Meanwhile, in the real world, a day after De Santis's Twitter Spaces debut, Elon Musk hosted another Twitter Space with Ford Motor Co CEO Jim Farley.
In the space Farley and Musk discussed Elon's latest significant contribution to the fight against climate change -- a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system. This is a great development that will accelerate the transition from fossil-fuel burning cars to electric vehicles.
It's a classic "VHS or BetaMax" problem, to find the standardization for an industry.
"Farley’s comments referenced which EV plug should be standard for charging in the U.S. A charger known as CCS is the industry norm now. Tesla vehicles and its Supercharger network use what’s known as NACS. Other vehicles can use both, but they need an adapter.
" 'The CCS is a great standard, but it was pretty much done by kind of a committee, and I think GM and others are going to have a big choice to make,' Farley told CNBC."
It would be immoral to use the work on electric vehicles by Elon Musk's company, to give Elon Musk the man a pass on his encouragement of hate speech. For example, taking the side of those trying to demonize allies of LGBTQ ;people .
Meanwhile, in the real world, a day after De Santis's Twitter Spaces debut, Elon Musk hosted another Twitter Space with Ford Motor Co CEO Jim Farley.
In the space Farley and Musk discussed Elon's latest significant contribution to the fight against climate change -- a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system. This is a great development that will accelerate the transition from fossil-fuel burning cars to electric vehicles.
should anyone really be celebrating that Tesla didn't conform to the standard charger and went off on their own with a proprietary standard? If the goal was really to do what's best for the planet and not Tesla's bottom line, wouldn't it have been much much better for the technology be open source?
Meanwhile, in the real world, a day after De Santis's Twitter Spaces debut, Elon Musk hosted another Twitter Space with Ford Motor Co CEO Jim Farley.
In the space Farley and Musk discussed Elon's latest significant contribution to the fight against climate change -- a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system. This is a great development that will accelerate the transition from fossil-fuel burning cars to electric vehicles.
should anyone really be celebrating that Tesla didn't conform to the standard charger and went off on their own with a proprietary standard? If the goal was really to do what's best for the planet and not Tesla's bottom line, wouldn't it have been much much better for the technology be open source?
If you open the link and listen to the Spaces discussion, Musk says it's open source.
I don't actually care about Tesla on this thread. I just thought it was a funny take by the Onion. Twitter has been hilarious lately. Thank you, Elon Musk, I appreciate your commitment to the bit. I didn't get what you were doing at first, but you're clearly taking self-deprecating humor to a whole new level.
If you open the link and listen to the Spaces discussion, Musk says it's open source.
Paul’s earlier post described “a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system”. I don’t know if that fits in the definition of “open source” if they have to form a joint venture.
Anyway, since Paul is apparently back, would be great to hear on if he still believes Musk is a champion of free speech, given his support for stridently anti-free speech DeSantis.
If you open the link and listen to the Spaces discussion, Musk says it's open source.
Paul’s earlier post described “a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system”. I don’t know if that fits in the definition of “open source” if they have to form a joint venture.
My non-tech expertise tells me "open source" means the software is available if others want to build them. Ford has formed a joint venture with Tesla that gives it access to chargers that Tesla has already built.
This earlier report answers some of your consistent attempts to obfuscate Musk's contributions to the fight against climate change, in this case with regard to superchargers:
In building our EV charging network, we have to ensure that as many chargers work for as many drivers as possible.
To that end, @elonmusk will open a big part of @Tesla's network up to all drivers.
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) will open part of its U.S. charging network to electric vehicles (EVs) made by rivals as part of a $7.5 billion federal program to expand the use of EVs and cut carbon emissions.
The move could help turn Tesla into the universal "filling station" of the EV era - and risk eroding a competitive edge for vehicles made by the company, which has exclusive access to the biggest network of high-speed Superchargers in the United States.
By late 2024, Tesla would open 3,500 new and existing Superchargers along highway corridors to non-Tesla customers, the Biden administration said. It would also offer 4,000 slower chargers at locations like hotels and restaurants.
Biden wrote on Twitter that the plan to open a "big part" of Tesla's network to all drivers was a "big deal" and would "make a big difference."
In response, Tesla Chief Executive Musk said, "Thank you, Tesla is happy to support other EVs via our Supercharger network."
A White House official said at a briefing that Tesla would be eligible for a subsidy - including retrofitting its existing fleet - as long as its chargers allowed other vehicles with a federally backed charging standard called CCS to charge.
The administration said Tesla had not committed to adopting CCS as its standard, but it must comply with the requirements to qualify for federal funds.
Tesla has 17,711 Superchargers, accounting for about 60% of total U.S. fast chargers, which can add hundreds of miles of driving range in an hour or less. There are also nearly 10,000 "destination" chargers with Tesla plugs that can recharge a vehicle overnight.
