this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
1235 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

64075 readers
5899 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 215 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I believe this is the part where we get sued for not buying his cars.

[–] ryan213@lemmy.ca 44 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 1 points 19 hours ago

I'm sure he already calls his lawyers every day at 3 AM while half blitzed on K to pitch exactly that

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I think he would be relieved to get rid of Tesla if someone would buy it. The full self-driving promise was always a matter of interpretation, and the cars they build are more expensive symbols of status than practical products. Tesla can’t compete with global EV manufacturers, that’s a Damocles sword waiting to fall.

SpaceX is where the money is now, and all the electric innovation Tesla did can be used for something else.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 51 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The full self-driving promise was always a matter of interpretation

There's nothing to interpret. It does not fully drive itself.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 22 points 1 day ago

Musk is neither a Tesla nor an Edison; he is a Barnum.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not safely anyway.

Fortunately for him, and unfortunately for us, he undoubtedly has full control over whichever department defines the word "safely".

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

Only usable for federal highways, shit could still be banned by the DMVs or equivalents which would basically be a death knell for it.

[–] Flisty@mstdn.social 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@OutlierBlue @TeamAssimilation but it will next year, right? Let's just ignore all those times it's veered into the wrong lane or onto train tracks or whatever, it's fine. Next year, next year, next year.

And Mars in a decade.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Starship was supposed to be doing trips to mars each year by last year. Instead it has sometimes managed to not explode on a suborbital trajectory. But of course regulations are what hold it back...

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 1 points 19 hours ago

And he wonders why NASA turned him down for bringing those astronauts back...

[–] pipe01@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago

SpaceX turns the impossible into late

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago

Musk is getting $8 million each day from the US government to destroy the US government. He was given $44 billion to destroy Twitter. He's not worried about money.

[–] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like companies getting sued for not advertising on Twitter

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

That was the joke, yes