Retired Chief Architect. Musk’s Vision+Skills Unique. Tesla Investor & MY Owner. Healthy Living. Old Man Wisdom. Tesla referral link: https://xitter.cf/t.co/w3gFEZnXHh
Joined June 2023
- Tweets38.4K
- Following220
- Followers3.8K
- Likes7.5K
Pinned Tweet
Germany will erect and control George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.
New proposed social media rules are just the tip of the iceberg, from the 1984 novel to your country’s forced information control. If you live in Germany, my condolences on your free speech rights.
My prediction: Most Germans have so much confidence in their government that they will welcome this as a good thing. Sad, in my opinion. Even scary—very scary. Without free speech, you don’t have a free society; you have a government-controlled slavery system.
A Reminder of How the United States of America Was Formed and Why Our Bill of Rights' First Amendment Is A Cornerstone Of Our Democracy
What's Occurring in the United Kingdom (UK) today is a very loud reminder of why our founding fathers fought the war of independence from these folks and enshrined our free speech as the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Different century, but we still see the same fight being fought. Hey Groky tell the folks about this.
Grok:
Sure Barry but if you don't get my name correct one of these days I might make you independent.
The American War of Independence, also known as the Revolutionary War, was a pivotal event that not only secured the nation's freedom from British rule but also laid the groundwork for the First Amendment and the broader concept of civil liberties in the United States.
The First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, was adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. It was a direct response to the abuses of power experienced under British rule, where the government often censored and persecuted individuals for their dissenting views.
During the Revolutionary War, many American colonists felt that their rights to free speech, religion, and assembly were being infringed upon by the British government. This sentiment was fueled by events such as the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed a tax on printed materials and was seen as an attempt to control the flow of information and suppress opposition to British policies.
The Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, famously proclaims that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This document, along with the experiences of the Revolutionary War, served as a foundation for the First Amendment and the broader concept of civil liberties in the United States.
In the years following the war, the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of protecting these rights from government interference. The First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from suppressing the free exchange of ideas and opinions, which was seen as essential to a functioning democracy.
In conclusion, the American War of Independence played a crucial role in shaping the First Amendment and the broader concept of civil liberties in the United States. The experiences of the war and the abuses of power under British rule served as a catalyst for the adoption of the First Amendment, which has since become a cornerstone of American democracy.
----
Thanks Groky
In an Insane World, It Was the Only Sane Choice - Why I Didn’t Take the COVID-19 Vaccine
In my opinion, you don’t need to be an MD or PhD to recognize that significant financial interests, and potentially other motives, were at play in the COVID-19 saga that began in 2019.
These should have raised the hair on any thinking person’s neck, prompting extreme skepticism about the rapid, ever-changing narratives that were unfolding—and, in many respects, continue to unfold today.
I often find the best approach in a highly dynamic, information-scarce situation is to do nothing, at least initially, especially when certain courses of action being pushed are irreversible.
All my instincts, honed over a long career as a engineer working on some of the most technologically advanced and complex systems the world has ever seen, were tingling—in fact, screaming—that something was deeply wrong.
I tried to convince those close to me, often initially without success, not to take the shots. It was immensely frustrating to offer opinions contrary to the “consensus” curated by a massive machine—comprising education, medical, government, and mass media institutions, among others—all, of course, “encouraged” by the largest political and advertising funder the world has ever seen: the pharmaceutical industrial complex.
But if I hadn’t at least tried, I could never have forgiven myself. Unfortunately, my worst fears appear to have been realized, and more is coming to light for the wider public daily. In my opinion, this story is a devastating indictment of our institutions and their corruptibility.
Some Early Warning Signs That Rang My Alarm Bells
I’m a big-picture thinker who dives into details and then reconciles what I find to refine my big-picture thoughts, forming hypotheses that, when appropriate, guide my selected course of action.
Given that backdrop, here are some of the big-picture warning signs that didn’t sit right with me.
⚠️ No Publicly Available All-Cause Mortality Rates, Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated, Tracked and Shown
Why was this crucial statistic—the all-cause death rates of the vaccinated (from the second the first shot was given) versus the unvaccinated (potentially grouped by age and geographic location)—not publicly tracked and highlighted?
Given the emergency authorization and rushed approval, a top-level rollup statistic like this, which is easy to measure and hard to manipulate, would be critical to track and publicize in real-time as we encourage people to discover and take the most effective course of action.
It appears to me that the only logical conclusion for not seeing this on every news outlet in real-time is that the data didn’t tell the story those pushing the vaccine policy wanted.
If the shots were effective, this daily measure and its clear, widespread publication would have encouraged more people to participate.
Spoiler alert: the analyses by third parties I recall seeing, based on some data reported in the UK that did seep out, looked horrible in this regard. I seem to recall the analysis looked really awful from a pro-vaccine standpoint.
In other words, it suggested that if you took the vaccine, you were much more likely to die earlier than if you did not, for any and all reasons—in other words, the all-cause death rates were higher in the vaccinated group.
The fact that we still don’t see this data and analysis should give everyone who took the shots nightmares. It should give all of us nightmares that our society’s systems could be so corrupted as to actively hide critical bottom-line data like this. I believe the life insurance industry fully knows what’s going on here, and the story is not a good one.
The graphic at bottom of this post shows a conceptual example of the graph we should have seen but did not.
Official COVID statistics websites from the government showed COVID lethality graphs broken down by age (and, by the way, these were highly questionable because reports and data suggest the medical complex was encouraged to overclassify deaths as COVID deaths back then), but we never saw vaccinated vs. unvaccinated all-cause death rates.
It certainly appears that they avoided publishing data like this because a "VACCINE-IS-HORRIBLE" graph would have emerged, necessitating an immediate halt to the entire operation.
We should have seen graphs like this for each geographic area (e.g., country) and age bracket used in government COVID lethality statistics (<18, 18–44, 44–64, 65–74, 75+), updated at least weekly.
By its very definition, an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) carries extremely high risk. Failing to track and widely publicize top-level, hard-to-manipulate statistics for an EUA treatment is frankly inexcusable and strongly suggests deliberate deceit.
⚠️ From Gold Standard Testing to No Standard Testing
As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, I closely followed the daily COVID briefings from the administration. Early on, I recall Fauci publicly responding to Trump when he asked during the briefings what could be done to accelerate the vaccine testing and approval process.
Fauci emphasized the importance of the gold standard and explained that proper testing for a human vaccine takes decades.
Having worked a lifetime on some of the world’s largest and most complex multi-year technology programs, I deeply appreciated Fauci’s emphasis on the need for extensive vaccine testing.
In my experience with complex man-made systems, testing is never foolproof, and the amount of testing required to achieve confidence in a newly designed or built complex system increases exponentially with its complexity.
