Enlarge / Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., arrives at court during the SolarCity trial in Wilmington, Delaware, on Tuesday, July 13, 2021. Musk was cool but combative as he testified in a Delaware courtroom that Tesla's more than $2 billion acquisition of SolarCity in 2016 wasn't a bailout of the struggling solar provider. Musk was triumphant in that case, but he's got plenty more legal trouble to wriggle out from.Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images 411 with 0 posters participating
If there was any doubt that Tesla CEO Elon Musk knew the company's much-watched 2016 self-driving demo was staged, emails obtained by Bloomberg should lay that to rest. "Just want to be absolutely clear that everyone’s top priority is achieving an amazing Autopilot demo drive," Musk wrote in an email. "Since this is a demo, it is fine to hardcode some of it, since we will backfill with production code later in an OTA update."
Musk saw little wrong with this strategy, saying, "I will be telling the world that this is what the car *will* be able to do, not that it can do this upon receipt," he wrote. But instead of making this clear, the video, released to the world via Musk's Twitter account, opens instead with white text on a black background telling the viewer that "the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."
Musk took to Twitter on the day of the video's release to tell his followers that the car could read parking signs, and it knew not to park in a disabled spot. He also claimed that someone could use the "Summon" function on a car parked on the other side of the country.
But Summon was only released to Tesla drivers three years later. And the result was rather underwhelming, as the system struggled with navigating low-speed parking lots in a way that makes the suggestion that the system could drive 3,000 miles on public roads unaided rather ludicrous.
As we now know from Tesla's head of Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, the parking demo actually saw the Model X SUV crash into a fence. A 2021 New York Times article—now mostly confirmed by Elluswamy's testimony in a lawsuit into the death of Walter Huang—also alleged that the car drove over a curb and through some bushes before finding the fence.
This is not the first time Tesla has shown difficulty in working with facts. In 2019, we discovered that the company's repeated claims that Autopilot reduced crashes by 40 percent were bogus, and in fact, the system may have increased crashes by 59 percent.
That same year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to tell Tesla it was misleading customers by claiming that NHTSA had labeled the Tesla Model 3 the safest car it had ever tested.
Once more, with feeling
According to Bloomberg, the video that Tesla released on October 20, 2016, was the subject of a lot of revision. Musk's chaotic management style—laid bare to the world following his recent purchase of Twitter—was on display back then.
On October 11, 2016, Musk told staff that everyone would be required to write a daily log detailing their contributions to the demo; at Twitter, Musk demanded that staff print out their most recent lines of code for review, an order that was quietly rescinded sometime later (presumably once reality set in). Days after Musk issued his daily log demand, a fourth draft was shared with Musk. This time, the CEO thought there were too many cuts and that the demo should appear "like one continuous take."
Criminal charges are a possibility, too. Intentionally deceiving one's investors or customers remains a crime in the United States, and federal prosecutors have been looking into whether Tesla's and Musk's claims about its driver assistance systems meet that bar. Elluswamy's testimony surely isn't helping Tesla's case.
yes, indeed 70 and 80 are both > 6. Thanks for backstopping me on that.
Also, there is some speculation, perhaps justified, that Twitter will go bankrupt. Which could result in job cuts closer to 100%.
To my knowledge there is no such bankruptcy speculation about Google.
Clarify this for me.
Are you saying Musk bought Twitter when there was speculation it would go bankrupt?
That would be pretty stupid, yes?
Or is there speculation now as a result of Musk's purchase?
Now that would be pretty inept of him, yes?
So what is it, stupid or inept?
I don't think even Elon's biggest fanboys can defend the Twitter deal, to date. It was a combination of hubris, impulsiveness and just bad luck with the timing of the offer, but any way you look at it he could have bought Twitter for half the price he paid, or less, had he just waited a couple months.
Longer-term, the jury's still out. With private equity deals the strategy is typically cut first, then build back differently with the aim of being better and more profitable. And then probably take the company public again. That's a long road for sure, but I wouldn't count Musk out.
I forget, do you still maintain that Twitter is "of course" not a private equity deal and thus "not remotely comparable" to other private equity deals? Maybe I missed it but it seems you quietly dropped that argument without acknowledging you were mistaken.
I'm not sure why it's even meaningful to argue over whether Musk's acquisition of Twitter was or wasn't a private equity deal. It got and continues to get 10X (or maybe 100X) the coverage of other deals for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is that it's one of the world's largest social media platforms. And Musk is one of the most visible and outspoken of the modern-day tycoons. Not to mention that the layoffs have been of a magnitude that doesn't compare to anything else the business world has seen since the great recession.
