Paul Bloore

@WSB_memes Haven’t they just done a 10:1 share split?

Breaking news: Netflix loses more than 400 billion in their valution, DOWN 90%. via /r/wallstreetbets #stonks #wallstreetbets ift.tt/pJBXFUa

@wholemars I can’t remember Superman either a) driving a motor vehicle or b) using lasers to navigate while flying!

but superman shoots lasers from his wife eyes! first time i’ve heard that argument used… superman isn’t real btw

How GM Sold America to Become China Motors (Karma Alert: They DIE in 2027) youtu.be/guAxFDafF1o?si… via @YouTube

@DirtyTesLa According to Grok Tesla does normally record cabin video if FSD is enabled which can be requested by the owner/driver but not third parties unless subpoenaed, so presumably this should be available.

FSD still steers during a "Take Over Immediately" I had to keep my foot on the accelerator for it to continue driving. When i took my foot off, it slowed to a stop and put itself into park. It displayed the message driver seat belt unbuckled

@TesCalendar1 @teslatidbits If I needed to run a windows application I ran it under a virtual machine which meant I could restart Windows much faster when it fell over!

Yesterday I learned that many engineers actually use Macs for work. I was shocked. In my engineering career, I’ve literally never seen anyone use a Mac. So now I’m curious, if you’re an engineer, do you use a Mac or PC for work?

I asked Grok whether the Cook reports conclusion was also misleading because the “97%” had three categories included of which only the first two explicitly mentioned ACC (anthromorphic climate change). This is what Grok said; - The study grouped categories 1–3 (explicit and implicit endorsements) together without breaking them down in the headline result: - Categories 1 and 2 (explicit endorsement): 986 papers (24.6% of the 4,014 papers taking a position, or 8.3% of all papers). - Category 3 (implicit endorsement): 2,910 papers (72.5% of the 4,014, or 24.4% of all papers). - This means the 97% figure heavily relies on implicit endorsements (74.7% of the endorsing group), which are less definitive than explicit statements. The lack of transparency about this breakdown in the headline result exaggerates the level of explicit agreement. In other words only 8.3% of the papers surveyed explicitly endorsed ACC, 24.4% had content which the surveyers considered implied ACC. As Grok put it “The selective framing of the 97% figure aligns with the authors’ apparent goal of emphasizing a strong scientific consensus on ACC, potentially reflecting their own position or agenda:”

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐮𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐝 One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of “climate scientists” agree that virtually all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it. Except, this statistic is largely made up, and no matter how many times it is quashed, it persists as a talking point in online forums. Just yesterday, I received a comment, saying, 🗨️ “𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑢𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑠 97% 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑁𝐴𝑆𝐴?” So, is this the same @NASA that lost 14 astronauts between two manned space shuttle launch failures in 1986 and 2003? Or the same NASA that recently enlisted @SpaceX’s help to get astronauts stuck in space back to Earth? That NASA? Oof, that one is going to burn. Sizzle sizzle. 🌶️ Anyways, let’s continue. . . 🚶‍♂️‍➡️ The “consensus of scientists” with respect to climate change is not organic. It was manufactured through questionable data processing methods. When someone states the axiom “All scientists agree,” it is usually a reference to two particular studies, both of which were published in Environmental Research Letters (ERL): Cook et al. (2013) and Lynas et al. (2021). Let's look closer at these studies. 🔎 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝟗𝟕% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒” The paper that got this all started was published in ERL in 2013. 🔗 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108… Led by cognitive psychologist John Cook, a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change and founder of the climate blog, Skeptical Science, he and eight co-authors skimmed the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published between 1991 and 2011. Of the 11,944 abstracts, 7,930 (66.4%) of them expressed 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on the cause(s) of global warming since the pre-industrial era. Of the remaining 4,014 abstracts which endorsed either anthropogenic global warming (referred to as AGW hereafter) or natural global warming, 3,896 (97.1%) endorsed AGW. Only 78 (1.9%) rejected AGW, while 40 (1%) of them expressed uncertainty on the physical drivers. So, the “97% consensus” was contrived by omitting 7,930 (66.4%) of the 11,944 abstracts because those papers did not explicitly state a position on the cause(s) of global warming since the 1850s or so. That's sausage-making. 🌭 But, what about the >99% consensus? Let's find out. 🔎 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “>𝟗𝟗% 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒” Like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) attempted to quantify the consensus on AGW. 🔗 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108… In this synthesis, 3,000 climate papers were selected at random. In that batch, 282 were marked as false positives since they weren't actually climate-related. That’s fair. So, the analysis continued with the remaining 2,718 peer-reviewed articles. Of those, 1,869 (68.8%) of them took 𝒏𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 on AGW. And, like Cook et al. (2013), all 1,869 papers neither endorsing nor rejecting AGW were discarded. Of the remaining 849 papers that did endorse a position, 845 (99.5%) of them sided with AGW while four did not. So, like Cook et al. (2013), Lynas et al. (2021) ignored over 65% of the papers selected that didn't take one position or the other on the physical driver(s) of global warming. By doing this, they could artificially manufacture a consensus on an issue where none actually exists if all of the relevant papers were considered. The advantage that Lynas et al. (2021) has over the former is that each paper was examined thoroughly rather than just reading the abstract. This made for a more thorough analysis despite the same flawed methodology both used in ignoring the majority of papers that took a neutral stance. 🧵 1/3 (Keep reading) ⬇️

