ReportWire

Tag: Tesla

  • TechCrunch Mobility: RIP, Tesla Autopilot, and the NTSB investigates Waymo | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation. To get this in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility!

    A quick bit of breaking news that hit just as we were about to send this newsletter out. The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an investigation into Waymo after its robotaxis have been spotted illegally passing stopped school buses numerous times in at least two states. Read the full story here.

    Now onto our regular programming …

    Tesla made a couple of moves this week — and just before its quarterly earnings drops — designed to show its progress, and even dominance, in automated driving technology. But, hold up, there is more to it than mere optics. 

    The week started with Tesla offering passengers robotaxi rides in Austin without a human safety driver in the front seat. If you recall, Tesla launched a limited service in Austin last year with a fleet of modified Tesla Model Y vehicles running a more advanced version of the company’s driving software known as Full Self-Driving Supervised (this one being “unsupervised”). Human safety operators have been riding in the front passenger seat as a precaution since the rollout.

    Not all of Tesla’s fleet in Austin will be fully driverless, and there is apparently a chase vehicle behind those that are. Still, it is notable and suggests Tesla is moving toward a broader ramp-up. 

    Meanwhile, Tesla has killed Autopilot, the advanced driver-assistance system that was initially introduced to its vehicles in 2014. Autopilot has gone through several software and hardware iterations over the years with new capabilities. 

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    Autopilot was instantly popular and controversial, in part because the name implied the system was more capable than it actually was. (Drivers are responsible and are supposed to have their hands on the wheel when Autopilot is engaged.)

    Tesla eventually made a basic Autopilot system standard in all of its vehicles, while launching and charging for a more robust system known now as Full Self-Driving (Supervised). The basic version, which is now dead, included traffic-aware cruise control, in which the vehicle maintains a set distance with cars ahead, and Autosteer, a feature that centers the vehicle in the lane and steers it.

    Its decision to kill what was standard ADAS comes one week after Tesla said it would stop charging a one-time $8,000 fee for the FSD software and move all customers to a monthly subscription. 

    These decisions when taken together offer a simple enough explanation: Tesla wants to recognize more revenue from FSD as it positions itself as an AI and robotics company. 

    But there is another possible reason. The company is facing a 30-day suspension of its manufacturing and dealer licenses in California after a judge ruled in December that Tesla engaged in deceptive marketing by overstating the capabilities of Autopilot and FSD. 

    The ruling has been stayed for 60 days to allow Tesla to comply. Dropping the Autopilot name while cashing in on FSD is a rather bold move. But perhaps Tesla believes this is enough to satiate the DMV.

    Deals!

    Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

    Zipline, the autonomous drone-delivery and logistics startup, has been around for more than a decade, starting in Rwanda delivering blood. Its progress has been slow and steady, notching wins in other African countries and expanding to the United States. That trajectory sped up after it launched a new drone platform in 2025 called P2 that focuses on home delivery of food and other goods. 

    Now, fueled with $600 million in new funding, its expansion ambitions have grown. The company, which is now valued at $7.6 billion, is bringing its service to Houston and Phoenix and plans to expand to at least four more U.S. states in 2026. 

    Fidelity Management & Research Company, Baillie Gifford, Valor Equity Partners, and Tiger Global participated in the funding round.

    Other deals that got my attention …

    ABZ Innovation, a Europe-based maker of heavy-duty agricultural and industrial drones, raised $8.2 million in a funding round led by Vsquared Ventures, with participation from Assembly Ventures and Day One Capital.

    Ethernovia, a San Jose, California-based startup that makes Ethernet-based systems for autonomous vehicles, raised $90 million in a Series B funding round led by Maverick Silicon — an AI-focused fund created in 2024 by hedge fund Maverick Capital.

    Serve Robotics, the sidewalk delivery robot company backed by Nvidia and Uber, acquired Diligent Robotics in a deal that values the common stock at $29 million. Diligent builds robots named Moxi that are designed to assist in hospitals by delivering lab samples, supplies, and other tasks. Note: Watch for more autonomous vehicle tech-robotics crossovers in the coming year. 

    Terralayr, a German grid-scale battery storage company, raised €192 million in a round led by Eurazeo. RIVE Private Investment, Creandum, Earlybird, Norrsken VC, and Picus Capital also participated.

    TrueCar founder Scott Painter reacquired the company in a $227 million deal through his firm Fair Holdings, and partners AutoNation, PenFed Credit Union, Zurich North America, and others. TrueCar will no longer be publicly traded, and Painter has returned to the CEO spot.

