solution.

 

[SkyChaser]

This is fascinating. The guy I was talking to in the other thread was even a diehard EVer, so I just assumed (very bad, and unfortunately, it is a lesson that I need to keep learning) that he would at least try to show a favorable image of EVs. It is so hard to find actual data that hasn't been swung one way or the other.

Of course, this is basically an intellectual discussion for me. Until I can pick one up on the used market for $2-3K, and have a good chance of driving it for at least 5 years with less than purchase price in repairs, they're not in my price range!

 

[tspear]

I keep getting conflicting information about that. I believe the $7,500 "until March" doesn't mean the EV credit is going away. It means the current rules expire then and nobody knows for sure what the new rules might include. They may be better or worse than current rules. Of course though, with the current Congressional makekup, I'm leaning towards worse. So I'm thinking about a Rivian R1t before then.

As I posted earlier in the thread. The $7,500 credit for Tesla will apply to most Tesla vehicles until the Treasury department announces the new regulations as mandated by Congress. Depending on the announced regulations, Tesla may or may not qualify for the full tax credit; (likely no because of the battery material source requirements). The Treasury Department has not stated definitively when the rules will be announced, based on public comments, and previous regulations, most pundits and media believe that the treasury department will publish in March.

Tim

 

[JOhnH]

As I posted earlier in the thread. The $7,500 credit for Tesla will apply to most Tesla vehicles until the Treasury department announces the new regulations as mandated by Congress. Depending on the announced regulations, Tesla may or may not qualify for the full tax credit; (likely no because of the battery material source requirements). The Treasury Department has not stated definitively when the rules will be announced, based on public comments, and previous regulations, most pundits and media believe that the treasury department will publish in March.

Tim

I believe all of that. None of which contradicts what I said. Basically, we don't know what the rules will be after March.

 

[tspear]

I believe all of that. None of which contradicts what I said. Basically, we don't know what the rules will be after March.

Actually, Treasury could post the rules tomorrow. The timeline is not knowable right now, and per reporting the Treasury Department is actually prevented from p-re-announcing the rules. Note, I have not read the law, but I would not be surprised that this was missed by the law authors.

Tim

 

[Larry in TN]

I don't understand states like mine who are proposing to ban ICE cars

Typical government overreach trying to social engineer the behavior of their citizens.

CA can ban the sale of new ICE cars in CA but they can't stop Californians from buying used ICE cars or buying new ICE cars out of state. The market will find a way around whatever restrictions they implement and more Californians will get sick of it and move to a less restrictive state.

I wish I got to decide. Not sure why you think I do.

I think that because you have done exactly that in this thread when you said that Musk wants to let all the toxic people back on Twitter.

If I see someone who I think is toxic then I don't listen to them. Problem solved. But the people who I might think are toxic have just as much right to have their say as anyone else.

Let the unreasonable speak so that their unreasonableness can be out for all to see.

I don't know much about electric cars, and don't believe most of the marketing because
...marketing. In another thread, a guy said that if you commuted more than 50 miles a day, you'd need to charge every night, all night. I should have clarified that driving more is possible if you have chargers for every car in your garage and driveway.

Your case is exactly the problem. You start out not knowing much about EVs and everything that you end up reading is misleading, at best, and often wrong.

The person who said that it took all night to replace the charge needed to drive 50 miles must be talking about Level 1 charging which is charging at a normal, 120v outlet like you have throughout your house. Depending on the efficiency of your EV, you'll get anywhere from 2 to 7 miles of range added for every hour of Level 1 charging. That isn't enough for most people but it is enough for many.

What most EV owners will want to have at home is Level 2 charging. Level 2 is charging at 240v. Using the same type of outlet that is used for an electric clothes dryer or electric stove, you'll charge at a rate of 25 to 30 miles per hour which will fully recharge an empty long-range EV in 10 to 12 hours (0% to 100%). Many, most?, EV owners go a little bit farther and install a 50A 240v outlet/circuit, often also used for RVs, and that will bump them up to 35 to 40 mph.