Hmmm, a further question to Grok gave a rather worrying conclusion. Initially Grok suggested the inverse square law would mean that only camera sensors very close to a LIDAR would be at risk, but when I suggested these are laser pulses so must be coherent light with little spread to give accurate rnge finding over 100’s of metres, Grok agreed and gave this final conclusion affecting any sensor roughly pointed in the direction of the LIDAR transmitter. “Your concern about power drop-off is spot-on: LIDAR beams maintain high coherence (e.g., 0.2 mrad divergence) to achieve accurate range finding at 200–300 m, resulting in minimal power density reduction (~4% at 200 m). At urban distances (1–10 m), the power density (~1.27 W/mm², 6.35 nJ/mm² per pulse) far exceeds smartphone CMOS damage thresholds, especially with telephoto lenses, as seen in the Volvo EX90 and CES 2019 incidents. The massive population of vulnerable smartphones makes mitigation by LIDAR manufacturers the only practical solution. Strategies like adaptive power, tighter scanning, or hybrid wavelengths can reduce risks without compromising autonomous driving performance. The onus lies with LIDAR makers to act, given their control over the technology and its deployment in public spaces.” In theory the LIDAR pulses are eye safe, but even there some people could be more at risk, eg: those who’ve had cateract surgery.

I’ve always considered the debate between active (LIDAR) and passive (camera only) systems for automotive FSD to be one of different methodology but a recent YouTube video by Out of Spec BITS (youtu.be/eNF1mgczg5E?si…) showing a Volvo car with LIDAR permanently damaging an iPhone camera sensor had me wonder if we should be more concerned. The Volvo LIDAR is a Class 1 system which is certified as safe for human vision as far as I understand, but asking Grok about the video didn’t fully reassure me. It seems the risk is low - you’d need to be at very close range and the low power and intermittency of exposure make it unlikely for damage to occur and then probably only corneal rather than retinal, but not zero. The suggestion was also that people with cataract surgery might be more vulnerable, but again low risk. Primary risk seems to be for cameras using telephoto lenses concentrating the laser pulses because they don’t filter IR in the same way as the eye does. It does make me wonder though if LIDAR becomes more commonly fitted whether density of exposure could become an issue. I suspect it’s unlikely to be a real problem other than for photography but I can’t help a little unease.

@hiltonholloway More accurately it shows how much energy is required to move a vehicle down the road and given EV’s are 3-4x the efficiency of an ICE just how appalling ICE’s are!!!

