Skip to content

Things at Tesla are worse than they appear

Technology
33 18 0
  • An Enron-like Tesla documentary is coming.

    I think it'll be more of an Enron slash Theranos docudrama... questionable accounting and overvaluation mixed with a superstar CEO stuck in a faking-it-till-you-make-it corporate death loop with investors drunk on hype.

  • Things are undoubtedly bad at Tesla. Its sales are dwindling. Its profits are plunging, as is its share price. There are regular protests outside its showrooms. The Cybertruck is a flop. And somehow, it’s actually a lot worse than that.

    The 71% drop in net income it just reported may have been overshadowed by CEO Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping back from his controversial duties at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that drop is just one indication of serious financial sickness at the EV maker, problems brought on by falling sales for the first time in its history and falling prices for electric vehicles.

    The bottom line problem at Tesla is its vanishing bottom line. A deeper look at its first quarter report shows it’s now losing money on what should be its ostensible reason for existence – selling cars.

    It was only able to post a $409 million profit in the quarter thanks to the sale of $595 million worth of regulatory credits to other automakers.

    But if the Trump administration gets its way, the company can kiss those regulatory credits keeping it in the black goodbye, too.

    This is a big fact almost no one speaks of. Tesla has only ever been profitable by manipulating the carbon footprint regulations and selling Ford and GMC carbon credits. Not a single tesla vehicle has ever been profitable as an actual vehicle. You know, the product they claim to be selling. The real product is pollution hiding. N ot correcting, not fixing, not even slowing pollution. No, its a shell game. Tesla is making money by shifting the blame of pollution for profit. Oh, they build vehicles also.

  • Things are undoubtedly bad at Tesla. Its sales are dwindling. Its profits are plunging, as is its share price. There are regular protests outside its showrooms. The Cybertruck is a flop. And somehow, it’s actually a lot worse than that.

    The 71% drop in net income it just reported may have been overshadowed by CEO Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping back from his controversial duties at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that drop is just one indication of serious financial sickness at the EV maker, problems brought on by falling sales for the first time in its history and falling prices for electric vehicles.

    The bottom line problem at Tesla is its vanishing bottom line. A deeper look at its first quarter report shows it’s now losing money on what should be its ostensible reason for existence – selling cars.

    It was only able to post a $409 million profit in the quarter thanks to the sale of $595 million worth of regulatory credits to other automakers.

    But if the Trump administration gets its way, the company can kiss those regulatory credits keeping it in the black goodbye, too.

    Not good. There’s still some remnant of the idealistic vision, hiding from the Nazi.

    • robotaxis will eventually be a good thing, but it will be a long time before they’re profitable. I’m all for the experiment, whether teslas approach succeeds or not, but Tesla can no longer afford to stick to a money losing experiment
    • the semi has huge potential to disrupt the trucking industry and rapidly decarbonize it. While I do see other companies experimenting with battery trucks, no one else has the potential combining mass produced parts from other vehicles, mass produced charging stations and mega storage, nor are taking the risk to scale up manufacturing. We need to electrify trucking and like it or not Tesla has some unique strengths that may help them succeed first. We need this
    • these are teslas big upcoming efforts and they’re both an attempt to be revolutionary, which means risky, money losing. While I can get onboard the protest bandwagon, deprive the Nazi of his god level wealth, we need the EV revolution in trucking
  • It also wants to end the right of California and eight other states to demand tougher emissions regulations than the federal standards that would ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. Without tough emissions rules at the federal and state level, there would be no regulatory credit sales.

    The sale of those federal and state credits has been quite lucrative for Tesla, bringing in $8.4 billion in revenue since the start of 2021 alone, money that basically went straight to its bottom line.

    Is this the greenwashing scam companies use to pretend that they are working toward a carbon-neutral production line? They're just speculating on future production and selling today's emissions to today's buyers on tomorrow's promise?

    How fucked.

    Technically it’s the intended result. It helped fund one or more purely EV manufacturers for the future. Legacy companies chose not to invest n new technology for the longest time, but had to pay the price. At some point that price is too high but the innovators are awarded and the technology has become cheaper, so the surviving legacy manufacturers can adopt it. Ts a good thing that it helped fund a successful EV manufacturer by penalizing the laggards. That was the goal

    The only real failure is the credits were apparently too cheap since legacy manufacturers still had to be forced, and are still regressing the first chance they get

  • Not good. There’s still some remnant of the idealistic vision, hiding from the Nazi.