    Notable reads and other tidbits

    Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

    Austin Russell, the founder and former CEO of bankrupt lidar company Luminar, agreed to accept an electronic subpoena for information on his phone pertaining to the company. The subpoena is related to Luminar’s ongoing bankruptcy proceeding.

    Chinese automaker Geely Holding Group released its five-year blueprint, and among its many goals is a section on robotaxis. The company said that by 2030 its Cao Cao Mobility ride-hailing unit will operate a fleet of 100,000 robotaxis covering major cities in China. It also hinted at plans to expand beyond China “in the future.”

    General Motors is moving production of two gas-powered vehicles away from China and Mexico and to a U.S. factory in Kansas. That change will also mean the end of its rebooted Chevrolet Bolt EV, the only vehicle currently built at the Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas. Read more to learn when production of the Chevy Bolt EV will end

    Tesla aims to restart work on Dojo3, the company’s previously abandoned third-generation AI chip. Dojo3 won’t be aimed at training self-driving models. Instead, CEO Elon Musk says it will be dedicated to “space-based AI compute.”

    Waymo has opened its robotaxi service in Miami. Riders will be accepted on a rolling basis, to the nearly 10,000 local residents on its waitlist. 

    One more thing …

    Alex Roy, who co-hosts the Autonocast with me and Ed Niedermeyer, just traveled from Los Angeles to New York in a Tesla Model S, in which the vehicle’s Full Self-Driving Supervised software handled all of the driving. This “Cannonball Run” route is one Roy is familiar with; he set the transcontinental driving record in 2007 when he traveled the route in 31 hours and 4 minutes. He has gone on to make other Cannonball Run records in EVs. Others have followed and since beaten those records. 

    According to Roy, who captured the entire run on video, the FSD (version 14.2.2.3) drove 100% of the 3,081-mile journey. That included exiting the highway and parking at EV chargers. The time was 58 hours, 22 minutes.

    [ad_2]

    Kirsten Korosec

    Source link

  • Tech CEOs boast and bicker about AI at Davos | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    There were times at this week’s meeting of the World Economic Forum when Davos seemed transformed into a high-powered tech conference, with on-stage appearances by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and even more industry executives.

    The big topic, unsurprisingly, was AI, with CEOs laying a vision for the technology’s transformative potential while also acknowledging ongoing concerns that they’re inflating a massive bubble. Amidst all that big-picture prognostication, they also found time to take swipes at their competitors, and even at their ostensible partners.

    On the latest episode of TechCrunch’s Equity podcast, I discussed all things Davos with TechCrunch’s Kirsten Korosec and Sean O’Kane.

    Kirsten noted that the conference seemed transformed from past years, with tech companies like Meta and Salesforce taking over the main promenade, while important topics like climate change failed to draw crowds. And Sean said that even if AI execs weren’t quite “panhandling for usage and more customers,” it could sometimes feel that way.

    Read a preview of our full conversation, edited for length and clarity, below.

    Kirsten: Some of the discussions around, let’s say, climate change or poverty and big global problems, [are] not really attracting the crowds. Meanwhile, on the main promenade in Davos, Switzerland, some of the biggest storefronts have been converted and taken over by companies like Meta and Salesforce, Tata, also a lot of Middle East countries. And I think the largest was the USA House, which was sponsored by McKinsey and Microsoft. It really felt visually different.

    And then Elon Musk being there — Sean, you and I both listened to it. There wasn’t a lot of there there, but I will say that it was interesting that he showed up, because in the past he has avoided Davos.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    Anthony: We were trying to pull out the tech content of Davos, [and] there are absolutely things that worth highlighting here, but it’s also striking how, especially as AI has become such a big business story, it’s hard to fully separate that from all the other threads going on in terms of bigger questions about international trade, about world politics.

    One of the big headlines coming out of [Davos], for us at least, was the remarks by the CEO of Anthropic, where he basically attacked this Trump administration decision to allow Nvidia to send chips to China. It’s a story that is a tech story, but it’s also a trade story, it’s a politics story.

    I think in terms of the substance of what he said, it felt consistent to me in the sense that he’s generally comfortable shooting his mouth off, and also that it’s this interesting line [in AI discourse] where there’s an element of criticism, but it also ties into this really intense AI hype. One of the phrases he used was that an AI data center is like a country full of geniuses. I have questions about that — but he’s like, “How could we possibly send all these chips to China if we’re worried about China? Because essentially we’re sending a country full of geniuses over to China and letting them control it.”