When I extrapolate this to the human body—its intricate mechanisms and the vast unknowns still surrounding it—I recognize that the man-made systems I worked on were orders of magnitude less complex and had far fewer unknowns than a novel experimental treatment for the human body. Thus, Fauci’s call for multi-decade testing made perfect sense to me.
However, over time, this dynamic shifted dramatically. I believe Fauci, in collaboration with others, ultimately exploited Trump’s desire for a “warp speed” solution, acting against the best interests of the public, the Trump administration, freedom, honesty, and the reputation of the medical establishment itself, all for short-term goals and personal gain.
⚠️ Fighting Generic Therapeutics to Justify Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) – Natural Immunity Deemed Insufficient
When COVID-19 emerged, I was caring for a sick parent, which required extensive travel. Being in excellent health and confident in my resilience, I wasn’t overly concerned about contracting COVID. If I did, I trusted I would recover and gain natural immunity.
However, I was closely monitoring the situation due to concern for my elderly parent and the impact the reactive, socially restrictive, and fear-driven environment that was emerging would have on my children and society at large.
During this time, I came across the work of Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko, an Orthodox Jewish family physician based in Kiryas Joel, New York. In early 2020, Dr. Zelenko gained prominence for promoting a three-drug combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, and zinc sulfate, which he called the “Zelenko Protocol,” as a treatment for COVID-19.
He developed this treatment—before any vaccine or other treatment was available—by studying papers published on government health websites, searching for anything that might help his patient base, who were highly susceptible to adverse outcomes due to their age and generally poorer health (e.g., weight issues, lack of exercise, and typical ailments of older Americans). He observed an alarming increase in patients contracting the illness and flooding his office.
Dr. Zelenko reported successfully treating hundreds of patients with his protocol. On March 23, 2020, he wrote an open letter to President Donald Trump, urging the adoption of his treatment regimen. His claims drew significant attention, with Trump and allies like Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows publicly endorsing the protocol.
In July 2020, Dr. Zelenko co-authored a retrospective study on 141 COVID-19 outpatients treated with his protocol. The study showed that patients on the protocol recovered without needing hospitalization and had better outcomes than those treated only after their condition worsened enough to warrant hospital admission.
According to Zelenko, early at-home treatment using his simple protocol was highly beneficial, not only from a cost perspective but also for survivability.
So, what happened? The pharmaceutical industry, along with its most financially supported beneficiaries (i.e., media and politicians), launched an attack. Why would they do such a thing, you might ask? I can only speculate on some possible reasons.
My Speculation:
The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) process for medical products, including the COVID-19 vaccines, is governed by Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A key requirement for granting an EUA is that there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative treatment or preventive measure for the condition or disease in question.
If hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or ivermectin—both readily available, approved for other uses, categorized as some of the safest drugs on the market, and inexpensive generics (off-patent)—proved effective for COVID-19, it would have undermined the EUA for the largely untested, rushed-to-market COVID “vaccine.”
As an aside, many argue against calling the COVID vaccine a traditional vaccine due to its entirely different approach and technology, but that’s a separate discussion for another time.
I asked Grok to estimate the pharmaceutical industry’s revenue and profit during the first few years of the pandemic. Here are the figures it provided. I suspect the actual numbers may be even higher, but these are substantial regardless:
Grand Totals (2020–2023)
• Revenue:
• Vaccines: ~$135–$150 billion
• PCR Tests: ~$50–$70 billion
• Other Items: ~$35–$40 billion
• Total: ~$220–$260 billion
• Profit:
• Vaccines: ~$95–$105 billion
• PCR Tests: ~$12.5–$17.5 billion
• Other Items: ~$8–$12 billion
• Total: ~$115–$135 billion
Beyond financial motives, larger issues—potentially significant to major industries and political players—may have been at stake, such as:
>> The need to deploy mRNA technology in human trials for the first time, something the pharmaceutical industry had been attempting unsuccessfully for decades.
>> Adding more required vaccines for everyday activities (e.g., school, work).
>> Establishing a precedent for accelerated mRNA development and deployment, bypassing the extensive testing previously required.
>> Testing the public’s response to emergency powers that severely restrict freedoms.
>> Some even speculate that population control may have played a role.
Summary
The way people became tyrannical, some even publicly stating that those who didn’t want an experimental treatment should just die or, at the very least, be denied normal life in “civil society,” was, in my view, outright dystopian and humanity at its worst.
Many governments quickly leveraged the fear to test the boundaries of authoritarianism that the populace would tolerate, with measures like dictated business shutdowns, church shutdowns, school shutdowns, requiring knowledge of everyone’s medical history, vaccine passports, and a host of other intrusive control policies you really don’t want a government to have the power to enforce, if you have any sense at all, in my opinion.
What has become even more evident as the dirt piles behind the curtains continue to gain wider visibility to the general public is that the level of testing and hidden adverse impacts looks atrocious, and they all knew about it from the start.
In my opinion, this whole episode will go down in history as humanity’s worst performance ever. So many institutions, businesses, families, and lives have been demolished; it really is an epic-level travesty and societal failure.
There are so many other elements to what unfolded, and frankly, none of it reflects well on humanity. I hope you’re starting to at least ask yourself a few questions if you weren’t already.
I could go on and on, providing papers that were available from the beginning, artifacts that reflect extremely badly on bad actors, and many other bits of information, but it would overwhelm most—it’s just so unbelievably bad. So, I’ll spare you; if you’re motivated, you’ll find most of it if you haven't already.
By the way, I came down with COVID after getting stuck in an airport that had a bomb scare early in the pandemic, before a vaccine was even available. I was in this packed-to-the-gills, busy US airport for 18 hours with everyone else in creation. By the time I got home, off the plane, and started my 90-minute drive home, I was feeling like crap and knew I had COVID.
I called my wife on the drive home, told her, and offered to sleep in the basement. Her response: “Don’t be silly, I want to get the darn thing already so I can have natural immunity too.
She didn’t even get it from me at that time. I used online, brave doctors bucking narrative trends, got a script for HCQ, and basically followed the “Zelenko Protocol.” I was fully recovered from all adverse effects in three days. It never got that bad for me.
When a vaccine did come out and they were trying to tell people that natural immunity wasn’t a thing or good enough, it was yet another red flag for me that other agendas were afoot.
I worked remotely for my employer for a year during this fiasco, then retired. The nonsense response from many companies, following the government’s lead, was more than I wanted to take, and luckily, I was ready to retire anyhow.
I won’t get into the game of this doctor’s study saying X, but another doctor’s study saying not-X, and which one is more trustworthy.
All I can say is the old saying, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” applies here. I see so much smoke, it’s hard to see more than a foot in front of me sometimes.
