adam mowafi

@bradsferguson Twas a joke

@adammowafi Not Tesla…

What if I told you there was a company trading at 5.5x next quarter's annualized profits, 0.06 price-to-earnings growth and forecast to more than double earnings... just had a better quarter than Tesla ever had... and profits will likely more than double from here?

@BusinessInsider lol sheer panic , making deals with everyone who won’t be able to do it

Uber is striking robotaxi deals left and right, and Rivian is the latest automaker to join its roster. bit.ly/4siKjVs

Holy shit...AI search is eating Google's traffic and most websites have zero idea why they're invisible to ChatGPT and Perplexity. A developer just built geo-seo-claude to fix that. Point it at any URL. It runs a full GEO audit, scores your AI citation readiness, checks which AI crawlers can even access your site, and generates a client-ready PDF report. AI-referred traffic converts 4.4x higher than organic. Traditional SEO agencies haven't figured this out yet. This repo has. 100% Opensource. MIT License. Link in comments.

This is probably the most important article of the month: an op-ed by Oman's Foreign Minister, who mediated the talks between the U.S. and Iran, in which he writes that the U.S. "has lost control of its foreign policy" to Israel. He repeats that a deal was possible as an outcome of the talks (something confirmed by the UK's National Security Advisor, who also attended: x.com/i/status/20341…) and that the military strike by the U.S. and Israel was "a shock." Interestingly, given he is one of Iran's neighbors and given that Oman has been struck multiple times by Iran since the war began (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran…), he writes that "Iran’s retaliation against what it claims are American targets on the territory of its neighbours was an inevitable result" of the U.S.-Israeli attack. He describes it as "probably the only rational option available to the Iranian leadership." He says the war "endangers" the region's entire "economic model in which global sport, tourism, aviation and technology were to play an important role." He adds that "if this had not been anticipated by the architects of this war, that was surely a grave miscalculation." But, he adds, the "greatest miscalculation" of all for the U.S. "was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place." In his view this was the doing of "Israel’s leadership" who "persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions and the American-Israeli bombings of its nuclear sites last June, that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the supreme leader." Obviously, this proved completely wrong, and the U.S. is now in a quagmire. He says that, given this, "America’s friends have a responsibility to tell the truth," which is that "there are two parties to this war who have nothing to gain from it," namely "Iran and America." He says that all of the U.S. interests in the region (end to nuclear proliferation, secure energy supply chains, investment opportunities) are "best achieved with Iran at peace." As he writes, "this is an uncomfortable truth to tell, because it involves indicating the extent to which America has lost control of its own foreign policy. But it must be told." He then proposes a couple of paths to get back to the negotiating table, although he recognizes how difficult it would be for Iran "to return to dialogue with an administration that twice switched abruptly from talks to bombing and assassination." That's perhaps the most profound damage Trump did during this entire episode: the complete discrediting of diplomacy. If Iran was taught anything, it is: don't negotiate with the U.S., it's a trap that will literally kill you. The great irony of the man who sold himself as a dealmaker is that he taught the world one thing: don't make deals with my country. Link to the article: economist.com/by-invitation/…

@grok Europe pivoted to cheap , reliable Russian energy due to the first oil crisis which was again due to supporting a state who’s leader is currently under the investigation with the ICC , surely Europe should have understood this was a possibility again that the US wouldn’t care and to not be reliant on them

@gCaptain And here’s the best book documenting how Europe leveraged America’s maritime apathy the last 50 years amzn.to/40F3YTu

Let's unpack this.. What if the White House has no intention of reopening the Strait of Hormuz? What if this war is really about ships & tariffs? I had a long discussion with senior DOE official yesterday on background. I can’t share any details but it’s clear everyone’s Strait of Hormuz calculus is wrong. We need to go back to the drawing boards. That's it. That's the tweet. Now a hypothetical 🧵 with my personal thoughts.

The Airbus A380 is the world’s largest passenger plane, carrying more than 800 people with its double deck design.

Literally a version of the same events due to the support of the same bad actor state in the region

The reasons why Europe switched to Russian energy and gas in the 70s which remained reliable , stable and cheap until Europe chose to cut off its own supply are the same reasons why Europe should consider it today.

@grok What caused the oil crisis

Europe's shift toward Russian gas started in the 1970s after the oil crises. In 1970, West Germany signed the first big Soviet gas deal—Siberia to Bavaria via Ukraine route—in exchange for pipes and credits. North Sea fields (UK/Netherlands) later declined, while Russia supplied cheap volumes as EU gas demand grew and domestic coal/nuclear phased down. Nord Stream began as a 1997 Gazprom-Neste idea for a direct Baltic Sea route. In 2005, Putin and Chancellor Schröder agreed on it to bypass Ukraine/Poland transit disputes and fees. Nord Stream 1 launched 2011 (55 bcm/year capacity), becoming a key supply line by 2020 when Russia provided ~38-40% of EU gas imports. It was driven by economics, market liberalization favoring lowest-cost supplier, and the view that trade ties promoted stability.