So of course it's of more news interest than the acquisition of a ketchup company.
Plouffe was not saying what you and Carville are saying. Here's what he actually said (while making an error in speaking extemporaneoulsy about what CRT stands for):
Culture race theory was a lie. We need to go on the offense a little bit. Terry McAuliffe tried to do this. Say it is a lie. You know it is a lie.
I agree that it's almost always a good idea to proactively try to head off lies you expect your opponents to make. So no disagreement from me with what Plouffe said.
Here's what Carville said:
You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like “Latinx” that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “community of color.” I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not.
and this:
We have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I’m saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that’s unrecognizable to most people — including most Black people, by the way — because it signals that you’re trying to talk around them. This “too cool for school” **** doesn’t work, and we have to stop it.
so Carville conflates academic discussions with what Democratic politicians are saying, and then blames the victims for Republicans lying about them. Just like you're doing.
It speaks volumes about your arguments when you keep paraphrasing what your sources said or wrote instead of actually quoting their words. Some of us are on to you, and we go to the sources themselves to see how you're misrepresenting them.
It speaks volumes about your arguments when you keep paraphrasing what your sources said or wrote instead of actually quoting their words. Some of us are on to you, and we go to the sources themselves to see how you're misrepresenting them.
What if the musketeer promised trumpenstein that he would buy over Twitter to give him back his membership, knowing that trumpenstein was running in ‘24? After all… trumpenstein said the musketeer was ready to get on his knees in the Oval Office….
I don't think even Elon's biggest fanboys can defend the Twitter deal, to date. It was a combination of hubris, impulsiveness and just bad luck with the timing of the offer, but any way you look at it he could have bought Twitter for half the price he paid, or less, had he just waited a couple months.
Longer-term, the jury's still out. With private equity deals the strategy is typically cut first, then build back differently with the aim of being better and more profitable. And then probably take the company public again. That's a long road for sure, but I wouldn't count Musk out.
I forget, do you still maintain that Twitter is "of course" not a private equity deal and thus "not remotely comparable" to other private equity deals? Maybe I missed it but it seems you quietly dropped that argument without acknowledging you were mistaken.
Going back to your original FT link, which started this tangent, it's quite obvious that the buyouts covered in the article had nothing to do with Musk's purchase.
Liberals can't prevent right-wingers from lying about racism, but they don't have to hand them rhetorical dynamite to make it easier. That's what Carville was talking about.
Carville is an idiot who's about 30 years past his expiration date. The fact that you're relying on him as some sort of expert embarrasses you.
Liberals haven't handed these lies to the right. The right makes them up regardless of what liberals do or do not do.
It's astounding that Paul's arguments ignore what happened during the protests against the Vietnam War. The motives and goals of the antiwar movement were mischaracterized and distorted. Is he going to say that it was the fault of the leaders of the antiwar movement?
During the Vietnam War, there were people calling for the US to get out. There were others, who gave Johnson and Nixon exactly what they wanted, called for supporting the Vietcong. Those who want to promote the idea that teaching African American history is a program of CRT, or who would try to promote the idea that restoring the Voting Rights Act is a program of CRT, are equivalent to the latter.
I don't think even Elon's biggest fanboys can defend the Twitter deal, to date. It was a combination of hubris, impulsiveness and just bad luck with the timing of the offer, but any way you look at it he could have bought Twitter for half the price he paid, or less, had he just waited a couple months.
Longer-term, the jury's still out. With private equity deals the strategy is typically cut first, then build back differently with the aim of being better and more profitable. And then probably take the company public again. That's a long road for sure, but I wouldn't count Musk out.
I forget, do you still maintain that Twitter is "of course" not a private equity deal and thus "not remotely comparable" to other private equity deals? Maybe I missed it but it seems you quietly dropped that argument without acknowledging you were mistaken.
Going back to your original FT link, which started this tangent, it's quite obvious that the buyouts covered in the article had nothing to do with Musk's purchase.
I was not mistaken.
You get an 'A' for obfuscation, but a 'D' for denial.
You indicated Musk cares more about fun than business wrt Twitter. As long as he's having fun, he's succeeding (according to you).
Yet you frequently post about how awful Twitter's business is. These posts seem misguided, given the deal is more about fun.
Can you follow that logic? It's pretty straightforward to me.
