It's even more insidious, because even if you like Tesla, your car may get scratched by people who don't like Tesla.
But yeah, perhaps telling allies in Europe to get fucked, and tell our friends that the US was embracing the idea to economically attack Canada and potentially militarily Denmark, supporting the idea that the US deserves to get a piece of Ukraine together with Russia, weren't probably the smartest moves among millions of other things.
I like Tesla as a product though (except the finish quality), but it's even less likely that FSD will come in Europe now...
And now, more oddly, it is a remotely controlled video and microphone, so even more creepy seeing the personalities of the people behind.
Eventually it must be possible, because humans don't come with LIDAR.
But "eventually" can be a long way off. Dunno how far we are from a pure-vision model that is simultaneously good enough for FSD and fits into the power envelope available to a car.
And even then, it feels like an unnecessary handicap to skimp on more sensor modalities.
Humans are bad at driving. I do not want an automated system to be a substitute, I want it to be vastly superior and safer. 40,000 people die each year in car accidents in the United States. I expect an autonomous system to be ZERO deaths a year. Getting there will absolutely require more robust systems than what humans come equipped with.
I think he cut the sensors because he's so used to Muntzing — save money by cutting stuff until something fails and then putting it back — being a winning strategy.
That Musk is surrounded by sycophants means that Muntzing is now not going to work in general, because so many people will tell him that everything's fine even when it isn't. Only SpaceX can get past that, because RUDs are impossible to miss.
I understand you don’t like Musk. But regardless of that -
vision vs sensors. Isn’t it about shaving costs to make a mass produced car that’s attainable by more people due to lower costs and easier manufacturing?
When considering engineering, manufacturing, and cost only - I understand why it is why it is right now. Even the current Tesla Vision FSD today is amazing. Agree that I’d love to see sensors in the future as long as it doesn’t price me out.
Musk is complicated. I recognise he has done interesting things, my personal feelings to not detract from that. Even my very claim that he is used to Muntzing being a winning strategy is because (as I understand it) it did genuinely help to make the early Tesla models into products that were simultaneously affordable and not loss-making.
As for price, LIDAR has been built into high-end smartphones since at least the iPhone 12 Pro — 4.5 years ago. When LIDAR was new it made sense to avoid it, but I don't think that argument has been viable for a while now.
There's also the loss of ultrasonic sensors, which are cheap enough to be in budget teach-kids-electronics kits.
This is a direct response to thousands of Americans being fired from their jobs by Elon's actions, with thousands more threatened and likely to lose their jobs in the future. I don't think "think of the jobs" is the right way to convince people this is a bad move.
Employees have had fair warning, and years of advanced notice. Not a one has illusions about his character. They either relish it, or are looking for new opportunities at this point.
It's very unlikely, but even the fact that they mention it as a possibility feels just crazy to me.
You don't have to worry if you live in Canada though, I think this is just politicians trolling.
I just find the rhetoric to be a bit obscene (82% of Canadians are against it according to a recent poll!), but this is a question of perspective. Also, some impact (like the additional taxes / tariffs during imports) are real, not just a joke.
So, with regard to Greenland, he specifically refused to rule out military action [0]. Which in diplomatic protocols comes very darn close to threatening a military attacks.
As far as Canada goes, Trump's national security advisors is on the record [4] saying he doesn't think there's any plans about this. Which is also an extremely uncertain way of talking about military action about your closest neighbor. Trump has repeatedly talked about making Canada the 51st state [1], and called Trudeau a "Governor" [2]. Here's a New York time article summing up the types of threats/attacks Trump made wrt. Canada[3].
> he specifically refused to rule out military action
Donald Trump has specifically ruled out a lot of things that he then promptly did. He's also followed through enough that his threats have to be taken seriously. As a result, you get a hodgepodge of half-assed threats, each of which can be plausibly denied until followed through on, at which point you're asked how you didn't see him doing the thing he said he would do.
While it's not exactly a military declaration, Trump said during the joint session to Congress, "One way or the other, we’re going to get it" in reference to Greenland.
I truly feel that his ideology mandates a separate term. Muskism? Elonism? The latter rolls of the tongue better, but I suppose future historians will lean towards the former.
No, but the GP is framing the arson and related terrorism that is scaring people from buying/driving Teslas as a "boycott" in the same way that disingenuous news media is, and justifying it by comparing it to the Bud Light boycott.
The drop in sales is from terrorism, not from a "boycott".
There is a widespread boycott and a bunch of peaceful protests. There are a few instances of arson and zero instances of terrorism.
I'm tired of right wing media sensationalizing the handful of radicals and ignoring the thousands and million of peaceful people. Just like during George Floyd protests.
it's tough to fight against fascism without the use of violence or a very heavy threat of violence. I think that most major changes in history show this to be true.
barely anyone would even mention a regular protest in front of dealerships.
> tough to fight against fascism without the use of violence or a very heavy threat of violence
Torching Teslas isn't a strategic use of violence, it's throwing a tantrum. If you're talking about revolutionary violence, you're unfortunately crossing into using violence as a political tool, i.e. killing supporters to intimidate or leadership to decapitate. Anyone who thinks we're there right now isn't versed in what happens to ordinary people during and after revolutions, even those that fail.
(That said, I do find the irony of the January 6th ally decrying political violence a bit ridiculous. If you bought a Cybertruck after 2021, you made your own bed.)
> Torching Teslas isn't a strategic use of violence, it's throwing a tantrum.
I don't know, seems about the same as throwing tea into a river. Doesn't help anyone, the tea was probably already sold so it doesn't even hurt the manufacturer. But it does send a message, doesn't it?
