General Elon Musk Fukkery Thread
- Thread starter Armchair Militant
- Start date
They gonna tap Elon’s pockets properly
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ULGSKPEAGJNLTHCXLNLBUHJ554.jpg)
Norway wealth fund pushes Tesla for union recognition, will keep its stake
U.S. automaker Tesla Inc should respect fundamental labour rights including collective bargaining, Norway's $1.5 trillion sovereign wealth fund said, while adding it would keep its stake in the company and seek to influence policy over time.
www.reuters.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/TCLIQ6PQU5PQPFIE5GTOHNAIUE.jpg)
Norway union joins Tesla blockade in support for Swedish workers
Norway's largest private sector labour union said on Wednesday it would later this month start blocking transit shipments of Tesla cars meant for the Swedish market, as part of a growing Nordic movement to support striking mechanics in Sweden.
www.reuters.com
The axe murderer
For I am death and I ride on a pale horse
woke mind virus side effects must include empathy I guess because wtf this guy thinking
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Tucker Carlson Launches Subscription Streamer, Because X Reportedly Couldn’t Do the Job
Elon Musk’s X lost the former cable news king of primetime because the "everything app" couldn’t develop streaming technology fast enough.
gizmodo.com
OnFleekTing
Superstar
X is spinning the drain and Tucker knows itTucker Carlson Launches Subscription Streamer, Because X Reportedly Couldn’t Do the Job
Elon Musk’s X lost the former cable news king of primetime because the "everything app" couldn’t develop streaming technology fast enough.
Him launching his own platform is a double edged sword though
He lacks the reach that Fox gives him and he is hardly on DW level in terms of subscribers
If anything he is just trying to stay relevant
Fox News hosts have faded into irrelevancy after they lost the Fox News platform. Their audience leaves Fox News playing all day and they confuse it for a real following.
Cali Autopilot case violates free speech rights, says Tesla
Elon's biz claims 1st Amendment rights
www.theregister.com
Tesla says California's Autopilot action violates its free speech rights
30Elon's biz claims 1st Amendment rights
Mon 11 Dec 2023 // 20:36 UTC
It may have taken more than a year, but Tesla has finally responded to the California Department of Motor Vehicles allegations that it misrepresented Autopilot's capabilities, arguing that it's free to do so under the US Constitution.
In a document [PDF] filed with California's Office of Administrative Hearings last week lawyers representing Elon Musk's electric car company didn't directly challenge the DMV's specific allegations that Tesla may have overblown Autopilot's autonomy, marketing it less as an advanced driver assist system (ADAS) and more of a full self-driving platform.
Instead, they said that the DMV's case, filed in July 2022, ought to be tossed because it's "facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution.
"These statutes and regulations, as applied to Tesla in this proceeding, are unconstitutional … as they impermissibly restrict Tesla's truthful and non-misleading speech about its vehicles and their features," Tesla lawyers argued.
It's not clear whether the "truthful and non-misleading speech" refers to Autopilot's capabilities, which the biz doesn't otherwise defend in its rebuttal. We've reached out to Tesla and its lawyers in this case.
Various US regulatory bodies have launched investigations into the hype surrounding Autopilot's capabilities, including the US Department of Justice. The DoJ subpoenaed Tesla in the case in October, requesting additional information about Autopilot's capabilities.
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also looking into whether Tesla's marketing of Autopilot has led to drivers placing too much faith in the system's capabilities, exacerbating safety risks.
All the ways Tesla says the DMV case fails
In addition to its first amendment argument, Tesla also said that the California DMV is violating its rights to have a jury trial, under the US Constitution's 7th Amendment and Article I, Section 16 of California's Constitution, both of which cover rights to trial by a jury. The DMV's actions violate that right because the case is before an administrative law judge and not a panel of citizens, the lawyers argue.- Tesla, Musk likely aware of Autopilot deficiencies behind Florida fatality, says judge
- Tesla swerves liability in Autopilot death lawsuit
- Tesla to license Full Self-Driving stack to other automakers, says Musk
- Tesla's Autopilot boasts, safety probed by California AG
Tesla also claims that the DMV has no right to prosecute it for false advertising of Autopilot's capabilities because it knew perfectly well how the company had been describing it, but didn't take action before.
"Claimant has been aware that Tesla has been using the brand names Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability since Tesla started using those names in 2014 and 2016 respectively," Tesla said.
"Before Claimant filed the original Accusation in July 2022, Claimant had never told Tesla to stop using these brand names or otherwise indicated to Tesla that these brand names or its advertising were in any way problematic."
