https://futurism.com/the-byte/cybert...nto-comparisonA new analysis by independent automotive blog FuelArc suggests that fire fatalities are 17 times more likely in a Cybertruck than in the infamous Ford Pinto — the posterchild of deadly cars if ever there was one.
The site arrives at that conclusion by comparing the total units sold so far — 34,438 for the Cybertruck, compared to 3,173,491 for the ill-fated Pinto, discontinued in 1980 — and comparing reported fire fatalities for both.
At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)
Asked for comment, a FuelArc analyst had some advice for Cybertruck owners: “you should know where your emergency door releases are and how to operate them, and instruct your backseat passengers on the same.”
FuelArc caveats that the numbers are an estimate at best, because Tesla doesn’t release its Cybertruck sales data to the public, lest it hurt its stock price. But that’s not the only thing that hasn’t been released.
The Cybertruck — an almost 3 ton vehicle which is apparently allowed to drive itself — has never passed independent crash testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and has refused to release its in-house safety testing data, which means other drivers and pedestrians are in the dark as to its safety.
DOD signs deal with xAI to use MechaHitler in classified programs
htps://www.axios.com/2026/02/23/ai-defense-department-deal-musk-xai-grokElon Musk's artificial intelligence company xAI has signed an agreement to allow the military to use its model, Grok, in classified systems, a Defense official confirmed to Axios.
without EV credits and government contracts, Elon Musk wouldn't amount to nearly as much
disclusure: my current whip has an internal combustion engine
https://insideevs.com/news/788178/ma...frunk-paywall/Yep, you’ve read that right. Initially reported on by Ford Authority, Ford has made its frunk a paid option for the 2026 model year, after five years of including one for free. Now, if you want the privilege of storing things in front of the car, you’ll have to pay an extra $495 to use the under-hood space. Ford claims that its planning team noticed that consumers weren’t taking advantage of the frunk all that much, so they figured they could just make it a paid option without too much impact on the end user.
However, it does seem quite strange to effectively lock free cargo space and real estate behind a paywall, especially since Ford’s early marketing for the Mach-E revolved so much around its frunk. The Mach-E, when originally introduced for the 2021 model year, had one of the most useful frunks on the market. At nearly 5 cubic feet and equipped with a drain, the Mach-E was suitable for anything from an extra carry-on piece of luggage to a frunk-full of ice and cold beverages.
An update in 2024 reduced its size by about half, due to a new heat pump. Still, the shape of the updated frunk still meant it was useful for more than you’d think, like, say, a duffel bag. It was certainly better than cars like the Kia EV6or Hyundai Ioniq 5, which feel like they have a Tupperware container glued to a metal plinth placed in the middle of an engine bay. We know that without the frunk, there’s just a void underneath Mach-E’s hood. Why make consumers pay to use that space?
WaPo exclusive for now, paywalled
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a-breach-doge/The Social Security Administration’s internal watchdog is investigating allegations that a former DOGE engineer took sensitive data on a thumb drive and offered it to his current employer.
holy
"The databases, called “Numident” and the “Master Death File,” include records for more than 500 million living and dead Americans, including Social Security numbers, places and dates of birth, citizenship, race and ethnicity, and parents’ names."
believe it or not, DOGE access to SSA personal info was challenged last year, briefly blocked by a lower court, but that restraining order was stayed by SCOTUS in two shadow docket ruling
SCOTUS directly enabled privacy violation on a population scale by DOGE
https://www.lawdork.com/p/conservati...otus-give-doge
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-10-2026 at 10:10 PM.
In the first case, a lower court order that blocked DOGE’s access to data from the Social Security Administration was stayed during litigation — meaning, DOGE gets access.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for herself and Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now—before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE’s access is lawful. So it asks this Court to stay a lower court’s decision to place temporary and qualified limits on DOGE’s data access while litigation challenging DOGE’s authority to access the data is pending. … [O]nce again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...a1063_6j37.pdfThe majority, meanwhile, barely provided any explanation. In a three-paragraph statement — which was issued neither per curiam (for the court) nor in the name of a specific justice — the court stated the basic facts, the standard for a stay, and its conclusion:
After review, we determine that the application of these factors in this case warrants granting the requested stay. We conclude that, under the present cir stances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.That’s it, the entire analysis provided by the anonymous order of the Supreme Court. With that, the Supreme Court’s conservatives allowed DOGE access to any and every person’s Social Security data.
in principle, Congress could take away certiorari
but it's way simpler at this point to impeach the villains and expand the court
NOBODY COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING
adjudicated fraudster, El0n Musk
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/20/elon...d8160001a0b6fbA jury in California found that Elon Musk defrauded Twitter shareholders during the runup to his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company, according to a verdict issued on Friday.
Total damages could reach up to $2.6 billion, attorneys for the plaintiffs said.
The class action lawsuit, Pampena v. Musk, was originally filed in October 2022, after Musk completed his purchase of Twitter for $54.20 per share. He later renamed the company X, before merging it with his artificial intelligence company xAI, and then with SpaceX, his reusable rocket manufacturer.
DOGE abuse of power lawsuit proceeds
https://assets.bwbx.io/do ents/use...Jfe32B76F14/v0
if a court determines Musk was illegally appointed, legally speaking a lot of DOGE actions could get rolled up
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...musk-proceeds/In her opinion partly denying a motion to dismiss, US District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan did not buy the US government’s defense that Musk held no office formally established by law—and therefore did not need Senate confirmation and cannot be alleged to have exceeded his authority under the Cons ution’s Appointments Clause.
“Nobody thinks, for instance, that the White House Chief of Staff or White House Counsel are officers in any fashion, despite the fact they may exercise tremendous influence across the government,” the government’s motion to dismiss said.
Chutkan called the defense “disquieting.”
“Defendants appear to make the extraordinary argument that an individual who holds an important office and wields immense power is not subject to the Appointments Clause so long as the office was unlawfully created, and the power was unlawfully seized,” Chutkan said.
“Under that interpretation, the President could evade Appointments Clause scrutiny by (1) usurping Congress’s power to create a principal office and assign it powers, and (2) unilaterally appointing an official to that office without Senate confirmation,” the judge continued. “The court will not countenance such a two-fold attack on Congress’s role in our system of checks and balances,” she wrote, noting that “if the President unilaterally creates a principal office, endows it with unlawful powers, and fills it without Senate confirmation, that is more—not less—reason for Appointments Clause scrutiny.”
musk wants to create an army of musklings and he has a temu david koresh compound where he keeps some of his women and kids
"immigrant defrauds investors"
Bannon muses about the cultural significance of El0n Musk
https://badfaithtimes.com/the-worst-...out-elon-musk/
the world-historical criminals at DOGE will be lucky to avoid adorning lampposts
https://www.wired.com/story/where-th...tives-are-now/
apnews.com/article/fran...French prosecutors are seeking criminal charges against Elon Musk for child sexual abuse images on the platform, deepfakes, disinformation, and complicity in denying crimes against humanity by the platform's artificial intelligence system, Grok.
illegal mass firings
https://www.acls.org/wp-content/uplo...ion-050726.pdf
Elon vowed to make Sam Altman and Greg Brockman the most hated men in America in his trial against them.
So far, all America can conclude is they're all a bunch of weirdos and no one really cares about AI the way they want them to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