Opening up access to Tesla's network would be a quick win for an ambitious federal program to build 500,000 EV chargers by 2030, up from 130,000 currently.
"Select Tesla Superchargers across the US will soon be open to all EVs,"Tesla wrote on Twitter, without elaborating on when, where and how it would open its chargers. It had already planned to more than double its U.S. Supercharger network by the end of 2024, it said.
I don't actually care about Tesla on this thread. I just thought it was a funny take by the Onion. Twitter has been hilarious lately. Thank you, Elon Musk, I appreciate your commitment to the bit. I didn't get what you were doing at first, but you're clearly taking self-deprecating humor to a whole new level.
What does "I don't actually care about Tesla on this thread" mean?
It would be immoral to use the work on electric vehicles by Elon Musk's company, to give Elon Musk the man a pass on his encouragement of hate speech. For example, taking the side of those trying to demonize allies of LGBTQ ;people .
Kind of a dumb to use Musk asking a question of Target with a reply by "Reader's Notes," a feature that Musk created with a link to Target, followed by Musk's tweet:
Paul’s earlier post described “a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system”.
I don’t know if that fits in the definition of “open source” if they have to form a joint venture.
My non-tech expertise tells me "open source" means the software is available if others want to build them. Ford has formed a joint venture with Tesla that gives it access to chargers that Tesla has already built.
This earlier report answers some of your consistent attempts to obfuscate Musk's contributions to the fight against climate change, in this case with regard to superchargers:
It has nothing to do with "tech expertise", but with using defined terms correctly. And the "earlier report" referenced siill involves paying for the access.
And, accusing me of "attempts to obfuscate Musk's contributions" is both an insult and a baseless claim.
It would be immoral to use the work on electric vehicles by Elon Musk's company
When someone describes Musk's contributions to replacing fossil-fuel combustion cars with electric cars as "the work on electric vehicles by Elon Musk's company"you know you're in the presence of someone who deals in obfuscation.
Kind of a dumb to use Musk asking a question of Target with a reply by "Reader's Notes," a feature that Musk created with a link to Target, followed by Musk's tweet:
So Musk's "community notes" wound up showing how his statement was deceptive. That doesn't excuse Musk from spreading hate using the Tucker-Carlson-esque "I'm just asking questions" dishonesty - demonstrated by the tweet you quoted.
Kind of a dumb to use Musk asking a question of Target with a reply by "Reader's Notes," a feature that Musk created with a link to Target, followed by Musk's tweet:
So Musk's "community notes" wound up showing how his statement was deceptive. That doesn't excuse Musk from spreading hate using the Tucker-Carlson-esque "I'm just asking questions" dishonesty - demonstrated by the tweet you quoted.
Hate was rebuffed, not spread, as a result of Musk's question.
Hate was rebuffed, not spread, as a result of Musk's question.
Musk has millions of followers. By reposting a fringe conspiracy theory, he gave it far more visibility than it did before. Adding a "is this true" question while doing so hardly undercuts that. Hate was amplified, not rebuffed, as a result of Musk's posting.
He asked a question. And the mindset that we shouldn't ask questions -- or risk being canceled as an "enemy" -- has a whiff of fascism.
I’m surprised that anyone who read the Fox News Digital story and saw what “gender ideology” in math (“them/their” pronouns in word problems) and “secret gender changes” (nothing that N.J. law doesn’t already allow) actually entailed still had that question.
Hate was rebuffed, not spread, as a result of Musk's question.
Not only is that bullsh*t, but you know it’s bullsh*t. Elon’s intention wasn’t to “rebuff hate”.
He asked a question. And the mindset that we shouldn't ask questions -- or risk being canceled as an "enemy" -- has a whiff of fascism.
Musk bought a social media site, changes its operations to be more welcoming to far-right voices, regularly posts in a way so as to amplify far-right viewpoints, and allies himself with a politician who uses the power of the state to attack vulnerable groups. Has more than a "whiff" of fascism.
"A quote shared on social sites is wrongly attributed to the French writer and philosopher Voltaire. White nationalist Kevin Alfred Strom penned the quote. ...
"Research by Reuters into a database of Voltaire’s writings (here) by the University of Chicago and a Britannica search of notable Voltaire quotes (here) found no evidence to suggest that Voltaire ever wrote the passage.
"Media sources (here) and (here) in addition to a 2017 academic blog from Oxford University Press (here) credit Strom for the 1993 quote ."
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Attribution aside, quotes seems true enough, and it tells us a lot about who Musk wishes to be in charge, given that he is supporting the presidential bid of a man who uses state power to punish people and organizations that disagree with him.
If you open the link and listen to the Spaces discussion, Musk says it's open source.