Which shows you just how much juice is used to push your EV down the road. 260 miles = six days for a house.

@TeslaJoy @elonmusk @wholemars More important for most is when will it become available outside of the US to those who paid for it?

@elonmusk @wholemars When will 2018 Model 3 owners who paid for FSD get this?

Somewhere along the way, quietly without anyone noticing, my Tesla became fully self-driving. I just dropped my friend off at his house 15 minutes away. We got into my Model 3 in the driveway, tapped his address and pushed the blue "Start FSD" button. I told my friend, "Watch, I bet it'll take us all the way to your place on its own". And they said "Of course it will" (he has a Model 3 with FSD too). The car then pulled out of my driveway, drove 15 minutes to my friend's place, pulled over, and put the car in park. After my friend got out, I just pushed "Home" and the Blue Start FSD button again. My car then pulled out of the parking spot, drove back home, and parked my car in the driveway. I then used summon to pull it into the garage. The entire dropoff and return trip were handled entirely by the car's AI. For the entire trip, I didn't have to touch the steering wheel or pedals at all. This after a day in which my car drove me 75 minutes from parking spot to parking spot without a single touch of the wheel. As I walked into the house, it occurred to me that thtere was no reason for me to be in the car at all — other than the law. From a technical perspective, the car is able to pull out of the driveway, drop my friend off, and then come back home and park in my driveway. Imagine what the next few models will do if this is what we're seeing from FSD 13.2.8. People will get mad and argue with me, and tell me it's not self-driving. Yes, you have to watch it still. But I am seeing it work with my own eyes. You can't convince me that what I'm seeing with my own eyes isn't real.

@SawyerMerritt On no. SELL SELL SELL!

Cramer on robotaxi's: "I'm putting my chips on Elon Musk. I don't think Waymo scales the way people think. Go and read what Musk said about what he's gonna do."

@CernBasher Great transcript.