    Sean: You could probably fill a notebook with all the different weird phrases that these CEOs use this week. The other one that has been stuck in my mind is that Satya Nadella kept calling the data centers token factories, which is a wonderful abstraction of what he thinks they’re there for.

    You know, there were two things that really stuck out to me about all the different things that were said by these CEOs in different parts of the week. One is that they are definitely all sort of sniping at each other — not just Anthropic with Nvidia, which is interesting in its own right, because Anthropic is a huge Nvidia customer and uses Nvidia GPUs, and there’s an interesting tension there. But also just seeing them sitting them next to each other and really kind of pulling, know, putting the knives out a little bit more than we’re used to seeing.

    We know that they’re all jockeying to be the lead and that they’re also trying to hold on to talent without overspending themselves to death. And this was one of the first times where it really felt like that tension was palpable and that they were present for it. Those two things are not often true at the same time.

    The other thing, to your point about a lot of the geopolitics of it and the business of it — this was the most blatant that I feel like we’ve gotten these CEOs on record as far as what they think they need to continue succeeding.

    Satya Nadella — I think you could maybe unfavorably read it this way, but I don’t think it’s that unfavorable — more or less was like, “More people need to be using this or else it’s going to be a bubble and a popped bubble.” He took a much different position in some ways from Dario Amadei of Anthropic, because Nadella’s focus is really about trying to broadly scoop up as much usage as possible [and] how do we make sure that AI is equitable across all these different communities and throughout the globe, versus concentrated in one place, like only the wealthy places, which I thought was an interesting tension. But there is an element of him giving away the game of not really panhandling for usage and more customers … but kind of.

    And to that point, Jensen Huang of Nvidia did something similar, where he was more or less saying, “We’re not investing enough in this and we need more investment to be able to make this work.”

    Kirsten: Jensen’s comments were interesting because he really talked about it in terms of job creation, and one could give the counterpoint of, there will be a moment where the build out slows, but no one’s really talking about that right now.

    The other thing, I think, was a good point that you made, which is we’ve never really seen them all sort of together in a room sniping at each other. Oftentimes you’ll have like Sam Altman at a conference or Satya [Nadella], but here they are all together. So you’re hearing it in real time.

    [ad_2]

    Anthony Ha

    Source link

  • Tesla Appears to Have Moved Its Robotaxi Safety Monitors to a More Sneaky Location

    [ad_1]

    Tesla’s self-driving Robotaxis have been operating in Austin, Texas, with a safety monitor in the passenger seat, a trained person who can intervene in case anything goes wrong with the autonomous vehicle. On Thursday, CEO Elon Musk announced the monitor would no longer be in the car, which was positioned as a major step forward in the company’s capabilities to operate autonomously without human intervention.

    Turns out, it’s not quite that simple. Electrek reported that, based on social media videos, it appears that Tesla hasn’t actually gotten rid of the safety monitor. Instead, the company has seemingly simply moved the person into a trail car that follows the Robotaxi for the duration of its journey. Multiple videos show Robotaxis being tailed by Tesla vehicles, suggesting that Tesla’s autonomous driving may not be as advanced as the company would like it to appear. Tesla, it should be noted, hasn’t confirmed whether or not it is operating trail cars. The company did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication, but it also hasn’t had an operating public relations department in many years.

    In a video uploaded by Tesla enthusiast Joe Tegtmeyer, he can be heard identifying the “chase car” that is following his ride in what he identifies as his “first unsupervised Robotaxi ride.” Tegtmeyer suggests the car is there for “validation,” which seems like a nice way of saying “being on scene in case anything goes horribly wrong.”

    In a vacuum, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with the idea of a trail car for safety purposes—though it does seem like a very inefficient way to operate when you are trying to offer rides at scale. But it’s the weaselly way that Musk has presented this change that gives it such a bad taste. Musk said that the Robotaxis are driving “with no safety monitor in the car.” That’s technically correct. But the knowledge that the safety monitor is still involved and in a position to potentially intervene in every single ride undermines the idea that Tesla has achieved some new, meaningful level of autonomy.

    The fact that safety monitors are still involved at such a granular level suggests Tesla is still lightyears behind Waymo, which is currently operating a fleet of around 2,500 cars without a human around to intervene physically (though they do still have remote operators who can take over at any point). Tesla, meanwhile, is reportedly operating about 80ish Robotaxis in total, and usually only a handful at the same time.