In other words, Musk cares more about inflicting damage on the Twitter than on running it as a business, and it's inconsistent of me to point that out?
Before Paul takes umbrage at my comment above, that his arguments ignore what happened during the protests against the Vietnam War, it seems that Mr. Wedjet is lurking on this discussion this morning, and "Liked" it. Paul and I both know who Mr. Wedjet is, and I would like to thank him for blunting any fake umbrage that Paul might gear up for.
I know Wedjet too. Let's see if he agrees that people who said "support the NLF" were helping to end the war or helping Johnson and Nixon demagogue against the antiwar movement.
Plouffe was not saying what you and Carville are saying. Here's what he actually said (while making an error in speaking extemporaneoulsy about what CRT stands for):
Culture race theory was a lie. We need to go on the offense a little bit. Terry McAuliffe tried to do this. Say it is a lie. You know it is a lie.
I agree that it's almost always a good idea to proactively try to head off lies you expect your opponents to make. So no disagreement from me with what Plouffe said.
Here's what Carville said:
You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like “Latinx” that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “community of color.” I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not.
and this:
We have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I’m saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that’s unrecognizable to most people — including most Black people, by the way — because it signals that you’re trying to talk around them. This “too cool for school” **** doesn’t work, and we have to stop it.
so Carville conflates academic discussions with what Democratic politicians are saying, and then blames the victims for Republicans lying about them. Just like you're doing.
It speaks volumes about your arguments when you keep paraphrasing what your sources said or wrote instead of actually quoting their words. Some of us are on to you, and we go to the sources themselves to see how you're misrepresenting them.
We all paraphrase. You're doing it right here about me.
I either directly quoted or provided links to a quote (as in the Plouffe case) so anyone who wants to challenge me has the actual words available to them.
One obvious error in your attempt to differentiate Carville and Plouffe is your suggestion that only Carville "blames the victims for Republicans lying about them." Plouffe clearly blames the Democrats -- the victims in this case -- for not responding adequately to the CRT lies.
I know Wedjet too. Let's see if he agrees that people who said "support the NLF" were helping to end the war or helping Johnson and Nixon demagogue against the antiwar movement.
That's not terribly relevant, Paul, as what I wrote and what was "liked" was: "The motives and goals of the antiwar movement were mischaracterized and distorted. Is he going to say that it was the fault of the leaders of the antiwar movement?"
As an aside, your present-day analogy of "support the Viet Cong" would be to people who support abandoning Ukraine to Russian control.
"Musk is playing the role of the private equity firm in Twitter’s leveraged buyout."
Stated earlier: Musk’s publicly traded Tesla shares and bank loans. “Playing the role of” doesn’t make him one.
Well however you want to parse, Twitter is privately owned with private equity owners that include Elon Musk. You're cagey in what you state beyond snark, so I need to read between the lines, but you seem to think there's some official "private equity company" designation or something, and for a buyout to have been a private equity deal, the owners can be only licensed and registered private equity firms. But there's no such designation.
Plouffe was not saying what you and Carville are saying. Here's what he actually said (while making an error in speaking extemporaneoulsy about what CRT stands for):
Culture race theory was a lie. We need to go on the offense a little bit. Terry McAuliffe tried to do this. Say it is a lie. You know it is a lie.
I agree that it's almost always a good idea to proactively try to head off lies you expect your opponents to make. So no disagreement from me with what Plouffe said.
Here's what Carville said:
You ever get the sense that people in faculty lounges in fancy colleges use a different language than ordinary people? They come up with a word like “Latinx” that no one else uses. Or they use a phrase like “communities of color.” I don’t know anyone who speaks like that. I don’t know anyone who lives in a “community of color.” I know lots of white and Black and brown people and they all live in ... neighborhoods.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with these phrases. But this is not how people talk. This is not how voters talk. And doing it anyway is a signal that you’re talking one language and the people you want to vote for you are speaking another language. This stuff is harmless in one sense, but in another sense it’s not.
and this:
We have to talk about race. We should talk about racial injustice. What I’m saying is, we need to do it without using jargon-y language that’s unrecognizable to most people — including most Black people, by the way — because it signals that you’re trying to talk around them. This “too cool for school” **** doesn’t work, and we have to stop it.
so Carville conflates academic discussions with what Democratic politicians are saying, and then blames the victims for Republicans lying about them. Just like you're doing.
It speaks volumes about your arguments when you keep paraphrasing what your sources said or wrote instead of actually quoting their words. Some of us are on to you, and we go to the sources themselves to see how you're misrepresenting them.
