That's all fun and stuff, until you need to implement things like corporate actions (mergers, demergers/spin-offs, dividends, etc.) and doing that shit in real time leads to customer confusion and complaints. With regular trading schedule, you know exactly and predictably, who receives the dividends/new shares/etc. on the following day (overnight).

---

Oh my god for real. I don't think I've ever seen so many people this butthurt over someone making money here lmfao. Its just redditors seething at someone making money off Elon, fuck they're sensitive.

---

people always treat calculus like it's..... some marker of extreme intelligence. it's not. it's pretty much the first barrier between mid-wit and smart. like... the bottom of the *real* fucking barrel. like if you don't know calculus you're just a stooge. especially all of you fake fin bros

---

I used to be brand loyal but recently went to a dealership to look at a car. They lowballed me real hard on the trade-in value of my current vehicle and wouldn't drop the price on a vehicle sitting on the lot. I laughed then left. Screw them, we need competition. I'll drive my current vehicle as long as I can.

---

Oh it does make it boring. I only do it if real money is imvolved though 🤣

---

The solar part is something that gets surprisingly little attention in these discussions. The purchase price is only one part of the economics of a car. Once someone can generate part of their own electricity, the energy economics of an EV become fundamentally different from an ICE vehicle because the owner can actually produce some of the vehicle's fuel at home. Obviously that doesn't work for everyone. You need the right home, charging access, enough solar generation and suitable driving patterns. But that's another reason I think competition matters. Don't just compare sticker prices. Compare purchase price, energy cost, maintenance, depreciation and actual real-world use. Then let consumers decide which technology works for them.

---

President Trump Explains Trade Deficits(And yes, this is a real statement): “If we buy 2 billion dollars worth of Bananas from Brazil, we’re actually losing 2 billion dollars. So if we stop eating bananas, we actually save 2 billion dollars”.

---

if you go to vegas the only thing you should be doing there is playing poker vs. real people. dont waste your time on other crap

---

Listening through iPhone, for real

---

There is another part of this discussion that makes the whole “Chinese auto industry vs American auto industry” framing much less clean than it sounds. Tesla itself is a good example. Tesla is American, but its battery supply chain has never been purely American. Panasonic was crucial to Tesla’s early scale, and Tesla later diversified its battery sourcing to companies including LG Energy Solution and CATL. So even the most successful American pure-EV manufacturer was built around a global, heavily Asian battery supply chain. Brazil makes this even more interesting because we are watching several versions of this industrial integration happen at the same time. BYD took over Ford’s former industrial complex in Camaçari and is progressively localizing production. GWM took over Mercedes-Benz’s former factory in Iracemápolis. Renault and Geely are expanding their industrial relationship in Brazil. GM itself is now assembling Chinese-developed Chevrolet EVs in Ceará. The Spark EUV and Captiva EV come from GM’s Chinese industrial ecosystem with SAIC and Wuling and are being assembled locally. Toyota and BYD have a 50/50 EV R&D joint venture. Nissan has had a major industrial relationship with Dongfeng in China for decades. At some point, asking whether a technology is simply “Chinese” or “Western” stops having an easy answer. And Brazil gives us another interesting experiment: range. If you look only at Brazilian homologation figures, some EVs can look surprisingly short-legged. Cars with batteries in the 50-60 kWh range can receive official Inmetro/PBEV range figures around 300 km. But the Brazilian number is deliberately conservative. Inmetro does not simply publish the raw laboratory result. Adjustment factors are applied to produce a more conservative real-world reference. The problem is that a lot of automotive discussion here then treats that number almost as the maximum distance the EV can realistically travel. Owner experience often looks very different. We now have EV owners driving these cars across Brazil, including mountainous areas and routes that climb from the coast onto the plateau. There are owners and independent tests substantially exceeding the official Inmetro range, and under favorable conditions some results get much closer to WLTP. Larger-battery EVs can exceed 400 km in real use even when their Brazilian homologated number looks much less impressive. Obviously that does not mean WLTP is guaranteed real-world range. Drive at 120 km/h, climb continuously, add headwind, temperature changes or heavy HVAC use and consumption changes dramatically. But this exposes an interesting asymmetry in how cars are discussed here. When a small 1.0-liter ICE car achieves an exceptionally good km/l result, automotive enthusiasts and media are perfectly happy to show what the car can achieve under favorable real-world conditions. With EVs, I often see the opposite. The conservative Inmetro figure gets repeated as the defining range of the vehicle, while owner consumption and independent road results receive much less attention. A much better way to discuss EV range is to show the homologation numbers and then show actual energy consumption. If an EV does 12, 15, 18 or 22 kWh/100 km, anyone can understand what a 40, 60 or 90 kWh battery means under different conditions. That's much more informative than saying “this is a 300 km car” because one homologation system printed 300 km on the label. And all of this comes back to the original Detroit question. Brazil is becoming a useful real-world laboratory because Chinese manufacturers are no longer simply shipping Chinese-built cars here. They are buying former Western factories, hiring Brazilian workers and progressively localizing production. At the same time, established American, European and Japanese manufacturers are increasingly using Chinese partners, platforms, batteries, engineering or complete vehicles. Europe is moving in a similar direction as Chinese manufacturers localize more production there. That gives us an opportunity to separate two things that are constantly mixed together in this discussion. If Chinese manufacturers lose most of their price advantage when they manufacture in Brazil, Europe or eventually the US with local workers, then Chinese wages, subsidies and domestic production conditions were clearly doing much of the work. But if a substantial advantage survives localization, then wages cannot be the entire explanation. Battery costs, vertical integration, EV-specific platforms, supplier organization, procurement, manufacturing scale, automation, development cycles and margins all have to enter the discussion. That's why I would actually find an American-built Chinese EV much more interesting than another imported Chinese EV. Require American production. American wages. American safety and environmental standards. Apply the same rules to everyone. Then compare the products. If an American-built BYD ends up costing roughly the same as an equivalent American-built GM or Ford, we learn something important about where the original Chinese cost advantage came from. But if it can still compete aggressively on price, equipment and efficiency while paying American production costs, then tariffs didn't answer the underlying competitiveness question. They only delayed the experiment.

---