    Despite this, Musk went on stage in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum and claimed that Tesla has solved autonomy. “I think self-driving cars is essentially a solved problem at this point,” he said before claiming that Tesla’s Robotaxis will be “very widespread by the end of this year within the U.S.” If that’s true, get ready for some major traffic jams considering every Tesla Robotaxi ride actually puts two cars on the road: the one getting you to your destination and the one that makes sure you don’t burst into flames.

    [ad_2]

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link

  • Tesla Cybertruck sales plunged 48% in 2025

    [ad_1]

    Sales of Tesla’s electric Cybertruck fell 48% in 2025, new data shows. 

    Tesla sold 20,237 Cybertrucks in 2025, down from 38,965 the previous year, according to figures from Kelley Blue Book’s annual electric vehicle (EV) sales reports

    Other Tesla models also struggled to entice buyers, with sales of the automaker’s X, S and Y vehicles all falling year-over-year. Tesla’s Model 3 was the only vehicle in its lineup to see stronger demand, with sales rising to 192,440, up 1.3% from 2024, according to Kelley Blue Book.

    Tesla cited “uncertainty from shifting trade, tariff and fiscal policy” as some of the headwinds it was facing in a presentation last year. The company remains the dominant seller of electric vehicles in the U.S., accounting for around 46% in 2025.

    “It’s been an uphill battle for sales, but a long demand curve ahead,” said tech analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 

    Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In January, the company said it delivered 1.64 million vehicles in 2025, down 9% from 1.79 million in 2024. Tesla has been eclipsed by China’s BYD as the world’s biggest EV maker.

    Tesla isn’t the only EV maker to see weaker sales. Across the auto industry, electric vehicle sales last year totaled roughly 1.3 million, a 2% drop from 2024.

    One obstacle is affordability, given that electric cars remain generally pricier than gas-powered vehicles. As of November, the average price of a new EV was $58,638, versus less than $50,000 for conventional cars, according to Cox Automotive. 

    The tax and spending bill passed by Congress last year also eliminated tax credits for both new and used EVs, which critics warned could make the cars unaffordable for many people. 

    Multiple recalls

    Tesla launched the futuristic-looking steel Cybertruck in 2023 at a starting price of $60,990. At the time, Tesla CEO Elon Musk touted them as the strongest pickup truck on the road, able to tow 11,000 pounds.

    However, the trucks have faced a rash of mechanical and other problems. Last year, Tesla recalled 46,000 Cybertrucks over an issue with the trim panel, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said could detach from the vehicle and pose a risk to other drivers. 

    The vehicle has also faced recalls for issues with its rearview camera, windshield wipers and accelerator pedals.

    Cybertrucks also became a flashpoint in the debate over Musk’s role in the Trump administration as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a sign of protest, some people vandalized Cybertrucks at Tesla dealerships.

    Catalysts for growth

    Despite such challenges, Tesla’s stock price has performed well, rising rougly 9% to $450.39 over the last 12 months. Ives expects the carmaker’s strength in self-driving technology and so-called robotaxis to drive growth.

    Some Wall Street analysts also have high hopes for a humanoid robot, dubbed Optimus, that Tesla is developing and expects to roll out commercially over the next year. Speaking at the annual World Economic Forum event in Davos, Switzerland, Musk said Thursday that Optimus robots are currently performing “simple tasks” at Tesla plants.

    “By the end of this year, I think they will be doing more complex tasks, and probably by the end of next year, I think we’d be selling humanoid robots to the public,” he said. 

    The market for humanoid robotics is today valued at between $2 billion and $3 billion, according to Barclays analysts. But the investment bank expects the sector to expand to at least $40 billion by 2035, and perhaps by as much as $200 billion, as AI-powered robots enter labor-intensive sectors, such as manufacturing. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk’s Boring Co. is studying a tunnel project to Tesla Gigafactory near Reno | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk’s tunneling startup Boring Company is working with a Nevada state-affiliated group to study a tunnel project that would go under the nine-mile stretch of highway from Reno to Tesla’s Gigafactory, according to documents reviewed by Fortune.

    The Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN), a non-profit that recruits companies to do business and expand in the state, paid Boring Company $50,000 in October to draw up conceptual designs and conduct a feasibility report for a new transportation alternative to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, the mega-business complex that houses Tesla’s Gigafactory, according to a copy of the study invoice, which was obtained by Fortune via a Freedom of Information Act Request.