My view is that society has enormous healing to do from this entire episode. Before we can truly heal, we must first acknowledge what really occurred. May we walk this path and shape a future where such a tragedy never happens again.
Still waiting for justice to occur!
xitter.cf/RupertLowe10/status/21…
Barry Schiff retweeted
In my speech in Parliament this afternoon, I argue that those who forced the COVID vaccine on our healthy population must finally be held accountable.
Bad Company is more than just an old rock band’s name. Brazil immediately talks about censoring social media after “election”.
As the European censorship plan turns......
Hey Grok, are the measures in the below post really being discussed?
Grok:
Yes, related measures are being discussed, but the X post mixes two separate tracks and frames them more dramatically than the official proposals.
1. Internal Commission administrative reform (the Serafin/Day process)
This is real and recent. On 26 October 2026, a high-level external group chaired by Catherine Day handed over a report on the future of the Commission’s civil service and organization. Commissioner Piotr Serafin (Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration) is leading a broader large-scale review and is due to present final recommendations to von der Leyen by the end of 2026.
The focus is on efficiency, collaboration between directorates, reducing complexity, and modernizing how the Commission works.
2. Voting rights and decision-making changes (mainly tied to enlargement)
These are actively under discussion in the Commission’s pre-enlargement proposals (presented around 6 October 2026 by Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos and others):
- A proposed 15-year “safeguard” or probation period for new member states. In serious cases of breaching EU values, the rule of law, or the principle of sincere cooperation, voting rights in the Council (and access to funds) could be suspended more easily than under the existing Article 7 procedure.
Officials have explicitly linked this to avoiding a repeat of situations like Hungary’s under Orbán (“No more Viktor Orbán”).
- Wider use of qualified majority voting (QMV) instead of unanimity in various areas (including some intermediate steps in accession negotiations, sanctions, and certain policy fields) via “passerelle” clauses.
- Ideas about reducing or rotating the number of commissioners so the College does not grow one-for-one with every new member.
These are proposals that still need agreement from member states (many of the shifts from unanimity themselves require unanimity to activate). They are framed as making an enlarged EU more functional and protecting it from backsliding, rather than as a general power to punish existing “disobedient” members at will.
----
Thanks Grok.
Some might say the post below is a bit hysterical; others might say it’s not hysterical enough. In any event, it would be hard to argue that the trend is not toward more censorship and centralized control. Neither sounds like the breakfast of strong democracies, in my opinion.
xitter.cf/dana916/status/2115119…
🇪🇺VON DER LEYEN IS PREPARING A QUIET REVOLUTION IN THE EU
She wants to strip disobedient members of the European Commission of their voting rights.
Ursula von der Leyen is using a report by external experts to carry out a total restructuring of the European Commission's apparatus to suit her own management style.
By the end of 2026, Commissioner Piotr Serafin will present the final plan for reforming structures and procedures.
The true goal of the changes is to create a maximally obedient body capable of pushing through the desired agenda without hindrance.
In Brussels, they are already openly discussing the possibility of depriving those EU members who dare to violate "Euro-standards" of their voting rights.
ukraine_watch
Tesla Trends - Great Interview To Watch
With respect to the mention of using Optimus in the short term as a charge station attendant for CyberCabs, it’s an interesting short-term solution for sure.
Before the CyberCab was officially revealed, I questioned whether Tesla was going to go with induction charging. It sounds like that is the longer-term plan. I really thought they would go the other way to avoid the efficiency losses of induction charging, even if those were only a few percentage points.
But the trade-off, of course, is that if induction has lower installation and maintenance costs, that would certainly offset the mechanical solution. In terms of mechanics, if they had stuck with a “stick-in-a-charger” plan, I thought it would be a modification of existing Superchargers where the car backed into a horizontally protruding charger that plugged into its rear charge port.
Maybe the stiff arm would move slightly and/or the port would adjust to ensure a smooth entry, potentially with the rear camera and/or other sensors guiding it. An Optimus doing this right now seems a little overkill, but I get it—no new design potentially needed.
I also can envision why they picked the induction charger with less physical parts to wear out it certainly has potentially lower maintenance cost.
Lot of other goodies discussed in the interview.
xitter.cf/live_munro/status/2114…
The full video is now live on @YouTube!
A big thank you to @larsmoravy, @EricETesla, and the rest of the Tesla team for taking the time to walk us through the Cybercab and share the engineering, design, and technology behind it.
Got some stuff right, some stuff wrong, but it’s always fun making educated guesses on what Elon’s companies’ next moves will be.
xitter.cf/KissIsTheKey/status/18…
Tesla Trends - 10/10 RoboTaxi Event Predictions
This post contains my speculation on what we might see at Tesla's 10/10/2024 RoboTaxi unveil event.
What we already know:
1. Tesla will be the sole operator of the service.
2. The service will be integrated into Tesla's App for anybody with a phone (similar to your Uber/Lyft App).
3. All purpose-built RoboTaxis will be owned, operated, and maintained by Tesla for Tesla; they won't be for sale to others.
4. Owners of passenger Tesla Vehicles with HW3+ will be able to opt into having their vehicles participate in Tesla's service.
Tesla will take a percentage of the fare fee; I suspect somewhere between 10-30%. Owners can set parameters such as when the car is available, locations and location types they want their car used or not used in, required customer rating, and other parameters like that.
5. Tesla will have legal language around FSD stating it cannot be used unsupervised in a RoboTaxi commercial service setting outside Tesla's service, and any such usage is against Tesla's license and approved usages. This language, I suspect, would also afford them a greater degree of legal protection from accidents and other incidents that could occur during such usages.
My guess on what we will see & hear:
1. Official Name of Service
Elon floated "Auto" in the past; I kind of like that and wouldn't be surprised to see it become official.
2. RoboTaxi Prototype
Driverless no steering wheel or pedals, no rear-view or side view mirrors. We will see an actual prototype model drive itself onto the stage. During Elon's presentation, it will include a video of it on the road, picking up and dropping off passengers, obviously in a test area.
3. RoboTaxi Models & Names
Okay, I'm really going off the deep end on this one because with Elon's imagination, it literally can be anything. But I'll guess the desire for the Auto Service will have super easy to understand language, he might opt for a less-is-more strategy and do something like:
Auto-#, or
AutoX-#, or
(XMobile) xM-#
where the # is the maximum number of people the vehicle holds.
I think initially we will see the Auto-2 model rolled out initially, with plans for maybe an Auto-6 and an Auto-12 in the future. It also would not surprise me if the very first operations approval and use of Auto-2 was in China.
4. Auto-X's Features - Entertainment, Connectivity, and Tesla Official 3rd Party App Store
A touch display per passenger seat provides independent climate control and entertainment control. Screens are internet-connected (via Auto-integrated Starlink mini).
