Tesla trounces shareholders who alleged Autopilot was all share-pumping lies Tesla has managed to persuade a California judge to throw out a lawsuit that claimed the automaker misled shareholders about its Full Self-driving (FSD) system's true capabilities. Federal district Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín gave Tesla, its supremo Elon Musk, and two former Tesla CFOs a near clean sweep of a win, ruling [ …
Like when he called the rescue diver, who was out there saving lives, a paedo and somehow - unbelievably - got away with it.
I would have thought the pædoguy slander alone, without the later defamation proceedings, would have pretty much put Space Karen on the "not be missed" list of any rational person. Certainly did for me and I would not have touched anything even remotely connected in any way with that miserable worm.
His promised departure for Mars cannot come too soon but I supposed that will on be after he loses his cage fight with his Meta fellow traveller.
The one upside is that since Musk won the case on the judge's acceptance of his claim that "pedo guy" was (supposedly) just a slang term "synonymous with ‘creepy old man’", we can now use the term against Elon "Pedo Guy" Musk as much as we like.
After all, if Musk- a man well into middle age who never matured beyond adolescence because he never had to and recently threatened to impregnate Taylor Swift- isn't the epitome of the "creepy old man", AKA "pedo guy", then I don't know who is.
I wonder if the judge has in mind the "robo-taxi" event happening next week. Elon has been hyping it up for months, but it's virtually impossible that the unveiling will live up to the hype — if only because very few states even allow driverless vehicles.
Well by her logic, as long as the thing that was claimed still has enough time to come true, I think she will find it legal. As long as she also has the potential to find a suitcase full of cash on her next vacation in the Virgin Islands sometime around next April. The 4th cabana from the end. She probably wont like $5 bills by then, something about the way Lincoln's eyes are judging you for your sins.... But that's all just speculative puffery.
I see she only took her position in February 2023, without a single Republican Senator voting to confirm. Kamala Harris had to cast the tie-breaking vote.
Which suggests she's not considered a shoe-in for the Musk team. But perhaps her lack of judicial experience makes her a soft target for Musk-style 'convincing' anyway.
It's a curious ruling, especially in light of the State of California's current lawsuit against the company for misrepresenting the efficacy of its romantically-named "full self-driving", which in the fine print (probably in 2-point type) advises drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times regardless.
"I wonder if the judge has in mind the "robo-taxi" event happening next week. Elon has been hyping it up for months, but it's virtually impossible that the unveiling will live up to the hype "
The hype has been put out by fans. Elon hasn't had to do much of anything other than postpone the event with a tease that they needed to finish something worth seeing.
The "unveiling" is only expected to show an early prototype. The Roadster 2.0 and Semi were unveiled in 2018 with neither available to buy.
"Robo-Taxi"? I suspect that's going to have to include some sort of feature to stop people running away without paying. Something, say, that gives them twenty seconds to comply before they face the consequences.
Elon Musk carrying out a demonstration of *that* feature personally is one I'd very much like to see, especially if it includes an amusing glitch or two! In fact, you might say I'd buy *that* for a dollar!
So what's the issue? Payment taken by card, Uber style
Not; " people running away without paying"
I'm guessing that Rob Cop must have shot people after said time limit. Or something.
But that doesn't fit here. Because the initial premise (running away) doesn't hold.
Eh, just to be clear, it was only a joke, and while they're generally spoiled by being explained, you're one of today's lucky ten thousand, so I'd feel bad depriving you of the cultural relevance of Johnnycab or the "twenty seconds to comply" scene in Robocop! :-)
* Johnnycab from "Total Recall" (some violence and NSFW language), and more importantly...
* The infamous "ED-209" demonstration scene in Robocop, and you can cut to the main part if you like. (Warning, *very* violent and definitely NSFW!)
Obviously they'd have to go the "Johnnycab" route if they chose not to equip "Robo-Taxi" with guns. ;-)
Jeez, I remember years ago listening to him saying Tesla customers paying for autopilot was "a great investment" as it will cost them well more to turn it on once it's released, and they will be able to make money from the rideshare features when they are not using the car.