My car charges on a 50A outlet in my garage and adds about 34 miles per hour of charging. When I get home each day, my car typically needs to charge 30 to 90 minutes to replace the energy that I used while I was out. Even after a week of sitting at the airport running Sentry Mode, my car is fully recharged in about 90 to 120 minutes.

If you don't have the ability to charge at home (or at work) then I wouldn't recommend an EV at this point. One of the biggest benefits of an EV is that you NEVER have to go charge it for your daily driving in you have Level 2 charging at home. In almost 18 months of ownership, I've stopped to charge my EV exactly twice.[/QUOTE]

 

[RyanB]

My parents do 900 mile (one-way, round trip is 1800+) trips at least four times a year, and usually more. Last year, they did between 6-8. The year before, they did that many in so many weekends. (Granted, they were moving cross-country.) Growing up, we'd drive off as close to a gas tank as we could (4ish hours a segment) before stopping for a bathroom and gas break, and try to be back in the van and ready to go within 15 minutes.

I think there are the types of people that drive everywhere and the people who fly when the trips exceed a couple of hours. So far, electric cars really only work for the people who either commute five miles every day/work from home, and don't do road trips or have the ability to charge all night, every night and don't mind longer breaks on any road trips taken.

ETA: Clarification needed. Sometimes I post too fast and don't realize that people can't read my mind.

Well, let's first understand that the EV market may not appeal to everyone. It's really not much different than buying the right airplane for the mission. If you're taking lots of long road trips, then an electric vehicle may not be ideal. That said, the infrastructure is becoming more readily available and easier to access, so using EV's for longer trips is becoming more practical, they definitely don't just fit folks who commute back and forth to work. Now, for a guy like me, I wouldn't own one, and that's just because I'm far too much of a gear head to be willing to give up my ICE vehicle, but that's a personal preference. I'm not about to rag on those who choose to go electric. Each to their own, as they say!

 

[Jim K]

I'm sorely tempted to buy a full EV. The model Y we rented in SD made me want one. We haven't driven more than a couple hundred miles from home since we bought the plane. Unfortunately I need seven seats for a few more years, and the only options I know of are the Rivian R1S, Model X, and Model Y. The third row in the 3 is too tight, and the other two are deep into 6 figures. I also have reservations about the longevity of batteries, but we've been trading our family car on a fairly regular basis, so I guess that's not such a huge deal. The Pacifica Hybrid has been a nearly perfect fit for us, although all three of the ones we've had have had what I'd call "Chrysler issues". I wish Honda or Toyota would build a PHEV (or full electric) van.

 

[Everskyward]

Exactly. And in this case, Elon bankrupting twitter by letting the toxic people back on the platform, slashing the oversight team and disabling automated moderation.

Twitter is what you make of if. I haven't noticed much difference. I follow local news, weather, police, fire, and even local politics, which can get heated, but not any more than it was before. At least Twitter doesn't do what Facebook does, which is insert what they consider a fact checking link whenever someone mentions certain subjects (which I won't mention here lest I get a warning).

 

[azblackbird]

Pretty hard to have intelligent conversations with people who would try to generalize academics as not knowing those things too.

Most don't... so let's converse. Why is fracking so bad?

 

[SoonerAviator]

Most don't... so let's converse. Why is fracking so bad?

Because I don't own a fracking company?

 

[SkyChaser]

Typical government overreach trying to social engineer the behavior of their citizens.

CA can ban the sale of new ICE cars in CA but they can't stop Californians from buying used ICE cars or buying new ICE cars out of state. The market will find a way around whatever restrictions they implement and more Californians will get sick of it and move to a less restrictive state.


I think that because you have done exactly that in this thread when you said that Musk wants to let all the toxic people back on Twitter.

If I see someone who I think is toxic then I don't listen to them. Problem solved. But the people who I might think are toxic have just as much right to have their say as anyone else.