Tesla, Inc. - Q1 2025 Earnings Call Transcript Travis Axelrod Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to Tesla's First Quarter 2025 Q&A Webcast. My name is Travis Axelrod, Head of Investor Relations, and I'm joined today by Elon Musk, Vaibhav Taneja, and a number of other executives. Our Q1 results were announced at about 3:00 p.m. Central Time in the update deck made public to the same link as this webcast. During this call, we will discuss our business outlook and make forward-looking statements. These comments are based on our predictions and expectations as of today. Actual events or results could differ materially due to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those mentioned in our most recent filings with the SEC. Before we jump into Q&A, Elon will be providing an update. Elon? Elon Musk Hello, everyone. Well, it's never a dull moment these days. Well, thanks, for sure, every day is going to be exciting. As people know, there's been some blowback for the time that I've been spending in government with the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. I think the work that we're doing there is actually very important for trying to reign in the insane deficit that is leading our country, the United States, to destruction. And the DOGE team has made a lot of progress in addressing waste and fraud. The natural blowback from that is those who were receiving the wasteful dollars and the fraudulent dollars will try to attack me and the DOGE team and anything associated with me. So then I'm really left with two choices. Should we just let the waste and fraud continue? And it's continuing to grow at a really unsustainable pace that was bankrupting the country or to fight the waste and fraud and try to get the country back on the right track. And I believe the right thing to do is to fight the waste and fraud and get the country back in the right track and working together with President Trump and his administration. Because if the ship of America goes down, we all go down with it, including Tesla and everyone else. So I think this is critical work. Now the protests that you'll see out there, they're very organized. They're paid for. They're obviously not going to say -- admit that the reason that they're protesting is because they're receiving fraudulent money or they're the recipients of wasteful largess. But they're going to come up with some other reason. But that is the real reason for the protests, the actual reason, is that those receiving the waste and fraud wish to continue to keep receiving it. That is the real thing that's going on here, obviously. So now that said, I do think the large slug of work necessary to get the DOGE team in place and working in the government to get the financial house in order is mostly done. And I think starting probably in next month, May, my time allocation to DOGE will drop significantly. I'll have to continue doing it. I think we have the remainder of the President's term just to make sure that the waste and fraud that we stopped does not come roaring back, which it will do if it has the chance. So I think I'll continue to spend a day or 2 per week on government matters for as long as the President would like me to do so, and as long as it is useful. But starting next month, I will be allocating far more of my time to Tesla, and now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done. So at Tesla, we've gone through many a crisis over the years and actually been through many near-death experiences. I think we probably were in the edge of death at least on maybe a dozen times. It's been so many times. This is not one of those times. We're not on edge of death, not even close. So there are some challenges, and I expect that this year will be -- there'll probably be some unexpected bumps this year. I remain extremely optimistic about the future of the company. The future of the company is fundamentally based on large-scale autonomous cars and large-scale -- and large volume, vast numbers of autonomous humanoid robots. So the value of the company that makes truly useful autonomous humanoid robots and autonomous useful vehicles at scale, at low cost, which is what Tesla is going to do, is staggering. I continue to believe that Tesla, with excellent execution, will be the most valuable company in the world by far. But it's an important year. We must execute well. But if we do execute well, I do -- I think Tesla will be the most valuable company in the world by far. It may be as valuable as the next five companies combined. But there'll be a few bumps on the road before that happens. I said I think on the last earnings call that we'll start to see the prosperity of autonomy take effect in a material way around the middle of next year. We expect to have -- be selling fully autonomous rides in June in Austin as we've been saying for now several months. So that's continued. But the real question from a financial standpoint is when does it really become material and affect the bottom line of the company and start to be a fundamental part of the business -- when does it move the financial needle in a significant way? That's probably around the middle of next year, second half of next year. And then once it does move the needle in a significant way, it will really go exponentially from there. So that's -- I'd encourage people to look beyond like the sort of bumps and potholes of the road immediately ahead of us, but lift your gaze to the bright-shining citadel on the hill, I don't know, Reagan-esque imagery. And that's where we're headed. And not too distant future, like I said, end of next year. With respect to supply chain risk, something that Tesla has been working on for several years is to localize supply chains. It does actually make sense from a cost standpoint and from a logistics risk standpoint is to have the supply chains be at least located on the continent in which the car is built. And so we are, I think we are the least affected car company with respect to tariffs, at least in most respects. I mean, it remains to be seen. Now tariffs are still tough on a company when margins are still low. But we do have localized supply chains in both America, Europe, and China. So that puts us in a stronger position than any of our competitors. Undoubtedly I'm going to get a lot of questions about tariffs and I just want to emphasize that the tariff decision is entirely up to the President of the United States. I will weigh in with my advice with the President, which