    • robotaxis will eventually be a good thing, but it will be a long time before they’re profitable. I’m all for the experiment, whether teslas approach succeeds or not, but Tesla can no longer afford to stick to a money losing experiment
    • the semi has huge potential to disrupt the trucking industry and rapidly decarbonize it. While I do see other companies experimenting with battery trucks, no one else has the potential combining mass produced parts from other vehicles, mass produced charging stations and mega storage, nor are taking the risk to scale up manufacturing. We need to electrify trucking and like it or not Tesla has some unique strengths that may help them succeed first. We need this
    • these are teslas big upcoming efforts and they’re both an attempt to be revolutionary, which means risky, money losing. While I can get onboard the protest bandwagon, deprive the Nazi of his god level wealth, we need the EV revolution in trucking

    robotaxis

    It's going to be a disaster. Tesla "FSD" is glorified cruise control on level 2 on the autonomous driving scale.

    semi

    It's already a disaster. The economics don't add up and the few on the road break down all the time.

  • robotaxis

    It's going to be a disaster. Tesla "FSD" is glorified cruise control on level 2 on the autonomous driving scale.

    semi

    It's already a disaster. The economics don't add up and the few on the road break down all the time.

    don't other truck manufacturers that actually know how to build a truck also make electrified models?

  • don't other truck manufacturers that actually know how to build a truck also make electrified models?

    There are other electric semi trucks out there, but none (at least as of last year) compare in specs and capabilities. The big issue is their power consumption is much higher than the Tesla Semi which has been repeatedly validated by their testers as even better than what Tesla advertises. Efficiency will be king in this kind of business.

    Worse efficiency = less range = more batteries = less load capacity = less money per delivery

    E.g this is from DHL

    Over a two-week trial period this summer, DHL Supply Chain USA took a thorough look under the hood of the Tesla Semi, integrating the e-truck into 3,000 miles (5,000 km) of normal operations out of Livermore, California. The trial included one long haul of 390 miles (625 km) – fully loaded with a gross combined weight of 75,000 pounds (34 metric tons) – confirming the Tesla Semi’s ability to carry typical DHL payloads over a long distance on a single charge.

    During the trial, the trial vehicle averaged 1.72 kWh/mile operating at speeds exceeding 50 mph (80 km/h) on average for over half its time on the road. The result exceeded our expectations and even Tesla’s own rating.

    Putting the Tesla Semi to the test allowed us to validate whether it could travel 500 miles with a fully loaded trailer and see what our drivers thought of the truck’s performance. We were encouraged by how quickly they gained confidence with the vehicle and leveraged the Tesla’s smart features to help improve performance, comfort, and the overall driver experience.

    Edit: Just some examples... I don't know if these have been verified in use unlike the Tesla, so all theoretical based on the advertised miles/battery size.

    • Mercedes: 1.935 kWh/mile (310 miles)
    • Kenworth: 2.5 kWh/mile (200 miles)
    • Volvo: 2.05 kWh/mile (275miles)

    And those are all shorter range at that.

    Edit: I should also add... we don't know the price of the Tesla Semi. Its possible that its ridiculously priced and the increased efficiency is negated even over the life of the vehicle compared to the other trucks. That's a big unknown given these are pilot vehicles.

  • Things are undoubtedly bad at Tesla. Its sales are dwindling. Its profits are plunging, as is its share price. There are regular protests outside its showrooms. The Cybertruck is a flop. And somehow, it’s actually a lot worse than that.

    The 71% drop in net income it just reported may have been overshadowed by CEO Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping back from his controversial duties at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that drop is just one indication of serious financial sickness at the EV maker, problems brought on by falling sales for the first time in its history and falling prices for electric vehicles.

    The bottom line problem at Tesla is its vanishing bottom line. A deeper look at its first quarter report shows it’s now losing money on what should be its ostensible reason for existence – selling cars.

    It was only able to post a $409 million profit in the quarter thanks to the sale of $595 million worth of regulatory credits to other automakers.

    But if the Trump administration gets its way, the company can kiss those regulatory credits keeping it in the black goodbye, too.

    The interesting thing is, Tesla is perhaps the most obvious and extreme example, but they’re not the only auto manufacturer this is happening to right now. Nissan is in a bit of a tail spin as well.