Let the unreasonable speak so that their unreasonableness can be out for all to see.


Your case is exactly the problem. You start out not knowing much about EVs and everything that you end up reading is misleading, at best, and often wrong.

The person who said that it took all night to replace the charge needed to drive 50 miles must be talking about Level 1 charging which is charging at a normal, 120v outlet like you have throughout your house. Depending on the efficiency of your EV, you'll get anywhere from 2 to 7 miles of range added for every hour of Level 1 charging. That isn't enough for most people but it is enough for many.

What most EV owners will want to have at home is Level 2 charging. Level 2 is charging at 240v. Using the same type of outlet that is used for an electric clothes dryer or electric stove, you'll charge at a rate of 25 to 30 miles per hour which will fully recharge an empty long-range EV in 10 to 12 hours (0% to 100%). Many, most?, EV owners go a little bit farther and install a 50A 240v outlet/circuit, often also used for RVs, and that will bump them up to 35 to 40 mph.

My car charges on a 50A outlet in my garage and adds about 34 miles per hour of charging. When I get home each day, my car typically needs to charge 30 to 90 minutes to replace the energy that I used while I was out. Even after a week of sitting at the airport running Sentry Mode, my car is fully recharged in about 90 to 120 minutes.

If you don't have the ability to charge at home (or at work) then I wouldn't recommend an EV at this point. One of the biggest benefits of an EV is that you NEVER have to go charge it for your daily driving in you have Level 2 charging at home. In almost 18 months of ownership, I've stopped to charge my EV exactly twice.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that! I really appreciate it. I'm sure that the other poster was referring to regular home outlet charging, as I don't usually trust stuff I read on the internet unless the source is someone that is at least usually correct about things, but I'm just not well-versed enough to realize that there are so many different chargers.

I honestly think electric cars are cool in a "new tech" way, I just really hate how they are being sold and marketed right now...and how the government is trying to mandate them. I hope I never have to give up my manual ICE, because driving is a level of fun that is hard to find in an automatic, much less electric, in that thing!

 

[CJones]

If AMZN is actually investing in Rivian, you better get your own vehicle now (or not, because support will be a nightmare). If Rivian manages to make headway in delivery vehicle efficiency or cost, AMZN will buy them out and you'll never hear of them again unless you're driving a blue van. See: Kiva Systems circa 2012 and many others since then.

 

[172andyou]

Twitter announced yesterday that revenues were down 40% of the same period a year ago. Clearly Elon's a genius.

 

[172andyou]

Most don't... so let's converse. Why is fracking so bad?

I'm not interested in trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone who would make, and then double down on, a statement as absurd as academics don't know where food and power come from.

 

[SkyChaser]

Twitter announced yesterday that revenues were down 40% of the same period a year ago. Clearly Elon's a genius.

It seems you really want to either rile someone up enough to fight with you, or to get people to agree that Musk is a horrible, vile person for allowing those with opinions that don't match yours and that you deem toxic to be unbanned from Twitter. Why is it that allowing people to have opinions makes you so upset?

From someone who thinks of Musk as neither a villain or a superhero, I would expect Twitter to have a significant downturn in revenue at the moment. He completely shook things up and many companies were attempting to boycott the platform for what seemed to be virtue-signaling reasons. The last I heard, many of them are now considering or are actively advertising again. I will be very interested in the numbers a year or two from now, once it settles down again. Having watched the company my dad worked at get bought out several times when I was growing up, it seems to be normal to have a downturn in revenue for the first while, even without politics messing with it.

 

[172andyou]

I think that because you have done exactly that in this thread when you said that Musk wants to let all the toxic people back on Twitter.

If I see someone who I think is toxic then I don't listen to them. Problem solved.

