This is only true if one defines freedom of speech extremely narrowly; specifically if you want to use racial slurs, or if you want to attack lgbtq folks.
Material criticism of Elon or his endeavors routinely results in bans. This has resulted in him banning numerous high profile journalists.
Elon banned individuals who posted Elon's locations, after Grimes used that info to serve him a custody lawsuit that he'd been dodging. He even banned journalists who talked about the bans, or who asked about ban policy.
He bans with abandon. Joke accounts? banned. promoting other social networks? banned. Advocating for lgbt gun ownership? banned. Paul Graham (the co-founder of YC)? banned.
And when he isn't busy banning, he is using the courts to suppress speech he doesn't like, and creating implicit threats to others who might say something even moderately critical of him or his empire of government subsidized wealth.
you know what isn't banned now? having centrist, or even right wing opinions
you can also see the violence and terrorism that the mainstream media refuses to report on
there's a lot of political voices that are being allowed to speak finally, whereas before they've been stifled due to political persecution coupled with insane deplatforming. X as a free speech platform is doing a great job at showing how widespread political gaslighting has become.
that covid came out of a chinese lab, or showing that the lockdowns didn't work as was shown by Jay Bhattacharya early on
accounts that were censored, shadowbanned, and massively decreased in exposure. just look up the twitter files.
since being owned by elon there's also been a rush of psychometricians into twitter, people who want to share and talk about their scientific data, which was banned before. you couldn't talk about IQ.
there were also people banned for challenging immigration narratives or gender ideology. this was prevalent and obvious. lauren southern was constantly accused of shooting a gun at an immigrant ngo ship that was actually just a flare - incapable of hitting or hurting anyone.
all of this was blatant and widespread on more than just twitter, did you not notice?
I'll agree he changed the (flawed) covid misinformation policy; though there were absolutely people discussing Chinese lab leak theories or the effectiveness of lockdown without getting banned.
I don't know what you're talking about regarding psychometrician... there were always people talking about how some races are categorically dumber than others and drawing broad conclusions; they received social judgment but not bans.
Your comment about Southern is really telling though. You're clearly upset that people are _not_ banned for stating something true. You agree she shot blazing hot fiery incendiary devices at immigrants using a flare gun, and you think people should be muzzled from saying that, simply because you (very wrongly) believe that flares can't start fires or hurt people.
This last part makes clear that you don't actually have any love of free speech; but rather you simply want speech restricted in the way you personally prefer. It's refreshing that you don't bother pretend to have principles beyond a desire for power, and a love of oppressing those you hate.
Even if all she did was sing happy birthday to the immigrants and then welcome them to Greece, Stainablesteel is still advocating for speech he doesn't like to be restrained.
In hindsight, I should've realized that his post was unreliable and untrustworthy. I should not have used a proven liar as a source, and I won't do so again.
I'm leaning toward the reason being that Sam did something that created a massive legal risk to the company, and that giving more details would cause the risk to materialize.
It seems like the CT doesn't have the equivalent of a locking diff, and had essentially no articulation. It'll be fine for the target demo (on-road usage).
Both the Lightning and the CT clearly suffer from their weight, and their optimization for on-road performance. (in the lightnings case, it even seems to be on stock tires).
I wonder if the tri-motor CT models will be able to simulate a locked rear diff, much like the quad motor rivian models can simulate a locked diff front and rear thanks to being able to adjust torque to all four wheels individually. Only the rear axle of the CT would presumably be able to do this due to the tri-motor layout, unless they resort to the individual wheel braking like they've done on their road cars to simulate diff features. A rear only lock is still a useful offroading feature.
From what I've read, it doesn't sound like the quad motor "virtual" locked diff feature on the Rivian trucks works as well as a proper locking diff - its close but still slips occasionally. If I recall correctly their cheaper dual motor models don't have the feature either.
I imagine eventually the quad motor "virtual" locking diff solutions will probably get reasonably good, if Tesla decide to do a quad motor CT later.
I posted below but you cannot fully simulate a locker with independent motors. The quad motor Rivian is actually inferior to the dual motor for rock crawling due to this.
The quad motor Rivian produces 908 lbs/ft of torque which means each motor produces 908/4 = 227 lbs/ft. It has a single speed gear ratio of 12.6:1 meaning each wheel can get a maximum of 227 * 12.6 = 2860.2 lbs/ft wheel torque.
The dual motor Rivian produces 829 lbs/ft of torque which means each motor produces 829/2 = 414.5 lbs/ft. It has has a single speed gear ratio of 13.7:1 (11:1 front) in the rear meaning each rear wheel can get a maximum of 414.5 * 13.7 = 5678.65 lbs/ft wheel torque (4559.5 front) with brake locking diff.