Was amazed he said that at the time, it was definitely "investment advice".
"This has been invented by a brilliant man - but 5 years down the line it's going to be bought by someone called Keith. And Keith is going to wake up one day and think he can service it himself - which means you won't be able to relax in your Autonomobile, because you'll be sitting there thinking 'I know that somebody called Keith, reading the Daily Star & watching East Enders is coming the other way.' And there's going to be a horrible accident."
Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear news segment.
This will happen - & I can almost guarantee it will happen in America.
The number of things I can find that I would describe, as even merely tolerable about my country just keep falling by the day. So as long as you are a company and engage in puffery, you can lie, apologies, make speculative comments, about anything as long as it takes place in the future. Sounds about right.
FSD will only activate on easy roads and will drop out suddenly in difficult situations leaving the driver to take the blame. The figures for human accidents per mile include all roads no matter how difficult. At some point even Tesla must have worked this out. Proving they knew to a court at a particular date is more tricky. Tesla are very good at big claims in headlines that are diluted in small print to the level of homeopathy. Musk's lawyers have convinced courts that: "Twitter is a home to invective and hyperbole. No reasonable person would consider a Musk tweet to be a source of factual information." This will give disgruntled investors an up-hill battle. Best of luck to them.
Musk is currently in a war of words against the FAA. I am sure he picked the FAA rather than the NTSB because SpaceX has a better record for reliability than Tesla. The goal is to destroy enough regulatory infrastructure that he can turn X into a bank. X gets the financial support from cryptocurrency scammers through direct investment and advertising (often through hijacked advertising accounts). If Musk's dream comes true there is an army of scammers waiting to take advantage.
"FSD will only activate on easy roads"
It's supposed to only work on motorways, but there doesn't seem to be very comprehensive fencing. There are plenty of videos from fans showing them activating the system on winding lanes and other places were there's second by second critical decisions that need to be made by a human with a life to preserve.
After all the articles by Jason Torchinsky on Jalopnik and the Autopian I've been referring to Tesla's ADAS products as Semi-Autopilot and Partial Self Driving ut lately I've redesignated their SAE Level II product "Full Self Crashing" due to its propensity for ramming emergency vehicles.
I read a little bit of the judge's decision and it seems like each point was decided individually rather than taken as a whole. It is the summation of all Elon has been saying in interviews about what the system can do and how he repeats the mantra that it's "ten times safer than a human driver" ever chance he gets. The judge had to work hard to find a way to decide for the defendant.
Well, putting aside the actual risks related to a FSD that does not do what it promises, I'd like to point out that investors should be smarter and less gullible.
Here the issue is that when they see an occasion for big profit they just go for it without stopping to think "is it too good to be true? is it too risky?" Then they sue when they lose money on it.
Come on, it's like idiots who sue because coffee is hot.
"I'd like to point out that investors should be smarter and less gullible."
There has to be truth in company disclosures so investors have the correct information to make decisions. I only hold investments in things I know something about (outside of the family trust). I was talking with a client that winds up estates for people and his next job has lots of jewelry and such. I know very little about that so I'm not much help. Another he did recently and didn't have me help him had a bunch of musical instrument stuff and sound gear which I do know a lot about. I did wind up with a pair of JBL speakers that an auction winner abandoned after paying $6 for them. The home had to be emptied right away so it could be cleaned and sold. I can move these after putting new carpet on for ~$250. I also picked up a memory card at the "picker" sale and maybe it cost me $1 that I just sold recently for $85. I knew what it was and a ballpark of what they can sell for. I'm sure there were many other things that went in the tip that would have been as good at resale, but I didn't know enough about them.
BTW, if you ever need a soldering gun, it seems like there's always one or two at estate sales going cheap. I got a box of them for $1 in total that I'm slowing going through to see if they work. They sell for ~$15 singly or ~$40 as part of a kit on eBay. The monster 200W soldering iron for $1 works and sells new for a couple of hundred as they aren't that common unless you work with stained glass.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