he listens to my advice but then it's up to him, of course, to make this decision. I've been on the record many times saying that I believe lower tariffs are generally a good idea for prosperity. But this decision is fundamentally up to the elected representative of the people being the President of the United States. So I'll continue to advocate for lower tariffs rather than higher tariffs but that's all I can do. Now let me walk you through why I'm so excited about the future of Tesla. So first of all, autonomy. The team and I are laser-focused on bringing robotaxi to Austin in June. Unsupervised autonomy will first be solved for the Model Y in Austin, and then actually, should parse out the term for robotic taxi or robotaxi and just generally like what's the Cybercab because we've got a product called the Cybercab. And then any Tesla, which could be an S, 3, X, or Y that is autonomous is a robotic taxi or a robotaxi. It's a bit confusing. So the vast majority of the Tesla fleet that we've made is capable of being a robotaxi or a robotic taxi. And we're going from -- once we can make the system work where you can have paid rides, fully autonomously with no one in the car in one city, that is a very scalable thing for us to go broadly within whatever jurisdiction allows us to operate. So because what we're solving for is a general solution to autonomy, not a city-specific solution for autonomy, once we make it work in a few cities, we can basically make it work in all cities in that jurisdiction. So if it's -- once we can make the pace to work in a few cities in America, we can make it work anywhere in America. Once we can make it work in a few cities in China, we can make it work anywhere in China, likewise in Europe, limited only by regulatory approvals. So this is the advantage of having a generalized solution using artificial intelligence and an AI chip that Tesla designed specifically for this purpose, as opposed to very expensive sensors and high-precision maps on a particular neighborhood where that neighborhood may change or often changes and then the car stops working. So we have a general solution instead of a specific solution. And with regards to Optimus, we're making good progress in Optimus. We expect to have thousands of Optimus robots working in Tesla factories by the end of this year, beginning this fall. And we expect to see Optimus ramp faster than any product, I think, in history to get to millions of units per year as soon as possible. I think we feel confident in getting to 1 million units per year in less than 5 years, maybe 4 years. So by 2030, I feel confident in predicting 1 million Optimus units per year. It might be 2029. So let's see, with respect to energy, our energy business is doing very well. The Megapack is -- it enables companies to output far more total energy than would otherwise be the case. When you think of the energy capability of a grid, it's much more than the total energy output per year. If the power plants could operate at peak power for all 24 hours as opposed to being at half power, sometimes quarter power at night, then you could double the energy output of existing power plants. And in order to do that, you need to buffer the energy so that you can charge up something like a battery pack at night and the discharge during the day. So this is a massive unlock on total energy output of any given grid over the course of the year. And utility companies are beginning to realize this and are buying our Megapacks at scale. So at this point, a gigawatt-class battery is quite a common thing -- so with many orders in the hopper for gigawatt and beyond batteries. And we expect the energy -- the stationary energy storage business to scale ultimately to terawatts per year. So very, very good numbers. Now Q1 -- first quarters of a year are usually pretty tricky. It's usually the worst part of the year because people don't want to go buy a car in the middle of winter during a blizzard. So we picked Q1 as like a good quarter to do a cutover to the new version of the Model Y. And we changed production of the world's best-selling car. It's worth remembering the Model Y is the best-selling car of any kind on Earth with 1.1 million unit per year output of a single model. And we did this change over at the same time in the factories all across the world. So congratulations to the Tesla team on an amazing job in pulling off what is a very difficult transition. So yes, it's really very impressive work. In conclusion, while there are many near-term headwinds for us in the industry, the future for Tesla is brighter than ever. The value of the company is delivering sustainable abundance with our affordable AI-powered robots. So this part, I like this phrase, sustainable abundance for all. If you said like, what's the ideal future that you can imagine? That's what you'd want. You'd want abundance for all in a way that's sustainable. It's good for the environment. Basically, this is a happy future. If you say, what's the happiest future you can imagine? One which is that will be a future where there's sustainable abundance for all. Closest thing to heaven we can get on Earth, basically. So thank you, again, to the Tesla team for all their efforts after a challenging time and look forward to continuing to lead the team to great success in the future.

@JamesMelville Would it be possible to crowdfund?

The Labour government reneging a pledge to fund the travel of the last surviving WWII veterans to Normandy for their final D-Day salute is absolutely shameful.

Great article: Microsoft is digging its own grave with Windows 11, and it has to stop - TechRadar apple.news/AkCQSSoDdTl6VY…

@GeoffBuysCars I’m not sure you can blame the UK government (for this one), it seems to be a global (in the western world) coordinated and financed operation.

@PB_CEng I'm pretty sure it's all just deflection to make Musk seem like a Nazi while the UK government are creeping closer and closer to Nazism in the way they treat the people. Except this time the jews are the white working classes.

Someone is financing all of this. Why would you bother with any of it if you aren't being paid? All the banners, all the equipment, it all costs money. This is essentially a psy op. I don't really understand it though.

@elonmusk @X Instagram only has likes. X only have likes. Can we please get a b***s*** button? More BS = faster community notes?

@esherifftv Remove a bug from the bathroom?

Can you guess what I’m about to do!?