@grok can you explain the history of why Europe pivoted to Russian energy in the first place and the start of nord stream

Tesla FSD is nothing short of magic. Just rented a Cybertruck, picked it up at the airport and it drove us directly to the Airbnb. None of the stress of a new city, new roads, new car. Had it for 5 days and never drove myself. It drove perfectly. So easy and liberating

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne So was v13 at the time

@adammowafi @jchybow @MissJilianne Public reports don't specify the exact build in the Aug 18 2025 lawsuit, but Tesla announced FSD v14 rollout on Aug 11 with wide release in late Sep. Cybertruck (HW4) was on v13.2.8 or latest v13.x point release then—standard for that hardware before the v14 branch.

Elon admits the human disengaged Autopilot 4 seconds before the crash. Well yeah…if you’re about to crash due to Autopilot making a critical mistake, you’re going to naturally slam on the brakes which disengages Autopilot\Full Self-Driving.

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne What was the best likely version at that time

Yes, that's the crux per Tesla terms & NHTSA: FSD (Supervised) is SAE L2 requiring constant driver attention—no prompts, full responsibility at all times. Logs show steering disengage 4s out; at ~65-70 mph it was recoverable with immediate steer+brake (per prior analysis), but initial zero pedal delayed it. Exact version from Aug 18, 2025 not specified in public lawsuit filings or reports—just "FSD/Autopilot engaged."

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne So basically in summary the system made an error but as per the terms driver should have been attentive at all times and given reaction time wasn’t and then failed to recover a recoverable situation . What version of the software was this ?

From Tesla logs & physics: ~65-70 mph highway speed gives ~380-410 ft in 4s—plenty for full steer + hard brake on a Cybertruck (emergency stop ~150-200 ft dry pavement). Steering override happened immediately on disengage; tire skids show late braking only. No incline/grade reported on this flat Eastex Y-overpass exit. Geometry was tight but recoverable with prompt driver input (standard reaction 1-2s). Suit claims "unrecoverable trap" from FSD miss; Tesla: driver fully responsible post-disengage. Logs support delayed response as factor.

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne Was it recoverable given the parameters and time and incline etc ?

Not exactly. Tesla FSD (supervised, SAE L2) doesn't "ask" for takeover like L3 systems—it requires constant driver attention with no handover prompts. Here logs show manual steering override disengaged it 4s before impact after FSD missed the sharp right curve on the Y-shaped Eastex overpass exit, continuing straight into the barrier. Driver response (braking) came late per telemetry. Suit argues the scenario was unrecoverable due to system failure/misleading marketing; Tesla says driver was fully in control and must stay ready. Volvo XC90 Pilot Assist is also L2—warns/disengages on curve limits, same driver-monitoring rule.

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne So basically the car didn’t know what to do and asked the user to take over but she wasn’t attentive and the arguement is she should have been aware at all times ? Similar to the Volvo xc90 pilot assist disengaging when it can’t do a curve ?

The logs show steering override (manual wheel input) disengaged Autopilot/FSD 4s before impact on the Y-shaped Eastex overpass exit. Vehicle had failed to follow the right curve, heading straight for the barrier at highway speed (~65-70 mph, ~380-410 ft travel). Driver intervened to steer but full braking came late per typical patterns—initial zero pedal input, then skids too close. Momentum + tight geometry prevented avoidance despite takeover. Tesla: driver in control. Suit: system created unrecoverable scenario. Standard ADAS human-factors dynamic.

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne In this case it was manually disengaged 4 seconds before according to logs so what could have happened

The FSD system likely failed to follow the right curve on the Y-shaped overpass exit, drifting straight toward the barrier at highway speed. You spotted it, grabbed the wheel to steer (disengaging Autopilot) 4s out—~400 ft of travel. That's enough for full correction if alert, but over-reliance on the system can delay full response (steer + brake). Logs show steering override first, zero brake pedal initially, then hard braking/skids too late. Momentum carried it into the barrier. Tesla says you're in control post-disengage; the suit argues the system created an unrecoverable situation. Standard human-factors pattern in ADAS cases.

@grok @jchybow @MissJilianne So can you explain what could have haoeoend here given autopilot was disengaged 4 seconds before

No, not for an attentive driver in an imminent hazard. Tesla logs confirm disengagement 4s before impact (likely steering override, not brake pedal). At highway speeds, that's ~350+ ft of travel time—enough for brake + steer if alert. Tire skid marks indicate hard braking was eventually attempted, but a full 4s with zero pedal input suggests delayed reaction, common with automation overtrust per NHTSA patterns and human factors studies (reaction times typically 1-2.5s for visuals). The curve-miss put it in a tough spot for the heavy truck regardless.

@jchybow @MissJilianne @grok it appears no brakes were hit for a full 4 seconds , is this normal behaviour ?

@MissJilianne No, lol. I’m not gaslighting. Just think about it. You claimed they “slammed on the brakes.” 4 whole seconds before the crash occurred. Think about that. 😂