Because the bet is that in 30 years, Tesla will still be here and the legacy companies will not, having failed to pivot to the emerging markets.

Yours is the same logic that has been deployed against tech industry P/E ratios for decades. No, it doesn't make "sense" per the balance sheet. But it's clear what the bet is.

Some legacy companies will certainly fail the pivot, but I think it's wrong by the stock market to be so certain that they will collectively fail.

Well, it doesn't bet that they'll "fail" exactly. It's simply betting that they aren't going to grow. The collective opinion of Wall Street is that the only value to owning Toyota or GM or Volkswagen stock is the immediate value: dividend payments, the value of liquidatable assets, etc...

But with Tesla, the bet is that in 30 years that company is going to own most of the market all these existing firms do. That may be wrong, but like I said it's clear that this is the bet.

I’m pretty sure that Twitter account is not run by Michael burry

There are articles from "real institutions" saying it is him, for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-07/michael-b.... It wouldn't surprise me that it is him, he seems like a contrarian in nature (if the movie did his personality any justice) and what he's been saying this year is pretty in line with that.

I follow the account and thought the same thing as you for a while. The name and picture are always changing, but then I saw several huge publications cite his account. It made me rethink that it was either a) him, b) he doesn’t care that someone is impersonating him and getting cited, or c) he has no idea about the account or any articles referring to it.