Nah. What I said was that Elon was letting toxic people back on twitter and that it posed a risk to the company itself. Which is, apparently, a fact since they announced yesterday a decline in revenue of 40% year over year as advertisers don't want to be on a platform where removing toxic people has been replaced with advice like "just keep scrolling". BTW, his first loan payment is due at the end of the month. Time to sell some Tesla to make the payment. Oh, wait, that's down 60% from a year ago, before investors started dumping it because his antics at twitter caused a crisis of confidence.

 

[172andyou]

It seems you really want to either rile someone up enough to fight with you, or to get people to agree that Musk is a horrible, vile person for allowing those with opinions that don't match yours and that you deem toxic to be unbanned from Twitter. Why is it that allowing people to have opinions makes you so upset?

They are arguing their point, I'm arguing mine. But, yes, I think that Musk allowing people like Andrew Tate back on the platform is horrible and vile. Luckily he was only back on the platform for a short time before being arrested for human trafficking and rape. Elon had a choice. He didn't have to give Tate a soapbox. He decided that's what he wanted to do. I do indeed think that's horrible and vile.

It's worth noting that I can't even quote Tate here, because this platform, the one where several people are arguing that people should just scroll by and that free speech trumps all, has rules about what can be posted and Tate's quotes would never be allowed here because they would be massive violations.

 

[Velocity173]

Nah. What I said was that Elon was letting toxic people back on twitter and that it posed a risk to the company itself. Which is, apparently, a fact since they announced yesterday a decline in revenue of 40% year over year as advertisers don't want to be on a platform where removing toxic people has been replaced with advice like "just keep scrolling". BTW, his first loan payment is due at the end of the month. Time to sell some Tesla to make the payment. Oh, wait, that's down 60% from a year ago, before investors started dumping it because his antics at twitter caused a crisis of confidence.

What car stock isn’t down from a year ago. TSLA is doing way better than both RIVN and LCID. They’re 1/4 of what they were selling a year ago.

 

[172andyou]

What car stock isn’t down from a year ago. TSLA is doing way better than both RIVN and LCID. They’re 1/4 of what they were selling a year ago.

Fair point. Tesla is worse than the other majors. But it's been a rough year across the board.

 

[Velocity173]

Carvana, that’s where the money is at.

 

[tspear]

I'm sorely tempted to buy a full EV. The model Y we rented in SD made me want one. We haven't driven more than a couple hundred miles from home since we bought the plane. Unfortunately I need seven seats for a few more years, and the only options I know of are the Rivian R1S, Model X, and Model Y. The third row in the 3 is too tight, and the other two are deep into 6 figures. I also have reservations about the longevity of batteries, but we've been trading our family car on a fairly regular basis, so I guess that's not such a huge deal. The Pacifica Hybrid has been a nearly perfect fit for us, although all three of the ones we've had have had what I'd call "Chrysler issues". I wish Honda or Toyota would build a PHEV (or full electric) van.

When you look at the higher end, I believe BMW and MB both have 7 passenger EVs out. I know I read some reviews, and I believe they are in production already.
In addition, I believe it is later this year, GM will have the Hummer and a couple more models out which are supposed to carry seven.

Tim

 

[SkyChaser]

They are arguing their point, I'm arguing mine. But, yes, I think that Musk allowing people like Andrew Tate back on the platform is horrible and vile. Luckily he was only back on the platform for a short time before being arrested for human trafficking and rape. Elon had a choice. He didn't have to give Tate a soapbox. He decided that's what he wanted to do. I do indeed think that's horrible and vile.

It's worth noting that I can't even quote Tate here, because this platform, the one where several people are arguing that people should just scroll by and that free speech trumps all, has rules about what can be posted and Tate's quotes would never be allowed here because they would be massive violations.

Yes, you are arguing your point, and that's fair. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion in the US, and for that, I am grateful. Because I would like to continue to have that right, I have no right to complain when people that I think are bad, or to use your word, "toxic", also have opinions. The internet is a strange place, because it is at the same time both the place where speech is freest and the place where speech is most restricted. By posting here, you're agreeing to follow the rules of this forum. That doesn't mean that you can't post what you want elsewhere. It's like how when you go to a store with the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in the window, you're agreeing to follow their terms in order to do business with them. There are stores and internet forums you can go to that will allow you to take off your shoes and shirt and post things that this forum won't.