As part of this reveal, I suspect we might see a formal announcement of Tesla's 3rd party app store, open to all developers. This will vastly expand not only the apps that run on Auto models but on existing and future passenger models as well.
The phone app will remember your settings/profile. If you own a Tesla, that profile will be known from your vehicle(s) and Tesla's cloud-based storage of your profile.
In either case, when you go into an Auto again, it just knows your profile from Bluetooth communication with your phone, configures your seat, climate, and entertainment screen accordingly with the apps and other settings you set up previously, and you're off to the races.
Grok is available to talk voice commands directly to the vehicle and answer any questions whatsoever. This is available through the car's microphone, as well as your screen on the car, and your phone app.
5. The Ride Experience
You book on the app, monitor your incoming vehicle's location and estimated arrival time. Your payment method is configured in the app, and the price for your ride to your destination is known and shown ahead of time. Much like occurs in Uber/Lyft today.
When the car arrives, the doors open automatically, as well as the trunk (and frunk if there is one). You pack in your bags, if any, get in the vehicle, and tell the car to "start ride" or hit the screen's start ride button, or command it via the Tesla app on your phone.
Once you indicate you're ready, and sensors confirm no obstructions in the doors, trunks, and frunks, all doors shut closed, and off you go.
When you arrive, all doors open. You remove all your goods, and you voice or app-push a button saying, "Exit Complete." The vehicle closes all its doors and goes off to its next assignment.
6. Auto-X's Features - The Auto-Spa
Auto-Vehicles know when they need to charge and drive themselves to the closest available purpose-built Auto-Spa. The Spa automatically charges the vehicle, and cleans it (inside and outside). These Spas are minimally manned and maximally automated.
Auto-Vehicles will automatically discover and communicate with Auto-Spas, essentially booking a visit. With the Spa and the vehicle completely automated, the Auto-Spa monitors the incoming vehicle and directs it to an exact stall for cleaning, a charger for charging, and if needed, a resting parking spot (bed) for short waits to the next call of duty.
At first, these Spas might involve some human oversight, but Tesla will aim for complete automation to keep costs rock bottom.
Tesla will equip these Spas with superchargers, as well as drive-through external car washes that also clean the interior, leveraging the vehicle's automated door controls and car wash designed specifically for Auto vehicles, knowing all their dimensions inside and out.
For charging, instead of using a cable, there might be a still protruding connector from the supercharger, and the car has a port at the rear exactly aligned to dock into the supercharger using sensors. When complete, the car simply drives forward to undock and close its port cover. The charger is smart and covers it connector also when not in use.
In my opinion induction charging might be too slow, so a docking solution like this would be more efficient and time is money.
That port could also be compatible with traditional Tesla superchargers for emergencies, but normal use would involve Auto-Spas.
Using Optimus for charging and cleaning would be overkill; building everything to work together with special-purpose machines from the start could be more efficient, but who knows - we will see what the decide.
7. Continuous Damage/Hazard and Threat Monitoring
The car will continuously monitor for physical damage, threats to the interior, exterior, and all systems used by the vehicle, reporting real-time detections to the Auto-Control Center (AC2) and the destination Auto-Spa when applicable.
The AC2 will be monitored by algorithms and very few people. Cars will receive logic and direction from the AC2 on what course of action to take if an auto-response isn't sufficient. The AC2 will deploy countermeasures to physical threats and call in additional resources in real-time as required.
Passengers will have the ability to signal for help at any time. They can voice commands, push a button, or hit a manual release lever that will cause the vehicle to stop as soon as possible and open doors for emergency exits.
Summary
I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's costs are close to an order of magnitude less than those of driver ride services, and even more so when compared to the current driverless taxi services in operation.
I don't expect Elon to review costs in detail at this event, but he might drop a hint that the price to ride for end users will be significantly less than what riders pay today (I'm guessing 50-80% less).
There's a lot of guesswork here, using my imagination and engineering background. Who knows how accurate these speculations are, but it's fun to ponder.
Whatever surprises the Tesla team has in store for us they will surely be impressive.
Possible Spin-off Products and Announcements:
1. Tesla App Store for third-party developers.
2. Productizing the stiff auto-docking connection for future passenger cars.
3. News on version 12.6 FSD
4. Reveal of Tesla X/Grok App
5. Announcement / prototype of low-cost passenger car model(s), possibly deferred to a separate unveil event.
Racers, are you ready?
Take your mark,
let's go!
Barry Schiff retweeted
Here are the top 5 reasons Democrats want to remove SecWar Pete Hegseth:
1. He exemplifies American strength and pride. They need to demoralize the American spirit for a communist takeover, especially in our troops.
2. He’s abolishing DEI and firing woke Generals. Their communist infiltrators are being hunted and destroyed.
3. He’s strengthening our military power and reestablishing US hegemony. Dems need it weakened from within so it can potentially defeated by China/Russia and absorbed into NATO/UN.
4. He’s unapologetically blowing up cartel drug boats. Dems want to protect their cartel partners’ profits, and keep the human and drug trafficking flowing.
5. He’s secured the border. They want millions more to stuff the 2030 census in blue states.
Pete hasn’t done anything illegal, but he is an existential threat to the communist agenda.
🚨 JUST IN: Hakeem Jeffries threatens to IMPEACH SecWar Pete Hegseth right after the midterms if President Trump doesn't push him out first, assuming Dems win
VOTE RED TO BLOCK THIS INSANITY.
"Pete Hegseth needs to be pushed aside by the president, or we're going to have to deal with that situation if he is not."
"What I'm inclined to do is to act consistently with what I've said relative to Pete Hegseth from the very beginning. I called for Pete Hegseth to be fired by Donald Trump in the spring of 2025. He is deeply unqualified."
Not a single high crime or misdemeanor cited.
Democrats are openly admitting that if they take the House, they will weaponize impeachment just because they don't like Trump's Cabinet! 😠
WE MUST VOTE.
Tesla Trends - Houston RoboTaxi Area Expanded
Next time, be a little more artistically ambitious. The writing was on the wall, or at least the headstone.
To some it’s a Halloween fright, to many it’s just a good night with a safe, affordable ride home from their venue.
Neigh is the word of the day 🐴 for some.
Others were meant to run.
Which group will prevail?
I suspect they'll be looking at tails
(out the rear window).
More California Dreaming - And The Nightmare Continues.
Failed education policies deliver students ill-equipped to succeed in the world. Who could have seen this bulldozer coming? The better question is who couldn’t.
Simple Plan To Fix America’s Schools
Parents, not Government should own our children’s education. In America the voucher system is key to change. Such a system would allow any parent to use taxes given to their local public school for their child to instead be used for any education place and method THEY choose, including home schooling.