Tesla also argued that the DMV has investigated its ADAS advertising twice before, in 2014 and 2017, and decided at the time to take no action. We asked the DMV why it waited after its investigations to file a claim against Tesla, but haven't heard back.
Additionally, Tesla said that California opted to remove the terms "self-driving," "automated," and "auto-pilot," from the state's Statement About Autonomous Technology regulation, meaning there's no prohibition against using such language in an advertisement.
The Statement does mention, however, that the use of terms that "will likely induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous … constitute an advertisement that the vehicle is autonomous for the purposes of this section," making it unclear whether Tesla's argument here would hold much water.
Tesla is seeking a hearing to have the case tossed with prejudice.
Cali Autopilot case violates free speech rights, says Tesla
Elon's biz claims 1st Amendment rights
Tesla says California's Autopilot action violates its free speech rights
30
Elon's biz claims 1st Amendment rights
Mon 11 Dec 2023 // 20:36 UTC
It may have taken more than a year, but Tesla has finally responded to the California Department of Motor Vehicles allegations that it misrepresented Autopilot's capabilities, arguing that it's free to do so under the US Constitution.
In a document [PDF] filed with California's Office of Administrative Hearings last week lawyers representing Elon Musk's electric car company didn't directly challenge the DMV's specific allegations that Tesla may have overblown Autopilot's autonomy, marketing it less as an advanced driver assist system (ADAS) and more of a full self-driving platform.
Instead, they said that the DMV's case, filed in July 2022, ought to be tossed because it's "facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution.
"These statutes and regulations, as applied to Tesla in this proceeding, are unconstitutional … as they impermissibly restrict Tesla's truthful and non-misleading speech about its vehicles and their features," Tesla lawyers argued.
It's not clear whether the "truthful and non-misleading speech" refers to Autopilot's capabilities, which the biz doesn't otherwise defend in its rebuttal. We've reached out to Tesla and its lawyers in this case.
Various US regulatory bodies have launched investigations into the hype surrounding Autopilot's capabilities, including the US Department of Justice. The DoJ subpoenaed Tesla in the case in October, requesting additional information about Autopilot's capabilities.
The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is also looking into whether Tesla's marketing of Autopilot has led to drivers placing too much faith in the system's capabilities, exacerbating safety risks.
All the ways Tesla says the DMV case fails
In addition to its first amendment argument, Tesla also said that the California DMV is violating its rights to have a jury trial, under the US Constitution's 7th Amendment and Article I, Section 16 of California's Constitution, both of which cover rights to trial by a jury. The DMV's actions violate that right because the case is before an administrative law judge and not a panel of citizens, the lawyers argue.
- Tesla, Musk likely aware of Autopilot deficiencies behind Florida fatality, says judge
- Tesla swerves liability in Autopilot death lawsuit
- Tesla to license Full Self-Driving stack to other automakers, says Musk
- Tesla's Autopilot boasts, safety probed by California AG
Tesla also claims that the DMV has no right to prosecute it for false advertising of Autopilot's capabilities because it knew perfectly well how the company had been describing it, but didn't take action before.
"Claimant has been aware that Tesla has been using the brand names Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability since Tesla started using those names in 2014 and 2016 respectively," Tesla said.
"Before Claimant filed the original Accusation in July 2022, Claimant had never told Tesla to stop using these brand names or otherwise indicated to Tesla that these brand names or its advertising were in any way problematic."
Tesla also argued that the DMV has investigated its ADAS advertising twice before, in 2014 and 2017, and decided at the time to take no action. We asked the DMV why it waited after its investigations to file a claim against Tesla, but haven't heard back.
Additionally, Tesla said that California opted to remove the terms "self-driving," "automated," and "auto-pilot," from the state's Statement About Autonomous Technology regulation, meaning there's no prohibition against using such language in an advertisement.
The Statement does mention, however, that the use of terms that "will likely induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous … constitute an advertisement that the vehicle is autonomous for the purposes of this section," making it unclear whether Tesla's argument here would hold much water.
Tesla is seeking a hearing to have the case tossed with prejudice.
People are finally wising up to this fraud.
Voice of Reason
Veteran
Why don't we have any black media covering this dudes racism?
Redwood
Superstar
Voice of Reason
Veteran
I'm shocked Tariq didn't speak about this in all honesty
Probably is afraid of getting banned.
Tariq is a grifter about his paper above all else.
Redwood
Superstar
He spoke about Elon before I believe.
KalKal
Superstar
I'm becoming more and more anti-Elon, but to play devil's advocate maybe Elon is just giving Alex Jones "enough rope to hang himself" ? ...
OH....uhhh.....nevermind. Guess I almost gave Elon too much credit.
He's appearing WITH Alex Jones?