As far as Tate in particular, I don't happen to agree with a lot of what Tate says, and I purposefully don't consume his media because I see no point in it. Whether he has been arrested or not, whether he is a horrible criminal or not, he is still allowed to have an opinion...and it doesn't make Musk a horrible or vile person for deciding to allow people like him on Twitter. Every person has a duty to sort out what they believe and what they don't.

Maybe the focus should be on helping people learn to sort out the wheat from the chaff. As they say, if you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he will have food for the rest of his life. If you teach someone how to sort out good advice from bad, as opposed to just attempting to censor what they see, you will have much better results in the long run.

 

[tspear]

It seems you really want to either rile someone up enough to fight with you, or to get people to agree that Musk is a horrible, vile person for allowing those with opinions that don't match yours and that you deem toxic to be unbanned from Twitter. Why is it that allowing people to have opinions makes you so upset?

Throughout history, there has always been a filtering systems for the expression of thoughts. Right or wrong, censoring is endemic to human society, pretending otherwise is a fallacy. If you spouted ideas which were anti-ethical to the "elites" of society at the time, you effectively had a reach of the sound of your voice on the local street corner. Three hundred years ago, it was a religious institution or the government which provided the super majority of the censoring. A thousand years ago, it was mostly a religious organization. Starting around two hundred years ago, merchants started to play an ever larger role in the censoring and dissemination of information. Within the last hundred years, merchants and business (namely the media companies) have provided such a service.
It is only in the last fifteen years that society has had the potential to have unfiltered and uncensored information. And you can see how well we have handled it.

Tim

 

[172andyou]

By posting here, you're agreeing to follow the rules of this forum.

By posting on twitter you're agreeing to follow twitters rules also. Prior to Musk buying it, that meant that certain toxic speech was not permitted. Musk bought it and welcomed back the cesspool. That action has cost him 40% of his revenue and put the entire enterprise at risk.

Maybe the focus should be on helping people learn to sort out the wheat from the chaff

One might argue that choosing to use one online forum instead of another is exactly that. I choose not to use twitter because of the chaff. I choose to use PoA because of the wheat.

 

[SkyChaser]

By posting on twitter you're agreeing to follow twitters rules also. Prior to Musk buying it, that meant that certain toxic speech was not permitted. Musk bought it and welcomed back the cesspool. That action has cost him 40% of his revenue and put the entire enterprise at risk.

If you don't use Twitter, why are you so worried about who has a platform there? And who gets to decide what is toxic? Sure, there are definitely things that I would never want to hear anyone espousing, but why were the Taliban allowed to stay on Twitter while people who were questioning some of the covid narrative in a very civil manner deplatformed? If that's an example of the filtering of toxic people, I am going to say that it was an absolute failure.

 

[SkyChaser]

Throughout history, there has always been a filtering systems for the expression of thoughts. Right or wrong, censoring is endemic to human society, pretending otherwise is a fallacy. If you spouted ideas which were anti-ethical to the "elites" of society at the time, you effectively had a reach of the sound of your voice on the local street corner. Three hundred years ago, it was a religious institution or the government which provided the super majority of the censoring. A thousand years ago, it was mostly a religious organization. Starting around two hundred years ago, merchants started to play an ever larger role in the censoring and dissemination of information. Within the last hundred years, merchants and business (namely the media companies) have provided such a service.
It is only in the last fifteen years that society has had the potential to have unfiltered and uncensored information. And you can see how well we have handled it.

Tim

I don't think I was pretending that freedom of speech/ability to say whatever you want to vast swathes of people have existed for millennium?

 

[172andyou]

If you don't use Twitter, why are you so worried about who has a platform there?