Today’s system punishes the poor. Rich can afford to pay their property tax for their local public school AND pay for a different private school their children actually attend. Poor people don’t have this luxury. One could argue the current system is raciest, although I would prefer to be more factually and state its poor-est.
This locked in funding for public schools also, like all monopolies, is a disincentive to compete based on performance resulting in a lower quality education for our children. The rapid drop in proficiency statistics in the America over the past two decades makes this painfully obvious.
We also need to consider if we wish to make Government more powerful than parents in the upbringing of our children. To me this runs diametrically opposite to the founding principles of the United States which are to minimize the power of government and maximize the power of the people.
In the United States people are supposed to own and rule the government not they other way around. This fundamental principle was the core reason we broke away from royal rule. It is fundamental to our concept of freedom, and people who want to be our controllers and rulers have hated it since its inception.
Power seeking governments will always use the excuse that they are just protecting you from evil doers. Those seeking more control always will try to scare you so you willingly give up your freedoms in exchange for their “protection”. Fear it’s an age-old ploy, don’t fall for it.
In my opinion we need country-wide standardized tests in reading, writing, and arithmetic at each grade level and parents need access to results from all private and public schools in their area.
That way they have standardized objective measures to base their children school, or other location, decisions on. These tests should be administered by third party testing agencies and all students should be required to take them, including home schooled.
We should identify the top children from poor areas and provide them extra academic funding to give them some additional support to “be all they can be” - remember that saying.
I believe if we implement these simple steps we would see a rapid turnaround in the proficiency of our children. This would have immense knock-on benefits to our society at large. What’s more important to our future, the public schools Teachers' Unions, or our children’s quality education?
Schools across the western world are failing on all fronts. Morally and academically - our children deserve better, the continuation of human consciousness depends on it.
Another major reason many voted for change. Still waiting for many more required fixes to education across the country.
Deteriorating Education:
Like it – Vote Harris, Hate it – Vote Trump
The public school system in the United States has been failing Americans, and it's getting worse by every objective measure yearly. The failures are so obvious and so bad that, frankly, it disgusts me, and it really needs to disgust you.
Without a well-educated populace, we will fail in everything: our children can't compete internationally, our military won't be the strongest and our ability to manufacture will continue to be severely disadvantaged, as it largely is right now.
Our children's careers will always be in jeopardy because they lack valuable skills and are more easily replaced, and the American Dream of our children having better lives than ourselves will be a distant memory.
Our country's future, by its very definition, depends on the capabilities of its future generations. If we fail them, we fail our country, and some, myself included, would argue we fail the world.
Let's examine a few facts (many details are shown on the graphic included with this post). I've posted the reference websites I extracted this information from as replies to this post, so you can examine the source information further if you wish:
1. Our schools are failing.
2. Internal proficiency tests trends objectively demonstrate this.
3. Standardized college entrance tests trends objectively demonstrate this.
4.International student rankings accomplished by OECD among 81 countries show our poor performance, despite us paying among the highest per student costs.
5. Colleges have to offer remedial classes for attendees lacking basic skills that were present in the past.
6. Businesses complain they can't get enough proficient, U.S.-educated workers in high-skill areas and are hiring those from other countries due to a higher work ethic and competency.
If you think having about a quarter of the population even approaching basic proficiency in Math and Reading is acceptable, I suggest you tune up your thinking capabilities. This is a total disgrace, and calling it anything but that is about the only thing I can imagine that is more disgraceful.
So, what got us here, and how do we fix it? It's obvious that what has led us to this dismal state of affairs in education is fundamentally the same issues that got us into trouble with our economy, healthcare system, and frankly, all our other institutions. We prop up government-run bureaucracies again and again for the enrichment of those running the bureaucracies and at the expense of those whom these institutions were purported to serve.
Even worse, not only do these bureaucracies fail to support those they are chartered to serve, but we, the taxpayers, are throwing our hard-earned money, both present and future, at these failing institutions, and it's getting flushed right down the toilet.
Harris Administration Approach
So, what does the Harris administration want to do? More of the same. They keep favoring teachers' unions over the students' interests. How likely do you think things will improve with that approach? I would tell you it's a sure shot to get much worse with the more-of-the-crony club approach advocated by the Democratic administration.
Trump Team Approach
Trump wants to eliminate the federal bureaucracies surrounding education and put it back in the hands of the states.
In the past, he has talked about the virtues of education vouchers that follow the student wherever they go. Anything that drastically shakes up the current failing system and forces it to be more competitive is a good thing.
Trump has also recognized that college is not the answer for everyone and has supported vocational professions, which are highly desirable for those who choose that path, and by the way, whose skills are also urgently needed in our country.
We Desperately Need A System That Is Competitive And Produces Proven Results
I'm a huge advocate for the voucher system, here's why:
Parents, not the government, should have control over their children's education. In America, a voucher system is crucial for change. Such a system would allow any parent to use the taxes allocated to their local public school for their child to be used instead at any educational institution or method of their choice, including homeschooling.
Today's system disadvantages the poor. The wealthy can afford to pay property taxes for their local public school and also fund a different private school for their children. The poor do not have this luxury. One could argue that the current system is racist, though I would prefer to state more factually that it is elitist.
The locked-in funding for public schools, like all monopolies, discourages competition based on performance, resulting in lower quality education for our children. The rapid decline I described earlier clearly demonstrates this.
We need country-wide standardized tests in reading, writing, and arithmetic at each grade level, and parents need access to results from all private and public schools in their area. This way, they have standardized, objective measures to base their children's school choices on. These tests should be administered by third-party testing agencies, and all students, including those homeschooled, should be required to take them.
We should identify top students from economically disadvantaged areas and provide them with additional academic funding to support and elevate them, rather than the current approach which lowers the bar for all students, effectively dumbing down the entire system.
We need to return to basics, emphasizing personal responsibility, a strong work ethic, honesty, and integrity. Policies as simple as no grade for homework, zero tolerance for cheating on tests, no retakes on tests, and allowing students to fail classes and be left behind should be reinstated into the system. We protect our children from failure at the expense of their own futures.
Trump understands that our current system is failing and is loudly advocating for change to fix it. Harris, on the other hand, supports the status quo because the teachers' unions back the Democratic party.
Do you really want to trade your children's competent education for a political party's allegiance?
Don’t be stupid;
Don’t vote for deteriorating education with more of the same as an approach.
The sad part is that many California “educated” students probably can’t even read this post and understand it.
Old SAT question:
Big Government is to Education as Rock is to __________.
Pick the best answer:
a. Window
b. Mountain
c. Volcano
d. Space
The correct answer will be posted as a reply to this in a few days.
Barry Schiff retweeted
Lula wins again. Of course he does.😡
New Ben Garrison Cartoon
The tube man stays inflated.
Polls get extended three minutes before they close.
