"5000 isn't enough, per the shareholder letter" -- what that meant was the shareholder letter said that the 5000 hours PREVIOUSLY mentioned by the company, wasn't enough. I knew the number 5000 was not in this letter, but had been communicated previously. I didn't use the word "said". Maybe I should have used the word 'implied'. "per the shareholder letter" isn't the same as "as said in the shareholder letter" - I meant it as "as implied in the shareholder letter". Are we Ok,now?
I didn't say that the shareholder letter repeated the 5000 number, but it really didn't have to did it? The conclusion is the same either way. And that's what I gave you - the conclusion.
I"m not trying to mislead anyone. I'm really trying to understand it. If there are 2, 3, or 100 different kinds of testing going on or left to be done, fine...All I'm pointing out is that the letter says there is a lot more left to do and that customers will see demos AFTER it is ready.
That means - does it not? - that customers aren't testing those and won't for probably months still. We don't even know for sure that they will agree to test them - 'engaged to conduct' obviously doesn't mean they are testing demos that aren't even ready...
You guys seem to want to pick apart everything I write instead of trying to understand the main point being made: For me it is all about the timeline to commercialization: If it is STILL COMING, great - no worries for long termers. But if it is 6 months down the road - those of us who are less convinced think it does matter..The farther we are from commercialization, the lower the probability that predictions for WHEN it will happen are accurate
And yes, proto was the one who said 5000 was a maximum, and LighteningRod seemed to also imply as have others that testing for things like poling are in the rear view mirror, and it's "GO TIME". It clearly isn't GO TIME yet.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