    The potential tunnel project is one of several options various state groups are considering in order to alleviate the steep rise in traffic and accidents along Interstate 80 as more data centers and companies move into the 107,000-acre Industrial Center east of Reno and Sparks, Nev. Tesla and Panasonic, the two largest companies in the Center, have been in contact with the Nevada Governor’s Office since at least last spring about potential transportation solutions, according to emails, which were also obtained by Fortune via the FOIA request. Both Tesla and Panasonic are working with the local transportation agency to sponsor an ongoing study for a commuter rail system that would run on the freight rail next to the interstate. They also provided funding to EDAWN to look at other options, according to an email from Chris Reilly, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo’s former infrastructure director, who introduced a Boring Company executive to leaders at Tesla and Panasonic to discuss the tunnel study.

    It’s not clear if the report has been completed yet, and the specific details of the report—including the exact length of a proposed tunnel, the cost of the projet, and the types of vehicles envisioned for the tunnel, including the potential for autonomous vehicles—could not be learned.

    Boring Company, which currently operates a small stretch of tunnel with Teslas underneath the Las Vegas Convention Center, has been trying to pitch a tunnel that would go out to the Gigafactory since at least 2019. “The Boring Company is extremely interested [in] building a Loop tunnel beneath I-80 out to the Tesla Gigafactory, but would need NDOT’s support,” reads a research report published by the Nevada Department of Transportation seven years ago.

    Boring Company’s approach is novel, with small, single-lane tunnels made specifically for electric vehicles, and the Elon Musk-founded startup has struggled for many years to garner the political and regulatory support needed to undertake significant transportation projects. Even in Nevada, where Boring Company has successfully opened a tunnel system and begun chauffeuring passengers in Teslas in Las Vegas, the company has completed only four miles of operational tunnel and is currently experiencing delays as it tries to get necessary approvals to dig under land beyond the County and into the City of Las Vegas. The company is also reckoning with community blowback over safety and environmental issues during tunnel construction.  

    The prospect of a Reno tunnel is still very conceptual, and while more than 20 stakeholders—including city and county officials in the region—have been looped into conversations about a potential commuter rail alongside I-80, few of those parties have yet been roped into a potential Boring Co. project, according to two people regularly briefed on the progress of the rail study, including Bill Thomas, who runs the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, the organization that spearheaded the commuter rail study and road studies.

    “We did not commission it. We’re not paying for it. I’m not involved in it. But I understand there are conversations exploring whether that could be done,” Thomas says, noting that, while he doesn’t understand what the plan would be, he is supportive of any transportation alternative that could help alleviate traffic and reduce accidents along the Interstate. “If there’s a private solution that helps the problem and improves safety, as far as I’m concerned, more power to them.”

    Representatives for Tesla, Panasonic, EDAWN, and the Governor’s Office did not respond to requests for comment on this story. Reilly declined to comment.

    A traffic surge

    Accidents and traffic have ramped up on I-80, which has two lanes going each direction—particularly since the construction of several data centers this past summer as part of Nevada’s push to draw more AI companies to the state. There are some 22,000 employees who work at the Industrial Center each day—70% of whom live in Reno or Sparks, Nev., according to a commuter rail study update report from March 2025 that was seen by Fortune. Nearly 8,000 of those people work for Tesla, and more than 4,000 at Panasonic, according to a second update report from October.

    While the state’s Department of Transportation is currently in the process of widening the highway, that expansion will not start until the end of 2027 and will take a few years to complete. Companies in the Center have requested the Governor’s Office help them with alternative solutions, according to the emails. The number of vehicles traveling on stretches of the Interstate during peak rush hour doubled between January and July 2025, according to data pulled by the Nevada Department of Transportation that was shared with Tesla’s senior facilities manager and Reilly, the former infrastructure director for Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo. “We are looking for creative ways to improve the Waltham ramp,” a NDOT employee wrote to the Tesla manager and Reilly in an email. 

    RTC Washoe, the regional transportation commission in Western Nevada, began prioritizing transportation alternatives for I-80 about two years ago, according to Thomas. “At this point in time, there’s about [one accident] every other day,” Thomas says.

    How effective the Boring Co’s tunnels would be at relieving the congestion is unclear and may depend on whether the tunnel is designed to function as a mass transit system, with a fleet of shared, centrally operated vehicles that commuters hop in and out of, or whether individuals drive their own cars through the tunnel. Boring Company’s 4-mile Las Vegas Loop is able to transport thousands of passengers per day during major conferences at the Convention Center, but those vehicles are operated by dedicated company-hired drivers. With individuals driving their own cars in a tunnel, the potential for accidents and other snafus would likely increase and raise the risk of a severe backlog in a single-lane tunnel.