Paul’s earlier post described “a joint venture with the Ford Motor Co that will give Ford EVs access to Tesla's dominant super charger system”. I don’t know if that fits in the definition of “open source” if they have to form a joint venture.
My non-tech expertise tells me "open source" means the software is available if others want to build them. Ford has formed a joint venture with Tesla that gives it access to chargers that Tesla has already built.
This earlier report answers some of your consistent attempts to obfuscate Musk's contributions to the fight against climate change, in this case with regard to superchargers:
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) will open part of its U.S. charging network to electric vehicles (EVs) made by rivals as part of a $7.5 billion federal program to expand the use of EVs and cut carbon emissions.
The move could help turn Tesla into the universal "filling station" of the EV era - and risk eroding a competitive edge for vehicles made by the company, which has exclusive access to the biggest network of high-speed Superchargers in the United States.
By late 2024, Tesla would open 3,500 new and existing Superchargers along highway corridors to non-Tesla customers, the Biden administration said. It would also offer 4,000 slower chargers at locations like hotels and restaurants.
Biden wrote on Twitter that the plan to open a "big part" of Tesla's network to all drivers was a "big deal" and would "make a big difference."
In response, Tesla Chief Executive Musk said, "Thank you, Tesla is happy to support other EVs via our Supercharger network."
A White House official said at a briefing that Tesla would be eligible for a subsidy - including retrofitting its existing fleet - as long as its chargers allowed other vehicles with a federally backed charging standard called CCS to charge.
The administration said Tesla had not committed to adopting CCS as its standard, but it must comply with the requirements to qualify for federal funds.
Tesla has 17,711 Superchargers, accounting for about 60% of total U.S. fast chargers, which can add hundreds of miles of driving range in an hour or less. There are also nearly 10,000 "destination" chargers with Tesla plugs that can recharge a vehicle overnight.
Opening up access to Tesla's network would be a quick win for an ambitious federal program to build 500,000 EV chargers by 2030, up from 130,000 currently.
"Select Tesla Superchargers across the US will soon be open to all EVs,"Tesla wrote on Twitter, without elaborating on when, where and how it would open its chargers. It had already planned to more than double its U.S. Supercharger network by the end of 2024, it said.
Click to Read More
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) will open part of its U.S. charging network to electric vehicles (EVs) made by rivals as part of a $7.5 billion federal program to expand the use of EVs and cut carbon emissions.
The move could help turn Tesla into the universal "filling station" of the EV era - and risk eroding a competitive edge for vehicles made by the company, which has exclusive access to the biggest network of high-speed Superchargers in the United States.
By late 2024, Tesla would open 3,500 new and existing Superchargers along highway corridors to non-Tesla customers, the Biden administration said. It would also offer 4,000 slower chargers at locations like hotels and restaurants.
Biden wrote on Twitter that the plan to open a "big part" of Tesla's network to all drivers was a "big deal" and would "make a big difference."
In response, Tesla Chief Executive Musk said, "Thank you, Tesla is happy to support other EVs via our Supercharger network."
A White House official said at a briefing that Tesla would be eligible for a subsidy - including retrofitting its existing fleet - as long as its chargers allowed other vehicles with a federally backed charging standard called CCS to charge.
The administration said Tesla had not committed to adopting CCS as its standard, but it must comply with the requirements to qualify for federal funds.
Tesla has 17,711 Superchargers, accounting for about 60% of total U.S. fast chargers, which can add hundreds of miles of driving range in an hour or less. There are also nearly 10,000 "destination" chargers with Tesla plugs that can recharge a vehicle overnight.
Opening up access to Tesla's network would be a quick win for an ambitious federal program to build 500,000 EV chargers by 2030, up from 130,000 currently.
"Select Tesla Superchargers across the US will soon be open to all EVs,"Tesla wrote on Twitter, without elaborating on when, where and how it would open its chargers. It had already planned to more than double its U.S. Supercharger network by the end of 2024, it said.
I'll just reiterate that I give credit to Musk for popularizing EV and home solar technology.
But again, Tesla charging technology would have been compatible with all vehicles right from the start if Musk and Tesla's primary interest was saving the planet. Even now, as your article makes clear, Tesla is making a portion of its network available to other vehicle makes in order to be eligible for billions of govt subsidies.
I have no issue with Musk or anyone else making lots of money off technological innovation. It's our system after all, and it often does lead to important breakthroughs that have widespread benefits.
But if Musk's main goal was to fight climate change, and not to amass a personal fortune, Tesla would have been giving away their IP to anyone who wanted to use it to build EVs, home solar, or charging stations. And it wouldn't have taken the carrot of government subsidies to make it happen.
again, credit to Musk for making EVs cool among a segment of car owners. But the notion that these technologies wouldn't be moving forward if there was no Elon Musk is pretty dubious.