    There are so many problems slamming in to the auto industry right now. Even beyond the tariff instability.

    In the US in particular, As cars have gotten more reliable and longer lasting, the market for new “budget” cars has dried up. Car buyers who might have once bought budget are now buying used cars that probably have a good many years left. The sales of new cars have been declining since 2016 but new car price have been skyrocketing, keeping up revenue growth for automakers.

    This seemed ideal for automakers as it meant they could drop the lean margins of cheap cars and focus on higher margin markets, which looked much better to shareholders. Those companies that focused on this budget market have suffered, the best example being Nissan. The ideal for automakers is that people will buy “up” the value chain over time, buying higher end or “less used” vehicles when they trade in their old vehicle, going from a twice used, to a once used and eventually to a new car.

    This kind of came to a head during the pandemic. Not only was the supply of lower end used vehicles dwindling as less and less entered the market due to less being made a few years back, there was also a shortage of new cars due to supply chain break downs and an increase in demand. Many people were taking out insane financing on massively over priced cars, both new and used. Now a lot of people are underwater on those auto loans from the pandemic because the trade-in/sales price is less way than what they have left on the loan. Many are also defaulting on those insane pandemic auto loans and their repossessed cars are ending up back on the market, increasing supply in the used market.

    Many who are underwater on their auto loans but can still make payments can’t afford to make even larger payments, so rolling over the principle from the last loan into a new loan on another car is impractical. So they aren’t buying, let alone moving up the market to buy new or higher end. The demand being suppressed in the used market and the supply being bolstered by repos means used prices are massively depressed. This depressed used market carries over to the new market in turn, as most people buying new probably couldn’t afford to do so without trading in their old car, so a depressed used market hurts their purchasing power. Why would someone buy a new car when the only new one the could afford is probably worse than the existing car.

    Tesla is getting a lot of focus because of the political entanglement of their high profile CEO, but the whole industry is under strain. Nissan is frantically looking for buyers to help them out of the debt hole they’re in, and groups like Stellantis (owners of Chrysler, Fiat, Jeep, Ram and Dodge) are desperately chasing new revenue streams as absurd as ads in the central console.

  • Things are undoubtedly bad at Tesla. Its sales are dwindling. Its profits are plunging, as is its share price. There are regular protests outside its showrooms. The Cybertruck is a flop. And somehow, it’s actually a lot worse than that.

    The 71% drop in net income it just reported may have been overshadowed by CEO Elon Musk’s announcement that he would be stepping back from his controversial duties at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But that drop is just one indication of serious financial sickness at the EV maker, problems brought on by falling sales for the first time in its history and falling prices for electric vehicles.

    The bottom line problem at Tesla is its vanishing bottom line. A deeper look at its first quarter report shows it’s now losing money on what should be its ostensible reason for existence – selling cars.

    It was only able to post a $409 million profit in the quarter thanks to the sale of $595 million worth of regulatory credits to other automakers.

    But if the Trump administration gets its way, the company can kiss those regulatory credits keeping it in the black goodbye, too.

    Good riddance. Nazis dont deserve to be rewarded. They deserve the worse of the worse.

  • This is a big fact almost no one speaks of. Tesla has only ever been profitable by manipulating the carbon footprint regulations and selling Ford and GMC carbon credits. Not a single tesla vehicle has ever been profitable as an actual vehicle. You know, the product they claim to be selling. The real product is pollution hiding. N ot correcting, not fixing, not even slowing pollution. No, its a shell game. Tesla is making money by shifting the blame of pollution for profit. Oh, they build vehicles also.

    Not a single tesla vehicle has ever been profitable as an actual vehicle.

    This honestly couldn't be further from the truth.

    Tesla's vehicles once ramped have always been extremely profitable (except probably the CyberTruck as it hasn't properly ramped due to low demand)

    Any losses you see are due to their aggressive growth involving capital expenditures and research and development. It's not that the vehicle isn't profitable.

    The ZEV credits are just bonus money that they can then leverage to expand faster.

    Edit: If you want to try and see this another way that might make sense... The Model S and X were very profitable, but they didn't make enough money to fund the expansion for the Model 3 and Y. Ditch the Model 3 and Y, and remain a boutique luxury car company, and they would posted profits instead of losses. It wasn't the cars losing money, it was the growth. The ZEV credits accelerated that growth immensely by giving them more breathing room.