    Boring Company’s involvement may also draw criticism from the public—particularly after the startup was fined for dumping wastewater in Las Vegas and after firefighters were burned by chemicals in a tunnel during a training drill. A Nevada Congresswoman recently sent a demand letter to Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, requesting more information on both incidents and requesting more information about his Office’s involvement in Nevada OSHA rescinding citations it had issued to the Boring Company last year.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Mathews

    Source link

  • A 22-Year-Old Founder Wants to Build the Moon’s First Hotel by 2032

    [ad_1]

    Skyler Chan launched GRU last year. Courtesy GRU Space

    Civilian travel to the Moon remains years away, but a California startup is already making plans to host overnight guests there. GRU Space, founded by 22-year-old entrepreneur Skyler Chan, is taking deposits ranging from $250,000 to $1 million for a lunar hotel that has yet to be built.

    “If we solve off-world surface habitation, it’s going to lead to this explosion. We could have billions of human lives maybe born on the Moon and Mars,” Chan told Observer. He founded GRU last year after graduating from the University of California, Berkeley, and previously interned at Tesla.

    The hotel, which the company expects to open by 2032, will initially consist of an inflatable structure designed to accommodate up to four guests for multi-day stays. Over time, it would evolve into a brick building inspired by San Francisco’s Palace of Fine Arts. More ambitiously, GRU argues that the project could do more than jump-start space tourism—an industry it sees as essential to sustaining a future lunar ecosystem—and instead lay the groundwork for entire cities beyond Earth.

    Chan founded GRU with the goal of building the first permanent structure off Earth. His team includes founding technical staff member Kevin Cannon, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines, and advisor Robert Lillis, who also serves as associate director for planetary science at UC Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory. The startup has received seed funding from Y Combinator, joined Nvidia’s Inception Program and counts SpaceX and Anduril among its investors.

    GRU’s initial target customers include adventurers, repeat spaceflight participants and couples looking to elevate their honeymoon plans. While final pricing has not been set, the company said a stay would likely cost more than $10 million and require a $1,000 non-refundable application fee.

    The project’s first milestone is slated for 2029, when GRU plans to launch an initial lunar mission to assess environmental conditions and begin early construction experiments. Two years later, another payload will land near a lunar pit chosen for its protection from radiation and temperatures, with initial hotel development targeted for 2032.

    Animated image of the front door of a hotel with lit up windows Animated image of the front door of a hotel with lit up windows
    A rendering of GRU’s lunar hotel. Courtesy GRU Space

    Chan acknowledged that GRU’s timelines are estimates, but argued that bold ambition is necessary to make progress. “We need to really shoot for the literal moon,” he said.

    According to Chan, today’s space industry is dominated by two forces: governments and billionaire-backed companies. He hopes space tourism can become a third pillar. “Lunar tourism is the best first wedge to spin up the lunar economy,” he said.

    The concept aligns with broader government goals. Lunar tourism has emerged as a focus of U.S. space policy, with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman recently outlining the nation’s plans to construct a permanent base on the Moon by the end of the decade. NASA wants “to have that opportunity to explore and realize the scientific, economic and national security potential on the moon,” he told CNBC last month.

    GRU says it is well positioned to contribute to those ambitions, with plans that extend far beyond a single hotel. After completing its lodge, the company plans to build roads, warehouses and other infrastructure—first on the Moon, then on Mars. Eventually, it hopes to reinvest profits into resource utilization systems on the Moon, Mars and asteroids.

    “If we’re able to understand how to use resources on the Moon and Mars and beyond, that is going to enable us to not be tethered to Earth, and start being interplanetary,” said Chan. “It’s a Promethean moment.”

    A 22-Year-Old Founder Wants to Build the Moon’s First Hotel by 2032

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Tesla Robovans to Be Used in the Las Vegas Loop

    [ad_1]

    The Boring Company’s president, Steve Davis, said that the Las Vegas Loop will have Tesla Robovans once the transportation system expands further through the city and the existing fleet of normal Teslas reaches 1,200 vehicles.

    Boring Company President Announces the Loop Will Use Robovans

    Said Robovans, which are not yet built, are electric self-driving pod-like vehicles that will be able to hold up to 20 people each. According to Davis, the vehicles will be implemented on the Loop when the system is built out to 68 miles of tunnels and 104 stations across the Strip and downtown Las Vegas. When that happens, the idea is to use the future fleet of Robovans mainly during predictable spikes in demand, like game days and major events, when large numbers of riders are headed to the same destination simultaneously.

