Congrats! Would love to hear a review after a bit of driving.

Walmart suing tesla because their solar panels caused fires.

Another gem just now from the awesome fraud and conman:



Musk a month ago (buy my vaporware now! The price is going up!)



Keeping up the theme of "advanced summon" - now apparently smart summon! - prior promises:

January 2016 (3.5 years ago):


November 2018 (42 weeks ago):



Also Musk (at autonomous investor day, a week before asking for $2.7 billion): Fully Self Driving (to enable level 5 robotaxis) will be feature complete by the end of December.

I think "Fully Self Driving" is my favorite con of the modern era. You can just keep collecting that $5000 from geniuses who think they're about to have a fully self driving car, claim the next big leap is always just around the corner so they're FOMOed into buying. When that's no longer grand enough you go next level - claim it's going to become an autonomous robotaxi that appreciates starting next year. Claim it will 5x in value and make them $100K/year as an autonomous robotaxi. Claim it has all the hardware for FSD (even though it's not close). And so on ad infinitum. At a buy rate of 40%, 200K cars * $5000/car is a full billion dollar con.

Go to give credit where it's due, Musk is a very talented conman.

This sounds interesting. Walmart wants Tesla to remove panels from 250 Walmarts because of gross negligence. Can't be a coincidence this is happening right after musk spent 45 minutes slapping together a web page to make Tesla solar look legit in the face of that lawsuit.

I don't know how anyone trusts this guy about anything related to the business anymore

You can see it just kills him to not be able to ICO some bullsht. He even tweets out 'ETH!' followed by 'just kidding'. Poor guy is sitting in his office looking at Dan Larimer or filecoin and just imagining the billions he could pull in with no SEC, BOD, NHTSA, shareholder lawsuits, etc,

Yep, control the narrative above all else.

Same reason why he is tweeting stupid **** about Mars today.

After you get ahead of the story then you distract from it.

Very well written complaint though. Tells a great story.

The lawsuit is hilarious. Just WM dunking on Tesla, everything from shoddy work to the SolarCity purchase itself.

lol

Wow, thanks for posting El Sapo. It's quite funny/sad.

Cliffs:

- Tesla installed solar on 240 Walmarts around the country (as leased space Tesla controlled and maintained)
- Fires broke out on 8 of those (fully 3%!!) that were due to solar panel flaws and poor installation. After the 7th fire, Walmart requested disconnection of the others.
- Walmart hired their own consultants who found gross shocking negligence at a huge number of installations, in every level of the business, from design to manufacturing to installation to maintenance to documentation.

I highly recommend reading this lawsuit (the first 10 pages are plenty) if you're a Tesla investor; it shows what a crazy incompetent cuckshow SolarCity is/was. The guys who ran this awful business (Musk's cousins) were absorbed into the Tesla board. You can download here: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40...solarcity-cor/

You can't do the insanity and incompetence of SolarCity's any justice with snippets, but...

I wonder what the publicity of this lawsuit will do for Solarcity home installation owners; patterns of fires are much harder to detect with individuals, but this might spur some investigating and coming forward.

Solarcity is already drowing in toxic debt (which Musk has personally guaranteed during better times) and Musk is ****-scared of the Solarcity acquisition investor lawsuit. This Walmart lawsuit won't help things much.

You're conflating the effect of denuclearizing with the effect of adding solar and wind. Obviously transitioning away from nuclear post Fukushima was not going to be without consequences. But it's way too early to call it a failure. If they're 90% renewable in 2050 it will have been a resounding success.

The coal fired power plants don't exist because of solar. They exist because Germany decided to denuclearize by 2020. That is an aggressive timeline. If the existing solar/wind capacity in Germany were replaced with coal, their emissions would be worse.

Japan has similar issues, since the public has been strongly anti-nuclear since Fukushima, and the plants (the primary energy source) were shut down. So they're more reliant on fossil fuels now, emissions have spiked, and there has been a proposal for 40 new coal fired plants there too. There was a time when you couldn't breathe the air in Tokyo, but nuclear solved that. It's an open question how that will play out now.

Falsely attributing the consequences of denuclearizing to solar/wind is dishonest. Of course renewables are a net positive for emissions. Even your best friend Bjorn would agree on that.

FWIW, if emissions are the only issue you care about, nuclear is a great option, probably not cost competitive now though, and a lot of unliquidated risks. You might disagree with the decision to denuclearize but the concerns about nuclear are not unfounded. People in Germany were exposed to radiation from the Chernobyl incident, causing health problems and premature deaths.

