>The woman [from fake tech support] said she would clear the hackers out, but he had to give her access to his phone through an app she had him download.
That doesn't answer the question. No app on any Android or iPhone phone can reach out and take your PayPal credentials. These scam victims never own up to the most important fact - that they themselves give away the keys to the castle. There's always some hand-wavy techy explanation.
I think pavel_lishin's comment is alluding to that what we are reading in mvdtnz's comment is victim blaming. It is a bit coded. Being overly concerned what a female victim of sexual assault was wearing is textbook case of victim blaming. I believe this is what the sentence "I bet they were wearing a real short skirt, too." is evoking to say that the sentence quoted from mvdtnz's comment is blaming the victim of the scam.
It could have been posted May 20, 2024 and I don't think it would have any real meaning. Musk has zero credibility with this sort of thing regardless of when it was posted.
Except for the part where their “safety reports” are aggressively and intentionally falsified to push product.
They intentionally deceive by comparing extremely non-comparable numbers while avoiding making any necessary and basic adjustments that harm their story. Of their many lies, they use pyrotechnic (airbag) deployments for their own numbers, but compare against all crashes. The NHTSA investigation [1] into Tesla ADAS crashes points out how publicly available data, that Tesla has easy access to and that any competent statistician can interpret, indicates pyrotechnic deployment occurs in only ~18% of crashes. Just that single factor alone shows Tesla has failed to disclose a literal 5x adjustment, let alone the other adjustments that have no doubt been concealed or ignored to avoid learning inconvenient and unmarketable truths.
Their intentional concealment of 5x errors shows their data analysis is entirely faulty and untrustworthy and has been for years.
You try telling Elon Musk not to post stuff. He ended up being forced to buy Twitter and pay an SEC fine because he tweets too much. He's going to post whatever he feels like, no matter what you, or anyone at Tesla, or the SEC says.
I wouldn't be surprised if Elon considers it just. Most people consider it just that a revolutionary technology owner is being held liable for their actions, even if they are nearly a decade afterwards.
Regulation for big corporations are more like suggestions these days, so this may even feel "fair enough" for Elon in retrospect.
Or the tweet was bullshit, and Tesla will do what every company does and determine whether it is better to settle or not based on the financial cost/benefit and not the truth or validity of the claim.
The user that created that video is known to have preference for Tesla (based on Twitter posts and their YouTube channel is all about Tesla), the video may be biased.
The Consumer Reports comparison at the beginning of the video is Mercedes "Driver Assistance" vs Tesla "Autopilot". These are technologies for lane assistance, speed limit assistance, etc. "Advanced cruise control" is a better term for these. This video does not compare these.
Mercedes self driving system is called "Drive Pilot". Tesla's is called "FSD" (Full Self Driving)
This video compares FSD to Drive Assist, these are two different types of technologies.
I definitely trust Consumer Reports more than whoever these randos are, particularly because it was pretty easy to see the pro-Tesla bias from the beginning even without being familiar with their other content. And I would think anyone would have alarm bells going off given the unbelievable 44 interventions to zero interventions result.
>The user that created that video is known to have preference for Tesla (based on Twitter posts and their YouTube is all about Tesla), the video may be biased.
You are really understating this. This account is one of the few accounts that Elon directly responds to on a regular basis on X.
To be fair, the opening sentence pretty much sets the stage that this is about ordering for delivery: “A law calling for a $20 minimum wage has led to brutal backlash as customers opt out of ordering delivery in Seattle, Washington.
”
The users were contacted by email, not by twitter message.
You may be right that some users saw a survey about twitter in their inbox and thought "I've already left, therefore I'm not the target audience for that survey".
This lacks scientific models or sources that quantify the magnitude of the reduction in ship tracks and the resulting impact on sea temperatures. They are not in the science.org article[1] he links either.
Usually posts with little evidence and the use of the phrase "may be causing" result in flagged posts, but not when it fits a certain narrative?
It still lacks scientific models, though it is too recent a phenomenon for us to have an accurate modelling. Even then, in the last three years we had La Nina which kept the temperatures cold, while this year it's el Nino which is increasing the effect.
Leon Simons presented his findings in front of aerosol society.
I also wanted to ask, what is the certain narrative it fits?