Contrast this with a Jeep Wrangler which can put out 20,000 to 30,000 lbs/ft of torque to any single wheel through its torque converter, transmission, transfer case and axle gearing which can be over 100:1 in gear ratio and single ICE.
There are videos of Rivian's stalling rock crawling that are no issue for an old Jeep with weak engine due to lack of torque to the wheels. EV's will need lockers and probably at least two speed transmission to compete here, or they will need way oversized quad motors to make enough low speed torque without the gearing and lockers.
Quad motor is even better than a locking diff if all the motors are modulated right.
I dunno what Rivian does, but I saw that Rimac does 1 motor per wheel, and each motor madly modulates itself during launch control to stop its wheel from slipping... Perfect, maximum torque, all the time.
There's still some slip though in all these virtual solutions - a wheel has to start slipping for the software to notice and modulation to kick in. With a real locking diff, it's physically impossible for one wheel to spin faster than the other. For sure they can likely modulate the wheel torque quickly though to get the wheels back to the same rotation speed.
In theory, the system can just monitor rotation and "lock" the wheels together with torque as a goal of the system, instead of trying to detect when the tires are slipping.
As a bonus, a computer is smart enough to spin the tires at slightly different rates when turning, instead of dragging them along like a locked diff.
I believe that Rivian offers a quad-motor option, and a standard dual-motor with an open-diff that uses the brakes to try to compensate (similar to a typical AWD system).
It's fine for the buyers who will be collectors, posers and social media tools - but still worth giggling about because Musk has consistently bragged that it'll be a better truck than any other truck while also being a 'better car'...and yet it does worse than a truck designed to not really see anything more off-road than a jobsite or country dirt road because Ford can
I'm guessing a P1 Touareg/Cayenne, or even a first-gen Audi Allroad wouldn't have a problem.
Yes, it's clearly the weight; every time the tires have to climb they slip. Both EVs have this problem because they're both very heavy; the CT was just the worse of the two. The ICE trucks climb with next to no slip because their missing the extra 1500 lbs. The Tundra has a live rear axle.
a16z viewed Neumann very positively, to the point that they asked potential CEOs what they thought of Neumann, and the "correct" answer was to be empathetic that he took a huge swing of the bat.
> A candidate who displayed empathy for the entrepreneur would answer the question about Neumann with something like the following, Horowitz said: "He did an unbelievable thing in that he built something that almost nobody has done, which is he built a consumer brand in commercial real estate." The person might add, "He told that story so beautifully that he was able to raise a gigantic amount of money and fund this incredible growing operation."
I mean, Ben Horowitz is correct here. In a VC interview context, crapping on Adam Neumann is boring and zero information value which is a negative signal. Being able to fairly evaluate people you have strong emotions for, positive or negative is a key VC trait.
I somehow think that Horowitz wouldn't want to hear my honest evaluation of Adam Neumann: He found a set of idiots with money (chiefly Andreesen Horowitz and Softbank) and saw them making dumb trades, so he found a way to put himself on the other side of those trades. To do this, he constructed an "audacious" but ultimately fundamentally dumb business that he could wrap in VC shibboleths, whose principal goal was to collect VC money and funnel it into his pocket. In a way, he is a brilliant exploiter of people like Horowitz.
I don't think that anyone can do this, at all. I think there's a totally different skillset that it takes to actually run a business than to get money from VCs, and by stripping away the need for the running-a-business skillset, Adam Neumann really perfected his VC grift game. That doesn't mean that he wasn't exceptionally skilled at it.
Apple will replace batteries for iPhone 5s and up, for $69-89 in the US. No issues with fakes or low quality.
People who want to do some work themselves can buy replacement kits from reputable part suppliers for $29-59.
Your problem only occurs if somebody wants to do the work themselves _and_ they think they can source the parts without assistance from a reputable part supplier.
Brian has an exceptionally long history of holding himself to a dramatically lower standard than he holds his employees. It is hard to imagine a reason that he would change.
This is only true if one defines freedom of speech extremely narrowly; specifically if you want to use racial slurs, or if you want to attack lgbtq folks.
Material criticism of Elon or his endeavors routinely results in bans. This has resulted in him banning numerous high profile journalists.
Elon banned individuals who posted Elon's locations, after Grimes used that info to serve him a custody lawsuit that he'd been dodging. He even banned journalists who talked about the bans, or who asked about ban policy.
He bans with abandon. Joke accounts? banned. promoting other social networks? banned. Advocating for lgbt gun ownership? banned. Paul Graham (the co-founder of YC)? banned.
And when he isn't busy banning, he is using the courts to suppress speech he doesn't like, and creating implicit threats to others who might say something even moderately critical of him or his empire of government subsidized wealth.