I'm not super well-informed on the trade offs here but how is that conflating? Nuclear and renewables are basically the two main low-emissions alternatives to fossil fuel which almost everyone agree is unsustainable in the long run. This means the decision to denuclearize was the decision to bet on renewables - these aren't unrelated decisions, they chose one path at the expense of another. If that led to increased reliance on fossil fuels, that is a direct consequence of the decision to bet on renewables and you can't handwave that away as though these are unrelated.

Also this seems disproportionate considering that Chernobyl and Fukushima, the worst-ever incidents for nuclear power, were minor local incidents, while climate change as caused by carbon emissions is seen as an existential threat. Also the cost concerns seem overblown when Germany is actively shutting down working reactors, as opposed to simply declaring a moratorium on new reactors.

It seems weird to blame Merkel given that she was one of the last holdouts in favor of nuclear in Germany and the decision to phase out nuclear was made by a previous government. The implementation of this policy was delayed by Merkel's government. It's only after Fukushima made her previous position politically untenable that she went on the anti-nuclear bandwagon.

Ultimately the problem here seems to be that the main environmental benefits of nuclear (low emissions) are shared by all while the main environmental costs (occasional incidents) are borne locally. It's a NIMBY problem just on a larger scale.

So she did it knowing it was horrible policy? That's even worse! I'm glad she understood what El Sapo and despacito didn't however. I remember going to a talk in Aspen by one of Schwarnegger's advisors some time ago. They knew that the billions they were wasting on green energy were pure waste and horrible policy, but they did it for the votes because cucks are brainwashed by groupthink and "green" arts degree journalists. That's why citizens like El Sapo and despacito with strong opinions and zero clue are so destructive.

As for the last paragraph, I completely disagree. Coal is far worse on every level from local to global; nuclear is far safer than solar power. You have much lower chance of dying and better lung health living near a nuclear plant than a coal one. I'm sure you've seen this graph before. These statistics includes deaths from horribly designed Soviet era sites. If you include the worst (fanciful) numbers from Chernobyl of thousand deads it goes to 0.4.



Nuclear's smallest benefit is near zero emissions (even though that benefit is huge) The benefits of nuclear are:

- Lowest, near zero emissions as you say, much better than solar and way way way better than solar + batteries
- Safest power source of any - orders of magnitude safer than solar power
- Zero particulate emissions, which are the cause of many deaths
- Highly reliable baseload power that doesn't vary; provides energy security and stability
- Low land footprint and low visual pollution
- Doesn't require fragile supply chains and the security weakness that creates (Germany is very very stupidly at the mercy of Russia to import large amounts of natural gas via a pipeline for example; Merkel might be the greatest idiot that ever lived)
- Doesn't require electricity import from other countries when solar/wind fails.
- Keeps supplying power in long adverse weather events or global natural disasters

So why did Merkel do it assuming she knew better? Because of people like El Sapo and despacito - ignoramuses with strong opinions who think "renewable energy" can solve problems and provide reliable energy. Which is exactly my point.

This isn't how politics works - politicians are supposed to represent the people, you can't simply do what you think is right, nor is that a good thing in a representative democracy. Whether you know if something is a horrible policy is entirely relevant if it will be enacted with or without you. You seem to be living in a fantasy reality where Merkel can enact whatever policy she wants and is judged on the results of her actions. That's not how anything works in politics and frankly that's not how it works anywhere. She serves at the mercy of the German voters and her colleagues's perception thereof.

You say you disagree, but you haven't presented anything that disagrees with what I said. That the benefits are also local doesn't mean that the main benefits aren't shared. I don't think anything you mentioned is all that relevant if climate change is an existential threat. If the things you mentioned end up mattering at all, that's tantamount to saying the threat of climate change is a hoax. I suppose that is one possible argument, but I just want to make sure that's the only way I see to interpret your findings as being in conflict with what I said.

I disagree on how politics works. Non-loser leaders who care about their country do what is best, and that's sometimes very unpopular. That's what leading is sometimes; doing the unpopular that's right.

As for the rest, I refuted this:
The greatest benefits are found locally; it's far far safer and better for the health and mortality and local humans to be next to nuclear plant than a coal one or wind turbine. It's far better for the local environment too: smaller smaller land footprint, less traffic, no local mines, less pollution, no birds and bats minced by the thousands by turbines.