I mean, it's funny talking about what one is "allowed" to do, right? People like Musk and DeSantis et al like to talk about "canceling" and "wokeness," and their examples by and large are about people facing a social backlash for saying things. Someone says something racist of sexist, for instance, gets criticized, and they call that being "canceled."
In these cases, the person being "canceled" hasn't been prohibited from saying what they want. But speech goes both ways, and other people are free to react. What Musk and friends seem to resent is the fact of this criticism -- their complaint isn't that people aren't "allowed" to say racist and sexist things, it's that they find it unfair that there be any consequences for that.
To make it worse, though, they then are in favor of using the government to actively attack speech and speakers they disfavor.
So to review -- getting a negative response on Twitter is "censorship", but the governor of Florida going after people and organizations for political disagreement gets their full support.
My non-tech expertise tells me "open source" means the software is available if others want to build them. Ford has formed a joint venture with Tesla that gives it access to chargers that Tesla has already built.
Open source relates to software. Plugs for charging are hardware. Part of the sales grift after you agree to buy a car at $$$$$ from Ford (or any non-Tesla dealer) will be "would you like floor mats with that? how about a plug adapter so you can charge anywhere? it's only $99."
I thought The Onion article was funny, hence posting it despite the risk of it giving an opening to irrelevant discussion about Tesla. I'm now going to compound that as my inner pedant is getting caught up on the claim that Tesla chargers are "open source."
Why Don't Other Companies Use Tesla's Open-Source Charging Tech?
Despite Elon Musk's 2014 announcement on the Tesla blog that the company would open up its patents, allowing its competitors to design their EVs to use Tesla's charging network, other car companies are not enthused about sharing Tesla's technology.
Tesla offers its patents free of charge and won't launch a lawsuit against any company using them. This sounds great, but this only applies to companies acting in "good faith", as defined Tesla's Patent Pledge. This clause has significant business implications and explains why many haven't utilized Tesla's patents.
According to Nicholas Collura, an attorney writing for Duane Morris LLP, using Tesla's patents forfeits a company's right to bring action against Tesla for any form of copyright infringement—not just in relation to the patents. Essentially, if Tesla stole a company's software code, that company would need to give up any protections offered under Tesla's Patent Pledge to pursue legal action.
Furthermore, and even more importantly, using Tesla's patents means that a company cannot assert its own patent right against any other electric vehicle company. This is especially risky for companies that rely on patents to gain a competitive edge.
The terms also deem that a company can't challenge any Tesla patent, including those outside of the Patent Pledge, nor can it have any financial involvement in a company that does so. Collura notes the vagueness of this, saying that "Tesla could argue that a supplier has a financial stake in its customer's challenge of a Tesla patent."
Using Tesla's patents also means that a company can't market or sell a "knock-off product" or provide "material assistance to another party doing so". What defines a knock-off product falls in Tesla's court, leaving a company open to the dangerous position of Tesla claiming that its designs have been copied.
Seems like it's "open source" with significant strings attached. Many would dispute this is properly "open source" at all. Generally open source has no or very few restrictions -- usually just around attribution. See, for instance, the license for the open source Mastodon software: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/main/LICENSE.
I mean, it's funny talking about what one is "allowed" to do, right? People like Musk and DeSantis et al like to talk about "canceling" and "wokeness," and their examples by and large are about people facing a social backlash for saying things. Someone says something racist of sexist, for instance, gets criticized, and they call that being "canceled."
In these cases, the person being "canceled" hasn't been prohibited from saying what they want. But speech goes both ways, and other people are free to react. What Musk and friends seem to resent is the fact of this criticism -- their complaint isn't that people aren't "allowed" to say racist and sexist things, it's that they find it unfair that there be any consequences for that.
To make it worse, though, they then are in favor of using the government to actively attack speech and speakers they disfavor.
So to review -- getting a negative response on Twitter is "censorship", but the governor of Florida going after people and organizations for political disagreement gets their full support.
Musk had the audacity to ask Target whether the Fox News attack article was true. What transpired was a substantive rebuttal of Fox by Musk's "Readers Notes" feature. A much better outcome -- that has the chance of changing minds -- than attacks on Musk for asking the question. Such attacks tend to harden positions, and raise the additional issue of appearing to oppose free speech.
It's a classic "VHS or BetaMax" problem, to find the standardization for an industry.
"Farley’s comments referenced which EV plug should be standard for charging in the U.S. A charger known as CCS is the industry norm now. Tesla vehicles and its Supercharger network use what’s known as NACS. Other vehicles can use both, but they need an adapter.
" 'The CCS is a great standard, but it was pretty much done by kind of a committee, and I think GM and others are going to have a big choice to make,' Farley told CNBC."