  • robotaxis

    It's going to be a disaster. Tesla "FSD" is glorified cruise control on level 2 on the autonomous driving scale.

    semi

    It's already a disaster. The economics don't add up and the few on the road break down all the time.

    I tried fsd demo this spring and it’s getting pretty good. I wouldn’t use it but it was perfect on well marked roads. The thing is it made me realize just how poorly maintained our roads are and everything is an edge case. For example it didn’t stay in lane at one Intersection but the intersection was a weird offset plus the lines were all faded away. Although I also disnt give it any chance to recover so I suppose it could have been ok: Im not risking it not recovering

    It might surprise everyone but mostly by staying in a well maintained well mapped area, like Waymo did. There’s no way it fulfills the claim of self-driving everywhere without more improvements

    The robots is will have the next generation computer and higher resolution cameras which may help. However that also allows more overhead for the next ai update

  • Good riddance. Nazis dont deserve to be rewarded. They deserve the worse of the worse.

    The Nazis actually made good cars. Tesla is all the worst parts without the good cars.

  • The interesting thing is, Tesla is perhaps the most obvious and extreme example, but they’re not the only auto manufacturer this is happening to right now. Nissan is in a bit of a tail spin as well.

    There are so many problems slamming in to the auto industry right now. Even beyond the tariff instability.

    In the US in particular, As cars have gotten more reliable and longer lasting, the market for new “budget” cars has dried up. Car buyers who might have once bought budget are now buying used cars that probably have a good many years left. The sales of new cars have been declining since 2016 but new car price have been skyrocketing, keeping up revenue growth for automakers.

    This seemed ideal for automakers as it meant they could drop the lean margins of cheap cars and focus on higher margin markets, which looked much better to shareholders. Those companies that focused on this budget market have suffered, the best example being Nissan. The ideal for automakers is that people will buy “up” the value chain over time, buying higher end or “less used” vehicles when they trade in their old vehicle, going from a twice used, to a once used and eventually to a new car.

    This kind of came to a head during the pandemic. Not only was the supply of lower end used vehicles dwindling as less and less entered the market due to less being made a few years back, there was also a shortage of new cars due to supply chain break downs and an increase in demand. Many people were taking out insane financing on massively over priced cars, both new and used. Now a lot of people are underwater on those auto loans from the pandemic because the trade-in/sales price is less way than what they have left on the loan. Many are also defaulting on those insane pandemic auto loans and their repossessed cars are ending up back on the market, increasing supply in the used market.

    Many who are underwater on their auto loans but can still make payments can’t afford to make even larger payments, so rolling over the principle from the last loan into a new loan on another car is impractical. So they aren’t buying, let alone moving up the market to buy new or higher end. The demand being suppressed in the used market and the supply being bolstered by repos means used prices are massively depressed. This depressed used market carries over to the new market in turn, as most people buying new probably couldn’t afford to do so without trading in their old car, so a depressed used market hurts their purchasing power. Why would someone buy a new car when the only new one the could afford is probably worse than the existing car.

    Tesla is getting a lot of focus because of the political entanglement of their high profile CEO, but the whole industry is under strain. Nissan is frantically looking for buyers to help them out of the debt hole they’re in, and groups like Stellantis (owners of Chrysler, Fiat, Jeep, Ram and Dodge) are desperately chasing new revenue streams as absurd as ads in the central console.

    ...nah man, that's on the domestic dealers + automakers choosing not to market small affordable cars in favor of big profitable road-tanks, and it's not the first time they've priced themselves out of the market like this...

  • Not a single tesla vehicle has ever been profitable as an actual vehicle.

    This honestly couldn't be further from the truth.

    Tesla's vehicles once ramped have always been extremely profitable (except probably the CyberTruck as it hasn't properly ramped due to low demand)

    Any losses you see are due to their aggressive growth involving capital expenditures and research and development. It's not that the vehicle isn't profitable.

    The ZEV credits are just bonus money that they can then leverage to expand faster.

    Edit: If you want to try and see this another way that might make sense... The Model S and X were very profitable, but they didn't make enough money to fund the expansion for the Model 3 and Y. Ditch the Model 3 and Y, and remain a boutique luxury car company, and they would posted profits instead of losses. It wasn't the cars losing money, it was the growth. The ZEV credits accelerated that growth immensely by giving them more breathing room.

