His comment is accurate: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla/financials It is also, for some mysterious reason, massively downvoted. Where exactly did this $1.5 billion+ figure come from, and why did taligent's reply to you asking where it came from get so heavily downvoted it's now [dead]?
Because, for the majority of 2012, Tesla didn't produce the Tesla S. They only started producing 400 cars/week late in the last quarter.
So you really cannot use last year's numbers for anything, and therefore last years revenue/income is completely irrelevant.
The 1.5 billion comes from estimating what this year's revenue will be based on the number of cars they currently produce/deliver (which is in the 4-500 range). It is based on about 7500$ profit/car and 20000 cars/yr, but in fairness, that is just an educated guess.
Given that they are now profitable, the key questions are: How large is the profit-margin really. If demand will keep up and allow production to increase. Is there some yet to be revealed gigantic technical issue that will require Tesla to call back all cars.
Tesla is publically traded, nothing is stopping you from shorting them. This is currently their only product. You won't be able to bet against a single product easier than this, ever.
Why do you need me ? I am just that crazy troll who believes that no database is perfect for all use cases and that making blind generalisations like "all NoSQL is bad" is stupid. Especially since MongoDB is as different from Cassandra or Riak as it is from Spanner as that is from the other 120+ odd NoSQL databases.
And if benchmarks impress you I suggest you take a look at Cassandra sometime.
I keep hearing Cassandra touted as fast, but I just don't see it. Instacluster brags about 17ms at the 99th percentile being fast, but where I come from that gets you thrown out of the running.[1] The Netflix benchmark linked above sees 10,000 ops/sec/node. Again, not impressive.
Skip to slide 22 of this comparative benchmark with Couchbase Server[2] and you'll see that <5ms latencies at 99% is totally achievable. We can't take too much credit for these stats, most of the blame goes to the fact we use memcached at the front end, and it's been optimized for consistent low-latency for a long time.
I don't want to make this a speed contest, as there are a lot of good things about Cassandra. It just strikes me as odd that people sell Cassandra based on low latency. If you want consistent high-performance, don't use a database that runs on a language virtual machine. There are lots of great reasons to use Cassandra, standout benchmarks aren't one of them.
I find the datamodel inflexible and often hard to work with for real world use cases. I think the tooling is immature and the hector API leaves me feeling depressed (pycassa and astyanx are quite a lot better).
All that said, I find cassandra to be fast, incredibly fast. 99th percentile on our 9Tb time series store is around 20ms on below par hardware.
Another thing i like is we've never had downtime, not even scheduled. We've had nodes fail, we've had datacentres isolated during disaster recovery tests, yet our cluster has continued on regardless (2 x sub clusters per region). Whatever way you stack it up, that's impressive. Remember with cassandra there's no load balancers or other shenanigans involved.
Garbage collection / virtual machine concerns are a red herring due to the mechanics of a cassandra query (certainly for CL < RF)
I'm glad you are happy with 20ms, to me it is slow...
Probably the best thing about Cassandra is that it is written in Java, so it is easy to fork and add custom behavior. Of course this is orthogonal to performance.
I only tagged you because you seem to have experience running Mongodb in production (as claimed by you in one of the previous threads) and I honestly wanted your feedback about this. Also I was curious to see if you would evaluate this nifty PostgreSQL feature :)
The funds transfer/settlement for credit cards can be as short as a few hours as some banks offer same day settlement. And you are being a bit disingenuous with the fraud vulnerability window as chargebacks allow for dispute resolution e.g. where is the item I paid for whilst Bitcoins don't.
For 2012 they had revenue of $413 million at a loss of $396 million.