    Davis explained that once a vehicle has four passengers and must begin making stops, the most efficient option is typically to deploy the smallest vehicle, such as a car. However, when demand is predictable, operators can anticipate large numbers of riders one or two hours in advance. In those cases, he said, it makes sense to deploy high-occupancy vehicles, such as the Robovan.

    What Are the Future Expansion Plans for the Loop?

    The Robovans are part of the extensive plans and yet unfulfilled plans for the Las Vegas Loop. The idea is for the construction of the system to be complete sometime between 2028 and 2029 – a somewhat optimistic project estimate as of now. 

    However, right now, the Loop is quite limited in coverage. The only new feature the Vegas Loop currently offers is a limited shuttle service to Harry Reid International Airport. This service, which accommodates roughly 50 passengers per day and operates on a limited schedule, launched earlier this month from Resorts World, Westgate, Encore, and the Las Vegas Convention Center, which are the only four Loop stations open at present.

    Despite the Loop being rather limited in reach currently, the Boring Company is buying more Strip properties along the planned route of the system. The next planned phase of the project will add a 2.2-mile, two-way tunnel from Westgate to Paradise Road, set to open in the next few months. The section should enable speeds of up to 60 mph on certain stretches and increase the fleet to about 160 vehicles.

    Many hurdles remain in the path of the final stages of the project, but even the few miles that have already been built have not gone without problems. Just a few months ago, for example, the Boring Company was fined $500,000 after authorities inspecting the tunnels found out that construction caused damage to the Las Vegas sewer system.

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • Hyundai and Boston Dynamics May Have Just Stolen the Robot Factory Narrative Away from Tesla

    [ad_1]

    Hyundai is not claiming that robots will take over the world, or save mankind, but on Monday at CES it may have just cracked a load-bearing pillar of investor confidence in Elon Musk and Tesla. 

    Hyundai simply makes way, way, way, more cars than Tesla. Over the last three years, Hyundai sold roughly 7 million cars per year globally, while Tesla hovered around 1.8 million sales per year over that same period.

    What makes Tesla, not Hyundai, the darling of Wall Street isn’t the company’s present day output, but the business narratives that make investors want to buy in with the expectation of an exit that will make them a fortune. Specifically, that narrative stems in part from Elon Musk’s promise of a self-driving car future in which, he claims, Tesla will crush Waymo. But perhaps more importantly, it comes from Musk’s claim that his Optimus line of robots is so powerful, they might end poverty, become the “biggest product of all time,” and generate “infinite” revenue.

    But Tesla’s line of robots has a lot to prove in a short time. It was less than five years ago that Elon Musk said he was revealing a robot prototype, but it turned out to actually be a person in a lycra bodysuit, and the whole thing was a sort of awkward, you-can’t-laugh-at-me-if-I’m-laughing-too fake joke

    Hyundai, by contrast, owns Boston Dynamics, a company three decades old, and one that pioneered the creepy, quadrupedal and then bipedal robots that used to go viral and make people make the same “kill it with fire” joke over and over. Boston Dynamics absolutely wrote the book on present-day robots. 

    So with that in mind, watch the head of the Atlas program at Boston Dynamics, Zachary Jackowski, hype his robot, and keep in mind that he knows his competitor is Elon Musk:

    He claims that while that thing moving around is just a research prototype, his company has been “hard at work on making the actual product version of Atlas,” and that it’s going to be “the best and actually simplest robot that we have ever built.” It’s going to be, he claims, water resistant, and able to endure temperatures as cold as minus 4 and as hot as 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Jackowski claims Boston Dynamics and Hyundai are putting together, the “most complete dataset in the world to train humanoid skills in manufacturing,” and that the car side of the company will soon be both using and manufacturing these things in “a new robotics factory capable of producing 30,000 Atlas robots a year.”

    This is all, of course, just hype. There’s no way to know what’s purely meant to soothe uneasy investors and board members who are eager to slash labor costs, and what’s meant to attract the attention of businesses who are thinking of becoming humanoid robot customers. 

    Meanwhile, Elon Musk will only get the complete version of his famous trillion-dollar pay package if he deploys 1 million Optimus robots, so it’s pretty clear what’s motivating him. Nonetheless, he’s pushed back the start date for Optimus robots, which, back in 2024, were supposed to be doing work in Tesla factories in 2025, and available for purchase by other companies in 2026. But Musk’s claims about applications for his robots keep expanding. In November of last year he compared Optimus robots to having a “personal C-3PO/R2-D2.”