    You have just argued against the article itself. Should we believe you?

  • I tried fsd demo this spring and it’s getting pretty good. I wouldn’t use it but it was perfect on well marked roads. The thing is it made me realize just how poorly maintained our roads are and everything is an edge case. For example it didn’t stay in lane at one Intersection but the intersection was a weird offset plus the lines were all faded away. Although I also disnt give it any chance to recover so I suppose it could have been ok: Im not risking it not recovering

    It might surprise everyone but mostly by staying in a well maintained well mapped area, like Waymo did. There’s no way it fulfills the claim of self-driving everywhere without more improvements

    The robots is will have the next generation computer and higher resolution cameras which may help. However that also allows more overhead for the next ai update

    I get what you mean but it's still stuck at level 2 and it always will be. No matter how good it is, if you move your eyes from the road, it will eventually kill you. Cameras alone are not sufficient enough for autonomous driving.

  • You have just argued against the article itself. Should we believe you?

    The article doesn't say they've never made a profit on any of their cars. If that's what you got from that, you should try reading it again.

    Also, if you make 1 billion in profit on something, and then spend 2 billion researching and developing and setting up a factory to build a new product, you end up with a loss of 1 billion. That does not mean your first thing is unprofitable. This is pretty basic stuff.

    The vehicles are profitable, they just didn't provide enough profit this quarter to cover their R&D and capital expenditures for growth.

    Edit: Sorry, and in case it wasn't clear, their R&D and capital expenditures dwarf the ZEV credits every quarter.

  • I get what you mean but it's still stuck at level 2 and it always will be. No matter how good it is, if you move your eyes from the road, it will eventually kill you. Cameras alone are not sufficient enough for autonomous driving.

    Cameras alone are not sufficient enough for autonomous driving.

    I disagree with this assertion, because they’re correct that the only being that can currently drive is relying on vision. Vision alone is sufficient for driving.

    But autonomous driving really hasn’t succeeded yet. We still have no idea what is required for autonomous driving or whether we can do it at all, regardless of sensors.

    So you’re implying that we can definitely do autonomous driving but can’t do it the way humans do, whereas I say we won’t know the requirements until we find some that succeed, and we may never

  • Cameras alone are not sufficient enough for autonomous driving.

    I disagree with this assertion, because they’re correct that the only being that can currently drive is relying on vision. Vision alone is sufficient for driving.

    But autonomous driving really hasn’t succeeded yet. We still have no idea what is required for autonomous driving or whether we can do it at all, regardless of sensors.

    So you’re implying that we can definitely do autonomous driving but can’t do it the way humans do, whereas I say we won’t know the requirements until we find some that succeed, and we may never

    Yeah sure. If you want the same bad results as humans deliver, in terms of crash rates, than it's possible. I wouldn't trust it. Also human vision and processing is completely different from computer vision and processing.

  • Yeah sure. If you want the same bad results as humans deliver, in terms of crash rates, than it's possible. I wouldn't trust it. Also human vision and processing is completely different from computer vision and processing.

    Presumably we have the intelligence to set requirements before something can be called self-driving - that’s usually what the fuss is about, whether the marketing is claiming it’s something it’s not.

    If they fail with their approach, I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine if Waymo fails with their approach. Of either succeeds, why should I care how? Obviously there’s a problem if it runs over some old lady at a stop sign and drags them down the street but that’s clearly a failure for them

  • Presumably we have the intelligence to set requirements before something can be called self-driving - that’s usually what the fuss is about, whether the marketing is claiming it’s something it’s not.

    If they fail with their approach, I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine if Waymo fails with their approach. Of either succeeds, why should I care how? Obviously there’s a problem if it runs over some old lady at a stop sign and drags them down the street but that’s clearly a failure for them

    Presumably we have the intelligence to set requirements before something can be called self-driving

    We already have that https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update