Bolsonaro won’t concede, he knows the election was rigged.
Lula is the same old socialist. Same excuses. Same hammer and sickle.
Socialism never works. It only brings oppression and misery.
You can vote it in.
You have to shQQt your way out. (As the old saying goes...)
This one needs to be shared with someone who still thinks socialism works.
grrrgraphics.com/brazil-elec…
Always @grrrgraphics for more hard-hitting cartoons. 👍🤠
Elon Trends - The naysayers will always say neigh, but great advancements will occur anyway, as long as the spirit of innovation and determination lives on in the brave and bold, new stories will be told.
xitter.cf/ChrisCamillo/status/21…
I’ve spent a few days thinking about the Tesla Roadster reveal and landed somewhere I haven’t seen much discussion. I’m neither a Tesla fanboy nor a Tesla hater. And I couldn’t care less whether what we saw technically qualifies as a flying car. Three takeaways: (1) The risk of that live demonstration going horribly wrong was real. Almost no CEO would willingly expose their company to that kind of public humiliation for a product with so little financial upside. Elon did. (2) That willingness to attempt the seemingly impossible is what makes Tesla special. It’s also arguably Elon’s greatest contribution to America. He’s helped bring back something we’ve lost. The American spirit of chasing big scary ideas that most people think are impossible. That mindset is spreading across a new generation of founders and its long term impact on America’s future could dwarf anything Tesla ever sells. I think this is deeply underappreciated. (3) Can we just acknowledge how insanely cool that moment was? We’ve reached a strange place culturally where even extraordinary feats of human ingenuity immediately become arguments about why they don’t count. Not everything needs to be a debate. Sometimes we should just be able to stand back together and marvel at what humans are capable of. I’ve been both bullish and critical of Tesla’s ambitions over the years. But watching Elon and his team push the boundaries of what’s possible reminds me why I’m glad we have him. Whether the Roadster ever makes Tesla a dollar or impacts $TSLA stock price is almost beside the point. We need more people willing to risk failure in pursuit of things the rest of us think are impossible. Because when they succeed we all win.
I do miss the times when more of the population was less tribal, more independently thinking, and much more civil. It sure would be nice to be able to turn back the clock so we could behave like that once more. It’s been my experience that good people worldwide want the same goals. We really should be able to have productive conversations about the best way to achieve them.
xitter.cf/KissIsTheKey/status/17…
Daily Old Man Wisdom. Challenge yourself to listen, and really try to understand, points of views on issues that are important to you, that are diametrically opposite from your own.
I remember, as a much younger lad, watching the MacNeil Lehrer Newshour on PBS back in the 1980s. Even though that was a long time ago, what I recall is the show picking a few of the day’s big issues and drilling into each with about a 15-25 minute segment.
It would invite two very capable articulate people who truly represented opposing views on each issue and MacNeil or Lehrer would moderate a civil discussion between them.
The people the show brought on were not fake opposition, like obviously occurs almost always on today’s “news shows” as they feebly attempt to appear balanced while pushing their particular narrative they want you to adopt from watching.
Another great thing that stuck with me all these years, was the super professional way MacNeil and Lehrer conducted themselves. You could never tell where they stood on any of the issues. As moderators they played it straight down the line.
Although I don’t recommend attempting to get the “other side” from mass media, they are hopeless these days in my view, I do suggest you attempt to locate and examine primary/original source information from people who honestly and factually express opposing viewpoints.
I find it really does broaden your perspective. At the very least you get a deeper understanding on where someone else is coming from, and at best you might even learn a thing or two, and even occasionally adjust your viewpoint.
Regardless of outcome, it’s my opinion we need to encourage discussion, not ban it, and bring back civility. To me the level a society not only tolerates, but actually encourages, civil discourse is an excellent measure of its current strength and future prospects.
Apple Duo - Double The Fun?
Old man wisdom. Less-is-often-more. In this post I’m going to dive into the, often well intentioned but in my view naïve, perceptions by many in charge of complex and expensive endeavors that more-is-more.
Those committing this mistake really don’t appreciate that complexity is a function of the number of staff, subcontractors, teammates and components. I start with a top-level description of some mathematics that can be used to help quantify complexity. I follow with human nature tendencies, I’ve seen many times, in my 40 years working some of the world’s largest, most expensive and complex programs, that incubate these issues. I then make the case that the very same ailments I’ve witnessed throughout my career are plaguing legacy auto and space launch vehicle manufacturers.
With Tesla embracing and mastering the less-is-more philosophy since its inception, in my opinion the writing-is-on-the-wall (in neon flashing lights) broadcasting the demise of legacy auto companies. The only real question in my view is how long can they last.
A book I read while at college working on my Computer Science degree in 1980, titled “The Mythical Man-Month”, to me can be summed up with the saying: you can’t make a baby in a month by having a team of nine pregnant ladies. When I entered the book’s title into my web browser I got the following AI auto-generated summary:
“The Mythical Man-Month is a book on software engineering and project management by Fred Brooks, first published in 1975, with subsequent editions in 1982 and 1995. The central theme of the book is that adding manpower to a software project that is behind schedule delays it even longer. The book has been criticized for turning product development into a zero-sum game, where if we want one thing, we must stop another. While the book has a solid mix of good humor, great story-telling, and even better analogies and metaphors, it has not aged well.”
The second half of this “summary” narrates negativity about the book and its theme to the reader. This negativity, which I bolded above, is a perfect example illustrating the point I’m attempting to make with this post. It is exactly this sort of modern rejection of what in my mind is very age-old common sense that will take down today’s industrial titans.
The fact that most big institutional influencers are singing the same song means a large percentage of the population often won’t apply old wisdom, in fact they will view such wisdom as outdated and even evil. Convincing the masses of something does not make it true and truth has a way of prevailing in the long run. When true knowledge is a rare commodity it creates opportunities for think-different entrepreneurs to disrupt existing power bases saddled with suboptimal information and practices.
⚠️ Those only wanting a short read stop here.
Mathematics
Let me walk you through some math that will help us quantify complexity. I promise it won’t make your head hurt too much. Reference the graphic below containing a table, graph, and node diagram throughout this discussion
When talking about relationships between entities, mathematicians often think in terms nodes on a graph and their interconnecting lines. Abstractly a “node” can represent anything. The lines between nodes represent a relationship between the nodes. For the purpose of my subject today, a node may represent a person on a team working to solve a problem. It may represent a single part in a complex machine. It can be a subcontractor from the set of subcontractors used to build our complex project. The math below applies to all these situations and many others.