Because the recent history of the US, and the arguably the world, has demonstrated very well that an alarming number of people don't have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. So they listen to toxic people and that has consequences for themselves, their families and their nations.

And who gets to decide what is toxic?

The moderators of places like twitter and PoA.

But remember, my comment was about Elon bankrupting twitter. Not whether or not I was going to use it personally. His actions have reduced revenue by 40% because advertisers don't want to be on a platform overrun with toxic content/people. But that said, it's also true that there are real world consequences to giving people like andrew tate a soapbox from which he can shout to a global audience.

 

[tspear]

I don't think I was pretending that freedom of speech/ability to say whatever you want to vast swathes of people have existed for millennium?

Your comment about Elon Musk on Twitter removing the ban for people who violated the TOS. This was done in the name of "free speech". However, until recently, "free speech" has never had the reach it does today.
And as a society, we have failed to fundamentally understand and accept that all speech has historically been censored.

Tim

 

[SkyChaser]

Because the recent history of the US, and the arguably the world, has demonstrated very well that an alarming number of people don't have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. So they listen to toxic people and that has consequences for themselves, their families and their nations.

The moderators of places like twitter and PoA.

But remember, my comment was about Elon bankrupting twitter. Not whether or not I was going to use it personally. His actions have reduced revenue by 40% because advertisers don't want to be on a platform overrun with toxic content/people. But that said, it's also true that there are real world consequences to giving people like andrew tate a soapbox from which he can shout to a global audience.

I do remember that your comment was about Musk bankrupting Twitter. Your premise about that is based on your premise that a whole bunch of toxic people got allowed back on the platform. I have no clue if Musk is going to bankrupt Twitter. That remains to be seen, in my book. I do know people who have been removed from Twitter, and they were very far from "toxic".

Your comment about Elon Musk on Twitter removing the ban for people who violated the TOS. This was done in the name of "free speech". However, until recently, "free speech" has never had the reach it does today.
And as a society, we have failed to fundamentally understand and accept that all speech has historically been censored.

Tim

Thanks for the clarification. I was super confused because I didn't remember making a statement about history!

 

[MIFlyer]

My parents do 900 mile (one-way, round trip is 1800+) trips at least four times a year, and usually more. Last year, they did between 6-8. The year before, they did that many in so many weekends. (Granted, they were moving cross-country.) Growing up, we'd drive off as close to a gas tank as we could (4ish hours a segment) before stopping for a bathroom and gas break, and try to be back in the van and ready to go within 15 minutes.

I think there are the types of people that drive everywhere and the people who fly when the trips exceed a couple of hours. So far, electric cars really only work for the people who either commute five miles every day/work from home, and don't do road trips or have the ability to charge all night, every night and don't mind longer breaks on any road trips taken.

ETA: Clarification needed. Sometimes I post too fast and don't realize that people can't read my mind.

Or own more than one car? Most of the families in my upper middle class town have one electric car with a ~300 mile range and the other spouse has a 5-7 seat gas SUV. They drive both everyday and then on a trip have the option to choose which car based on what they're taking, road conditions, and range. Lots of stuff around here is within 200 miles to all kinds of different ecosystems, terrain and attractions, so the vast majority of "non flying" trips are in that range where you could take either car.

 

[tspear]

I do remember that your comment was about Musk bankrupting Twitter. Your premise about that is based on your premise that a whole bunch of toxic people got allowed back on the platform. I have no clue if Musk is going to bankrupt Twitter. That remains to be seen, in my book. I do know people who have been removed from Twitter, and they were very far from "toxic".

At this point, Elon Musk will only bankrupt Twitter if he opts to not fund it. Twitter was already negative from a cash flow perspective before the purchase; and the purchase per the filed documents ads another 1.1 Billion (yes Billion) USD interest payment. This is before any capital payback. What is unknown is the long term financial trend.