We all paraphrase. You're doing it right here about me.
I either directly quoted or provided links to a quote (as in the Plouffe case) so anyone who wants to challenge me has the actual words available to them.
One obvious error in your attempt to differentiate Carville and Plouffe is your suggestion that only Carville "blames the victims for Republicans lying about them." Plouffe clearly blames the Democrats -- the victims in this case -- for not responding adequately to the CRT lies.
I didn't paraphrase you claiming that's what you said. It wasn't a paraphrase at all. It's obvious to anyone that it's my conclusion about what you've written.
And Plouffe is not blaming Democrats for Republicans lying about them. He's blaming Republicans. Here's a longer quote:
Are you scared for your kids to learn about slavery or lynching or housing discrimination? Are we raising our kids that to be that weak? I think sometimes we answer with facts that we don't believe people will believe. They are not going to campaign on the level. They are going to lie. They will say anything.
If this is a boxing match, they are bringing heavier gloves and knives in their boots. We have to understand that.
If it's Monday, it must be bash Musk day...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/musk-oversaw-staged-tesla-self-driving-video-emails-show/#p3
Musk oversaw staged Tesla self-driving video, emails show
Emails show Musk wanted an aspirational—not actual—demo of Full Self-Driving.
Jonathan M. Gitlin - 1/20/2023, 10:25 AM
If there was any doubt that Tesla CEO Elon Musk knew the company's much-watched 2016 self-driving demo was staged, emails obtained by Bloomberg should lay that to rest. "Just want to be absolutely clear that everyone’s top priority is achieving an amazing Autopilot demo drive," Musk wrote in an email. "Since this is a demo, it is fine to hardcode some of it, since we will backfill with production code later in an OTA update."
Musk saw little wrong with this strategy, saying, "I will be telling the world that this is what the car *will* be able to do, not that it can do this upon receipt," he wrote. But instead of making this clear, the video, released to the world via Musk's Twitter account, opens instead with white text on a black background telling the viewer that "the person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself."
Musk took to Twitter on the day of the video's release to tell his followers that the car could read parking signs, and it knew not to park in a disabled spot. He also claimed that someone could use the "Summon" function on a car parked on the other side of the country.
But Summon was only released to Tesla drivers three years later. And the result was rather underwhelming, as the system struggled with navigating low-speed parking lots in a way that makes the suggestion that the system could drive 3,000 miles on public roads unaided rather ludicrous.
As we now know from Tesla's head of Autopilot software, Ashok Elluswamy, the parking demo actually saw the Model X SUV crash into a fence. A 2021 New York Times article—now mostly confirmed by Elluswamy's testimony in a lawsuit into the death of Walter Huang—also alleged that the car drove over a curb and through some bushes before finding the fence.
This is not the first time Tesla has shown difficulty in working with facts. In 2019, we discovered that the company's repeated claims that Autopilot reduced crashes by 40 percent were bogus, and in fact, the system may have increased crashes by 59 percent.
That same year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to tell Tesla it was misleading customers by claiming that NHTSA had labeled the Tesla Model 3 the safest car it had ever tested.
Once more, with feeling
According to Bloomberg, the video that Tesla released on October 20, 2016, was the subject of a lot of revision. Musk's chaotic management style—laid bare to the world following his recent purchase of Twitter—was on display back then.
On October 11, 2016, Musk told staff that everyone would be required to write a daily log detailing their contributions to the demo; at Twitter, Musk demanded that staff print out their most recent lines of code for review, an order that was quietly rescinded sometime later (presumably once reality set in). Days after Musk issued his daily log demand, a fourth draft was shared with Musk. This time, the CEO thought there were too many cuts and that the demo should appear "like one continuous take."
In real-world conditions, the performance of Autopilot and the newer, even more controversial "Full-Self Driving" systems remain poor. NHTSA has multiple open investigations into whether Tesla's driver assistance systems are safe, including one following hundreds of reports of phantom braking behavior, another to determine if Tesla cars are able to detect the presence of motorcyclists after at least two riders have been killed after they were hit by Teslas, and a third into the propensity of Teslas to crash into emergency vehicles.
Criminal charges are a possibility, too. Intentionally deceiving one's investors or customers remains a crime in the United States, and federal prosecutors have been looking into whether Tesla's and Musk's claims about its driver assistance systems meet that bar. Elluswamy's testimony surely isn't helping Tesla's case.