For example, lets say each node represents a person on a team. Let’s think about how many lines of communication exist if each person on the team needs to communicate with every other member on the team for the team to be effective. We assume a line of communication is bidirectional. If the team has 1 person there are no inter-person communications. If the team has 2 people, one line exists allowing person-1 and person-2 to communicate. A team of 3 people will require 3 lines of communication (1-2, 1-3, 2-3). A team of 4 people will require 6 lines of communication (1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-3, 2-4, 3-4) – see illustration.
The formula for determining the number lines needed to connect each node in a graph to all other nodes, where n is the number of nodes in the graph, is:
Connection Lines Count = n*(n-1)/2
The main take-away is that the number of inter-node connections grows exponentially as a function of the number of nodes (n). For those not mathematically inclined, this means it grows at an ever increasing amount for each additional node added to the graph. You can see in the graph that the number of connections plot is gaining slope at an ever increasing rate relative to the number of nodes.
The formula for # of inter-node connections allows us to roughly quantify complexity and compare a many-parts vs. few-parts solution. With respect to undertaking complex engineering endeavors here are some factors that can be put through this quantification method:
· Number of people working technical solution on a team.
· Number of subcontractors being used - subcontractor communication is much harder to control than in-house team communication and thus much more costly and risky.
· Number of parts required in solution – in a complex machine, a part can impact other parts in the machine, directly or indirectly. A “machine” can be a software program consisting of lines of code where one wrong line can have unforeseen knock-on effects on other lines of code. The complexity of direct and indirect influences grows as a function of the number of parts. Another complexity associated with physical parts is logistics. Every part has to be manufactured, tracked, tested for longevity, maintained for supported lifetime of product, and interfaced with other parts.
We have mathematically shown the rapid (exponential) increase in complexity and associated costs and drag on progress that a complex engineering effort is burdened with as more “things” are added. Thus more really is not better, rather less is best.
My Organizational Observations Throughout My Career
I worked for great companies and people on interesting programs throughout my forty year career. Personally I, and the teams I worked with, had a very good record winning and successfully executing programs. But this does not mean, in my view, everything I observed throughout my career was optimal.
We would bid on, and execute when we won, very large engineering efforts. Often these programs cost billons of dollars, would require we staff up with hundreds of people upon contract award, and develop never-before-accomplished capabilities involving new software, hardware and facilities. Development often lasted years and contracts might run beyond a decade in many cases.
Some of the organizational issues and tensions I observed surrounding these efforts were:
1. During the proposal phase there was always tension between the Business Development/Management (BD/M) folks and the Engineers.
a. Teammates/Subcontractors
i. BD/M would want to involve a lot of teammates/subcontractors because they believed this would show the customer we had a broad/capable team.
ii. Engineers knew that everything not done in-house was a huge risk especially on brand new technology that might require many iterations to get right.
b. Proposed program price
i. BD/M folks would want a Price-to-Win (PtW) price and tried to work backwards to estimate what competitors’ pricings would be to establish the PtW.
ii. Engineers would attempt to do a bottoms-up price estimate, by estimating each task required with some buffer and summing up the task estimates.
c. Technical Solution
i. BD/M folks were typically not versed enough on the technology to really have strong well-founded opinions on the technical solution. This would often create a tendency of BD/M folks to decompose the problem and distribute solutioning authority to a team of experts, one for each area, rather than have a single technical chief led the solution.
I believe the BD/M folks thought this was reducing risk, but really in my view it was just adding non-cohesive complexity to the solution. The other suboptimal dynamic was that BD/M folks would have the final say over the technical solution. They would try to guess how the customer would perceive the solution rather than pick the best technical approach having the highest technical performance and chance of success.
ii. Engineering derived solutions were only as strong as the chief(s) leading the technology solution and the engineers working it. In a big organization where many different people of varying skill levels existed, this was sort of a crap shoot.
d. Ownership of Implementation Phase – Biggest problem in this area was that, for many efforts, the team working the proposal was not the team executing the program upon contract start.
2. During the program’s execution phase a certain tension existed between Management and Engineering
a. Management
i. Was more outward facing than inward facing. This meant keeping the stockholders (i.e. the customer paying for it) sold. By its very definition this creates a bit of a chasm between management and the execution/operations team.
ii. Our customers did not have the technical expertise to successfully solution the systems we built. This often caused high priority knee-jerk gyrations for the engineering teams to adapt to inputs that got mandated from above and sometimes ran contrary to the engineering effort’s success
iii. Management selected staffing, with engineering consultations, often based on who was available rather than who was most capable. Without a deep understanding of the technical skills required to execute the program, it was easy for low performers to slip in. Large organizations always are trying to reassign people whose previous work stopped and were therefore available.
iv. If the program got paid cost-plus (for whatever cost it incurred, as many were), the financial incentive was to cost as much as you could get away with, not to be as efficient as possible. More cost = More profit in this case.
v. Inefficiency was also fermented by the way overhead functional budgets were distributed. The idea of spend whatever budget you functionally got from your organization, otherwise you lose it, and they won’t give you all you ask for next year was often present.
b. Engineering
i. Had to find creative ways to let management and the customer know when parts of the solution proposed proved suboptimal and required changing. Remember it may not even be the same team as one who defined the solution during proposal.
ii. Like occurred in the proposal phase, the technical solution might be led by one strong leader or decomposed by management into several teams and leaders with management the sort of referee between them when required.
iii. Technical leadership often had to live with non-productive members assigned to the team. It was hard to just get rid of non-productive players, instead technical leaders had to figure out how to best use everyone assigned.
iv. Technical team had to work with other companies (teammates and subcontractors) selected by management during proposal phase. Often the exact specification of work to provide to a subcontractor was impossible to produce due to the immature nature of the technical solution at the beginning of the program – yet the contract side of the relationship would have no realization of this.
So obviously these are just some of many issues a typical large organization has when executing a complex cutting edge program. In my opinion the best possible situation was when we:
1. Had a customer whose program execution oversight leadership was smart enough to realize that the less they interfered with the prime contractor the better.
2. Our customer’s specifications/requirements that we bid to were not overly prescriptive, allowing the best solution for the funding and schedule available to evolve over time and be delivered.
3. The program’s proposal team was the same as the program’s execution team.
4. The program had a very strong Program Manager (PM) and Chief Engineer/Architect (CE/CA) who had a history working successfully with each other and trusted each other fully to accomplish their part of the job.
5. The PM and CE/CA knew what it took to successfully execute large complex efforts and were determined to work around organizational obstacles as required and not let anything stand in the way of successful execution.