Interesting. My understanding of what DOGE is doing is getting American debt under control. Trying to save the country from going bankrupt from overspending on programs that do not improve the life of the average citizen. I'm failing to see how that is destroying the American government. Maybe it's just me.
If they want to get American debt under control why did they fire a bunch of people at the IRS such that it's predicted we will see half a trillion in fresh losses to tax cheats this season? https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/03/22/irs-tax-r...
Federal employees cost less than 5% of the fed budget which is $6000B. So if you lay off 10% of employees you are effectively reducing the budget by like $30B which leaves $5970B left.
Laying off employees will not help federal government debt or budget.
That’s completely untrue. The bureaucracy follows the rules Congress provides, and there are many checks on their power built into those processes both internal and via the courts.
The reason DOGE are asserting that they don’t need to follow the law is because the cuts they want to make are themselves in violation of the law, not because there’s no other way to do it.
Many such bureaus have been established over the years that have extralegal powers existing basically outside the Constitution. I’m thinking of the NLRB, CFPB, FBI, IRS, and several others.
We as a society have a consensus that we need such agencies to manage the hugely complex country that we have become, but that doesn’t necessarily mean these bureaucratic organizations are themselves properly managed.
Years ago, I read about a man who the IRS was trying to levy extensive fines on. After five years of court battles, he committed suicide.
Perhaps this was an extreme case, but there is nonetheless an important question that arises out of this tragedy: does the government exist to serve the people, or do the people exist to serve the government?
I believe our colonial era checks and balances no longer protect us from a bureaucracy that is automatically funded by the Treasury, that the President has limited control over, and that only an act of Congress can change.
In an era when no one political party has enough control to enact legislation (i.e. a filibuster proof majority), the bureaucracy is effectively out of control and the only real way it can be reformed is by uncovering waste and corruption.
You’re shifting the goalposts again. You not liking them doesn’t mean that they’re unconstitutional, it means you have a problem with how Congress has exercised its constitutional authority.
No it absolutely doesn't. The "permanent bureaucracy" as you call it (or people just doing their jobs as I call it) is the most compliant part of government to checks and balances.
I'm guessing what Trump is doing is not the most efficient way to do it, but isn't he trying to get rid of the "permanent bureaucracy" - the people responsible for creating policies and spend money, that are not elected and don't have a term limit?
That idea of an unelected policy maker is a work of political fiction. There are two types of federal employee: political appointees and senior executives, who do not have job security, and the merit-based civil servants who have job protection in the sense that they can only be fired for cause. All of them can act only within the bounds that Congress defines – that’s why there are lawsuits about things like whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant because the EPA can’t regulate outside of what the law authorizes.
The idea is a sound one. However many see the approach being taken as reckless, lacking in accountability, and based on specious claims (much of what we know of the progress is self-reported by Musk, some of which has been disproven by fact checkers). Moreover, arguments against his actions are often met with straw men arguments about spending reduction instead of addressing his actions specifically.
> what DOGE is doing is getting American debt under control
I'm suprised anyone buys this line. Trump's 2025 GOP budget would increase deficits by $6 trillion [1]. Its end game is to increase tax cuts for the rich.
The cuts DOGE has done are likely to be reversed in costly court battles that will make the single-digit billions [2] Musk may have saved less than the costs of the fights. All of that is before considering the second-order economic effects of e.g. shutting down large sections of our national parks ahead of the summer season [3].
The Executive does not control what money is spent. That is for Congress to decide, no? I think this is described in a document called the Constitution.
American Government ≠ America, and I think a lot of people mix the two.
Some people want what large, vastly-reaching governments provide. They just need to be aware that the people who run the government can change. The power you give to one "side" can be inherited by the other "side". People should always be wary of giving that power away, because you never know who will have it next.
It's about the separation of powers. Law-making, adjudication, and execution should be separate branches so that no one branch gets too much power, as that will lead to dictatorship. When Trump and Musk are ignoring judges' orders and going ahead with their sledgehammering, it sets a dangerous precedent for what the POTUS can get away with.
Ofc there's more to this story than just DOGE too.
And preferably not by a bunch of Silicon Valley chads who call themselves "Big Balls" and who might've been checked for security credentials before taking the job.
Making the arguing that these tools have flaws seem like a losing battle. Soon those flaws will be fixed[1] and youll have to find new flaws to complain about. Eventually hopefully you'll realize that you just don't like feeling displaced.
[1] it's unbelievable what a difference in quality 1 year made for chat gpt
Why are you so certain that flaws will be fixed? Seems like there is a giant leap between a machine spewing words based on probability and actual deep understanding of the code it's suppose to write
A "machine spewing words based on probability" is an implementation detail. I'm not making a grandiose prediction about the future. All I'm saying is that these machines are improving super fast.
I'm also stricken by the superficiality of analysis like "oh it's just probabilities" from so many devs; might as well say "it's magnets".
In my comment I was questioning the certainty that those fundamental flaws will be fixed. I'm one of those people who don't believe that iterating over LLM will make that giant leap.
You can call it an implementation detail but it's like both a wheel and a wing can take your over some distance but the difference between them is staggering. Wheel will never send you flying (normally)
Now consider that Zuckerberg is married to a Chinese woman. She was just a means to an end. Like Elizabeth Holmes having kids just before going to jail in order to try and get mercy from a jury.
> He replied with, roughly, "Those of you who work here probably couldn't do anything else other than perhaps math research. Arguably, working here is the economically efficient use of your time."
Complete garbage. The same way that Jane Street hires smart people that don't know anything about trading and those people contribute, the same would be true if there was money in curing cancer.