Short term, the decimation of ad revenue is likely making the situation worse; and the general economic conditions are making it harder for ad based revenue organizations to survive for what many predict is the next few years. One estimate I recall reading is that with the debt repayment, eliminating 50% of the staffing costs, and a 50% reduction in ad revenue, twitter will lose between three and four Billion a year. How long will Elon Musk continue, is completely up to him.

If Elon Musk can find some new "must have" feature to drive revenue, I think Twitter might survive, the question is if Elon Musk has the desire to fund Twitter until he finds such a feature.

Tim

 

[SkyChaser]

Sometimes, it just amazes me that social media sites are considered to be so valuable.

Then again, everything seems to be more expensive. I just saw that the average home price in 2023 was expected in excess of $400,000, and that boggles my mind! And to bring it back to the thread's original topic, the price of all new cars and trucks are really crazy, too.

 

[172andyou]

If Elon Musk can find some new "must have" feature to drive revenue, I think Twitter might survive, the question is if Elon Musk has the desire to fund Twitter until he finds such a feature

And that's a big "if". There are tens of thousands of really smart people (out of the millions of people working in IT, just talking about the really exceptional ones here) that are all trying to find the next big thing. Whether or not Elon can beat them is a very big "if". So far his twitter game plan has been selling blue checkmarks, which was an absolute disaster, and wanting to compete with youtube in long form video. He already failed at the first one, and it can't generate enough revenue in any case. On the YT front, I'll point out that several companies have already tried, and failed, to compete with youtube and those were companies that were built from the bottom up to make the attempt and were trying to compete before YT was as big as it is now. Twitter not only has the wrong infrastructure to support long term videos, Elon now doesn't even have enough staff to run the company, much less take on the incredibly expensive and time consuming task of creating a parallel infrastructure from scratch to compete with YT.

 

[Everskyward]

They are arguing their point, I'm arguing mine. But, yes, I think that Musk allowing people like Andrew Tate back on the platform is horrible and vile. Luckily he was only back on the platform for a short time before being arrested for human trafficking and rape. Elon had a choice. He didn't have to give Tate a soapbox. He decided that's what he wanted to do. I do indeed think that's horrible and vile.

It's worth noting that I can't even quote Tate here, because this platform, the one where several people are arguing that people should just scroll by and that free speech trumps all, has rules about what can be posted and Tate's quotes would never be allowed here because they would be massive violations.

You must not understand, his company his rules, unless there are other laws that supersede them. Same with this board. Same with the former management of Twitter. What's irritating, but not illegal is when these companies purport to be "fair" but they actually have their thumb on the scale. This goes for bot the current and former management of Twitter.

 

[tspear]

@172andyou

Where we differ is likely more a matter of semantics. Elon Musk does not need to invent the next big thing for the net to make money for Twitter. He or his team, just need to find the feature which can be added for which people are willing to pay. A verification system if done correctly could sell. Another would be a tag denial system (would need some extensive thought/philosophy on how this could be done equitably), another would be linking to transaction services, another could be dedicated devices...

Tim

 

[NoBShere]

Someone explain this to me.

There is a reason why most pickup trucks have the engine bay up front. It is because they need an engine bay to house the engine. An electric pickup does not require a dedicated engine bay to house the electric motor(s.) Why is it still there? Looks? The Rivian is butt ugly anyway - you might as well make it more practical by using a front mounted cab, either shortening it or increasing the cargo box length.

A front mounted cab would be sweet! Like the old Dodge Cab Overs. With a trippy desert scene paint job.

 

[Velocity173]

Elon is in the process of stepping down from CEO of Twitter. He doesn’t care about its future or evolving it. It was a project that he bought to demonstrate his power and stir up controversy. Something for entertainment value. It’s like when someone is wealthy and goes to the casino. They throw money at it and see what sticks.

 

[CJones]

A front mounted cab would be sweet! Like the old Dodge Cab Overs. With a trippy desert scene paint job.

Pfft... What are you doing actually referencing anything related to the original post topic!? Can't you see this has devolved into a "meeting of the minds on things that have zero real impact on the world"? Rookie.