  • Meta Reportedly Eyeing 'Super Sensing' Tech for Smart Glasses

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    33 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    M
    I see your point but also I just genuinely don't have a mind for that shit. Even my own close friends and family, it never pops into my head to ask about that vacation they just got back from or what their kids are up to. I rely on social cues from others, mainly my wife, to sort of kick start my brain. I just started a new job. I can't remember who said they were into fishing and who didn't, and now it's anxiety inducing to try to figure out who is who. Or they ask me a friendly question and I get caught up answering and when I'm done I forget to ask it back to them (because frequently asking someone about their weekend or kids or whatever is their way of getting to share their own life with you, but my brain doesn't think that way). I get what you're saying. It could absolutely be used for performative interactions but for some of us people drift away because we aren't good at being curious about them or remembering details like that. And also, I have to sit through awkward lunches at work where no one really knows what to talk about or ask about because outside of work we are completely alien to one another. And it's fine. It wouldn't be worth the damage it does. I have left behind all personally identifiable social media for the same reason. But I do hate how social anxiety and ADHD makes friendship so fleeting.
  • Indian Government orders censoring of accounts on X

    Technology technology
    12
    148 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    M
    Why? Because you can’t sell them?
  • 588 Stimmen
    77 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    F
    When a Lemmy instance owner gets a legal request from a foreign countries government to take down content, after they’re done shitting themselves they’ll take the content down or they’ll have to implement a country wide block on that country, along with not allowing any citizens of that country to use their instance no matter where they are located. Block me, I don’t care. You’re just proving that you can’t handle the truth and being challenged with it.
  • Are We All Becoming More Hostile Online?

    Technology technology
    31
    1
    212 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    A
    Back in the day I just assumed everyone was lying. Or trying to get people worked up, and we called them trolls. Learning how to ignore the trolls, and not having trust for strangers on the internet, coupled with the ability to basically not care what random people said is a lost art. Somehow people forgot to give other the people this memo, including the "you don't fucking join social networks as your self". Anonymity makes this all work. Eternal September newbies just didn't get it.
  • Apple Eyes Move to AI Search, Ending Era Defined by Google

    Technology technology
    2
    10 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    ohshit604@sh.itjust.worksO
    It’s infuriating that Safari/Apple only allows me to choose from five different search engines. I self-host my own SearXNG instance and have to use a third-party extension to redirect my queries.
  • 12 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    The new Pebble watches look interesting. Relatively basic, but long battery life (they promise) and open-source operating system.
  • 48 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    F
    Being “locked down” is irrelevant for a device used to read and write on. All those devices are also significantly more powerful than this thing. They all also have keyboard attachments readily available across all sizes and prices. Linux isn’t at all necessary for the use cases the author talks about. Windows would be massively overkill.
  • Microsoft's AI Secretly Copying All Your Private Messages

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    Forgive me for not explaining better. Here are the terms potentially needing explanation. Provisioning in this case is initial system setup, the kind of stuff you would do manually after a fresh install, but usually implies a regimented and repeatable process. Virtual Machine (VM) snapshots are like a save state in a game, and are often used to reset a virtual machine to a particular known-working condition. Preboot Execution Environment (PXE, aka ‘network boot’) is a network adapter feature that lets you boot a physical machine from a hosted network image rather than the usual installation on locally attached storage. It’s probably tucked away in your BIOS settings, but many computers have the feature since it’s a common requirement in commercial deployments. As with the VM snapshot described above, a PXE image is typically a known-working state that resets on each boot. Non-virtualized means not using hardware virtualization, and I meant specifically not running inside a virtual machine. Local-only means without a network or just not booting from a network-hosted image. Telemetry refers to data collecting functionality. Most software has it. Windows has a lot. Telemetry isn’t necessarily bad since it can, for example, help reveal and resolve bugs and usability problems, but it is easily (and has often been) abused by data-hungry corporations like MS, so disabling it is an advisable precaution. MS = Microsoft OSS = Open Source Software Group policies are administrative settings in Windows that control standards (for stuff like security, power management, licensing, file system and settings access, etc.) for user groups on a machine or network. Most users stick with the defaults but you can edit these yourself for a greater degree of control. Docker lets you run software inside “containers” to isolate them from the rest of the environment, exposing and/or virtualizing just the resources they need to run, and Compose is a related tool for defining one or more of these containers, how they interact, etc. To my knowledge there is no one-to-one equivalent for Windows. Obviously, many of these concepts relate to IT work, as are the use-cases I had in mind, but the software is simple enough for the average user if you just pick one of the premade playbooks. (The Atlas playbook is popular among gamers, for example.) Edit: added explanations for docker and telemetry