The threat of climate change is a hoax, in the sense that it's insanely sensationalized with no basis in fact or science. For a lot of reasons (assuming you accept all the IPCC projections):

- Even the worst projections will take 40+ years before there's any remotely meaningful impact on human life or the environment; technological advancement will likely mitigate all of this. The current hysteria over every hurricane for example is pure anti-science; there has been no increase in tropical cycle severity or intensity in decades; in fact the trend is down. Consider that pure fact next time the gaggle of media and "scientists" are hyperventilating over a hurricane and trying to link it to global warming; it's pure science denial and lies.

- Even with current technology we can likely take drastic steps (if needed) to remove carbon in the atmosphere via geoengineering (not just slow release)

- Right now, the warming and CO2 is immensely net positive for both the environment and humankind. The planet is greening faster than it has in 100 years and food crops are far more stable and reliable both from warmer temperatures and higher CO2, which is like a high quality plant fertilizer.

- There is absolutely nothing useful we can or should do in terms of mitigation of emissions that will make a meaningful impact; it is profoundly idiotic and harmful and ultimately impossible to meaningfully reduce emissions with current technology.

skipped most of the recent posts

stuart bowers out, 1/3 of autonomy day presenters

EDIT: i guess officially out, was sorta half out the other month when musk "shook up" the autopilot team

Solar and wind are environmental disasters in the making. Even assuming 30 year life spans were talking about millions (tens, even hundreds of millions of tons of some people have their way) of toxic metal heavy waste, much of it washed off by rain and leeched into the soil. Every year.

That’s wayyy more than what we’re producing in ewaste now. The whole support for solar comes down to: “carbon fuel bad. anything else is better.” It’s the same thought process that fueled the ethanol disaster still playing out today. Same thing with with the crusade on styrofoam cups and plastic straws. The replacements are typically no better and are often worse.

Paper’s reputation as environmentally friendly is utterly undeserved by the way. Paper is one of the most energy intensive products (by value and weight, not counting intangibles of course) to produce and ship. This is to say nothing of the fact the raw material is literally trees we rather keep alive. We’d do much better just burying plastic deep under ground and planting trees on top of that landfill.

looks like tesla switzerland was sued for failing to run the organisation according to law and was ordered by the commercial court of zurich to fix this until 16th sep or be liquidated.

With this insane turnover, how chaotic must the environment there be getting? That's just too much change too fast to allow good transition of knowledge and all that.

Something is going to fail catastrophically.

A vast majority of legitimate scientists agree climate change is a serious and imminent threat. It is already causing significant problems.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/



https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-o...-gas-emissions



https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/





Also, climate change is just one of many environmental problems caused by the use of fossil fuels.

You have repeatedly lied about the weight of scientific opinion and denied facts that are well established. You are absolutely ludicrous and the worst kind of troll.

There are many things we can do. Technology is our best hope. It's very common throughout human history for people to say [x] is impossible shortly before [x] is enabled by technical innovation. Behavioral changes can also have impact at scale (travel less, buy locally, eat less meat, waste less, consume less).

Can a mod remove the off topic climate change and political debates? Are there still mods here?

It's somewhat related to Tesla and how important Musk's actions are, but we need an off topic thread.
This is a false statement. The links and graphs you posted after is not evidence for this statement. There is nothing anywhere in the projections that make this an "imminent threat". Nothing notably bad is going to happen from global warning for several decades at least; hyperventilating notwithstanding.
Quote twos lie that I've made about "the weight of scientific opinion" and "facts that are well established" that I've denied? My position is both correct and reasonable.

You have a problem that many people are infected with: catastrophic thinking + we must do something!
Such as? We've spent trillions and hundreds of billions of man-hours and emotional and intellectual capital on this issue and emissions soar unabated. Renewables aren't viable at scale and human energy use will increase. The weight of evidence for this is entirely on my side.
Wait, so you agree with me? Current technology can't do jack **** but future technological advancement very likely will? Isn't that exactly what I said, and why it's imprudent to do anything now?
No they can't. You have no idea of the scale of the problem, or how intractable it is. Billions of people are coming out poverty across Asia and Africa and having their CO2 footprints go higher and higher from very low levels - eating meat, getting cars, beginning to purchase manufactured goods. While these people continue to lift out of poverty, nothing the West does is meaningful in any way. The things you list are putting a bandaid on gangrene and feeling good about yourself. It's pure nonsense.

The best way to fix the emissions problem is robust economic growth, which comes from cheap abundant energy and not traveling less or consuming less.

This is awesome - Tesla was dying premarket down 1% until a VW buyout rumor just came out. It's up nearly 3% now.

I'm not sure what VW would gain from buying tesla