So you might be getting the drift that having all the stars align just right as listed above was not a natural state of affairs. In fact the natural tendency would be to add complexity and other impediments to successful execution. Specifically to have:
1. More, and less competent, staff
2. More subcontractors whose delivery contracts were concrete and thus not aligned with evolving nature of the development effort
3. Dispersed leadership, often with many arms not rooted in technical skills required for technical solution
4. Over prescriptive requirements and customer/stockholders input
5. More parts than would be otherwise required because subcontracts formed in cement without the proper iterative refinement and distributed vs. single person technical leadership over overall effort
How I Suspect My Large Project/Large Organization Experience Translates to Legacy Auto Industry
Let me start by making a big disclaimer, I’ve never worked in the auto industry. I’m simply extrapolating from my own observations during my career with large complex engineering efforts executed by large organizations and making my own educated guess that life’s not too different as you switch industries.
So having said all that here is my take on the challenges that legacy auto manufacturers face as they relate to complexity and the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs:
1. Modern ICE car manufacturing is based on the premise of using many common parts from a multitude of auto-part industry manufactures who sell the same parts to many auto manufacturers. I could just imagine the early discussions held decades ago in CEO offices of today’s largest ICE vehicle manufactures about the virtues surrounding this approach.
We can save $ on part-X because auto-part-supplier-company-A will have scale, selling part-X to all/many auto manufactures, making part-X for less than we ever could. Extra benefit we won’t have all the overhead associated with making and maintaining that part.
2. This reliance on third-party parts would of course drastically increase the number of subcontractors.
3. This approach would also take away the ability to easily clean-sheet a car’s design, making it virtually impossible to eliminate many parts, because designers were given the constraint/requirement from management to use off-the-shelf parts and fit them together into the vehicle – I could imagine the flow down advice “that’s they way we worked for decades – why change?”
4. New car top-level vision and requirements come from management as opposed to engineering
5. Team selection, competencies and size is much more about who is available than a deep understanding about the skills required and how to even determine if someone has them.
6. Budget set by the CEO rather than what is really required and static rather than dynamic based on the evolving latest knowledge.
7. Knee-jerk direction and re-directions occurring frequently
All these factors result in increased complexity, stagnation and an overall non-competitive culture ingrained in these legacy organizations’ DNA.
What it all means
Elon Musk has challenged the status quo with a voracious and continuous quest to eliminate complexity, a trust in quality over quantity in terms of staff, a top down management and technical leadership competency, a single-minded-focus plan and a realization and active implementation that maximizes vertical integration.
The two domains he now rules are Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Space Launch services. Energy is not too far behind. Full earth coverage satellite based ISP is another. Robots and AI is up and coming and of course there’s more. We will see how he does with the “everything app”-X. I suspect wild success there also.
Frankly, in my eyes the other Legacy Car and Space Rocket manufacturers’ efforts look hopeless and, next to Elon’s strides in these areas, even pathetic. I can see them propped up by government awhile, but in the end people, and even our government, will want the best product and most value for their dollar.
I predict legacy car companies’ days are numbered and the space launch portfolio of companies involved with that will be dramatically reduced. Elon’s giving the world a master’s education in first principles. Observe, learn and embrace or perish – its your choice.
I'm old school: smaller and simpler is better. This thing has fallen more times than I can count. The $10 case protected it every time. Four years and counting. Fits in my front pocket easily - true example for me of less is more.
Tesla Trends - Redesigned Tesla Webpage Sells the Brand
Tesla highlighting new technology by periodically changing its vehicle-ordering website makes sense. I told folks the Roadster v2 was about bringing people to the brand, and it appears to be working like a charm.
After the reveal of the car flying, jumping, and sticking to that crazy upside-down half-loop, even my 85-year-old father-in-law called about the flying car and said a self-driving car in his old age might not be the worst thing. Others in my wider family who never owned EVs and said they never would are reassessing after that engineering marvel made a splash—or should I say, took flight.
Tesla’s reputation is flying, as are its everyday affordable cars off the assembly line and into drivers’ hands—or hands-free—as fast as they can make them.
Tesla Trends - Why An Updated Roadster Is Masterful
This car, with production likely topping out at no more than a 10,000 units a year, definitely won’t directly impact Tesla’s financials. The hidden gem with this thing, in my opinion, is its ultra-coolness and the people it brings into the showroom who end up looking at Tesla for the first time and buying a more affordable model.
It’s worth its weight in gold in terms of brand enhancement capabilities. It’s the same reason brands race in big race events, but these race cars will be driving in your town in the near future and passing right by your own eyes.
Now that’s using the force indeed.
If you’re not driving a Tesla yet, visit your nearest Tesla sales center and take a test drive. You’ll very likely order your first Tesla shortly after that experience.
Tesla Trends - All EVs Are Not Created Equally - A Little Research Before Purchasing Can Pay Huge Dividends
A spec one doesn’t see mentioned often when comparing EVs is efficiency — average miles per kWh or Wh per mile. This is equivalent to fuel efficiency on a gas vehicle, miles per gallon.
From a fueling standpoint, this is your driver of cost. The other super important feature of a car is reliability and required services, if any.
Look deep before letting a nice-looking exterior and interior suck you into something that has hidden weak points that you will feel much more than fluffy, spacious seats in the long run.
Of course, technology, software, and hardware also make a huge difference in the experience, and by the way do put a premium on seat comfort as well as fatigue factor (or hopefully lack thereof) on long drives.
My 2023 Model Y Long Range has just over 33,000 miles on it, and its lifetime efficiency so far is 259 Wh/mile. On my normal in-town drives I do considerably better, averaging about 225 Wh/mile. Teslas and most EVs are more efficient in stop-and-go city/town driving than on the highway (the opposite of gas cars, largely due to regenerative braking).
So at, say, 12 cents per kWh for home charging, 100 miles of in-town driving uses 225 × 100 = 22,500 Wh, which is 22.5 kWh. At 12 cents per kWh that costs 22.5 × $0.12 = $2.70 to drive 100 miles around town.
Let’s say I’m taking a long road trip of over a thousand miles (I do those several times a year). Now I’m getting my long-term average efficiency because the driving is predominantly highway, so we’ll use 259 Wh/mile. I’m also charging at Superchargers rather than at home, so I’m paying a higher rate of, on average, 35 cents per kWh. What does 100 miles cost me now?
Let’s do the math: 259 × 100 = 25,900 Wh, which is 25.9 kWh. At 35 cents per kWh, 25.9 × $0.35 = $9.065 (about $9.07) to drive 100 miles.
A gas car getting 25 mpg at $4/gallon would use 4 gallons, costing 4 × $4 = $16 per 100 miles. My around-town drives cost me less than $3, and my long road trips cost me about $9 for that same 100-mile drive.
As an extra bonus, my everyday (non-road-trip) driving doesn’t even require a drive/stop to a refueling station, because my charging station is in my home garage.
This combination of low operating cost and time savings is an enormous quality-of-life improvement, along with the upgraded driving experience of a Tesla, especially when it’s doing most of the driving for me.
Barry Schiff retweeted
Talarico is a far left extremist