    If you’re reading this, Tesla probably doesn’t make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but Hyundai shouldn’t either. It’s a Chaebol, meaning it’s one of the colossal, scandal-prone companies with troubling ties to that country’s government. When it comes to creating armies of robots with the potential to crush labor power and generate “infinite” revenue, the question is not whether you should root for a company like Tesla or one like Hyundai. It’s which company’s outlandish narrative do you find more plausible? 

    [ad_2]

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) Earns “Buy” Rating from Royal Bank Of Canada

    [ad_1]

    Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLAGet Free Report)‘s stock had its “buy” rating restated by investment analysts at Royal Bank Of Canada in a report issued on Friday,MarketScreener Latest Ratings reports. They presently have a $500.00 target price on the electric vehicle producer’s stock. Royal Bank Of Canada’s price objective suggests a potential upside of 14.14% from the stock’s current price.

    Several other brokerages also recently commented on TSLA. Robert W. Baird upgraded Tesla from a “neutral” rating to an “outperform” rating and increased their price target for the company from $320.00 to $548.00 in a report on Friday, September 19th. New Street Research raised their target price on shares of Tesla from $465.00 to $520.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research note on Thursday, October 23rd. Baird R W raised shares of Tesla from a “hold” rating to a “strong-buy” rating in a research report on Friday, September 19th. Wall Street Zen raised Tesla from a “sell” rating to a “hold” rating in a research report on Saturday, October 25th. Finally, Benchmark reissued a “buy” rating on shares of Tesla in a research report on Thursday, October 23rd. One analyst has rated the stock with a Strong Buy rating, twenty have issued a Buy rating, fourteen have given a Hold rating and nine have given a Sell rating to the stock. According to data from MarketBeat.com, Tesla presently has an average rating of “Hold” and an average price target of $414.92.

    Get Our Latest Analysis on Tesla

    Tesla Price Performance

    NASDAQ TSLA opened at $438.07 on Friday. Tesla has a 1 year low of $214.25 and a 1 year high of $498.83. The business’s fifty day moving average is $445.77 and its two-hundred day moving average is $391.34. The stock has a market capitalization of $1.46 trillion, a P/E ratio of 292.05, a P/E/G ratio of 7.00 and a beta of 1.83. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.07, a quick ratio of 1.67 and a current ratio of 2.07.

    Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLAGet Free Report) last posted its quarterly earnings data on Thursday, October 23rd. The electric vehicle producer reported $0.50 earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $0.48 by $0.02. Tesla had a return on equity of 6.61% and a net margin of 5.51%.The firm had revenue of $28.10 billion for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $24.98 billion. During the same quarter in the previous year, the company earned $0.72 EPS. The business’s revenue for the quarter was up 11.6% compared to the same quarter last year. On average, research analysts forecast that Tesla will post 2.56 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.

    Insider Buying and Selling at Tesla

    In other Tesla news, CFO Vaibhav Taneja sold 2,637 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction dated Monday, December 8th. The shares were sold at an average price of $443.93, for a total value of $1,170,643.41. Following the transaction, the chief financial officer directly owned 13,757 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $6,107,145.01. This trade represents a 16.09% decrease in their position. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which can be accessed through the SEC website. Also, Director Kimbal Musk sold 56,820 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction on Tuesday, December 9th. The shares were sold at an average price of $450.66, for a total value of $25,606,501.20. Following the completion of the sale, the director directly owned 1,391,615 shares in the company, valued at approximately $627,145,215.90. This represents a 3.92% decrease in their position. The SEC filing for this sale provides additional information. 19.90% of the stock is owned by insiders.

    Institutional Investors Weigh In On Tesla

    Several hedge funds have recently added to or reduced their stakes in TSLA. Norges Bank acquired a new position in shares of Tesla during the 2nd quarter valued at $11,839,824,000. Kingstone Capital Partners Texas LLC raised its holdings in shares of Tesla by 581,880.5% during the second quarter. Kingstone Capital Partners Texas LLC now owns 6,436,704 shares of the electric vehicle producer’s stock valued at $2,044,683,000 after purchasing an additional 6,435,598 shares during the period. Vanguard Group Inc. raised its holdings in shares of Tesla by 1.8% during the second quarter. Vanguard Group Inc. now owns 251,390,681 shares of the electric vehicle producer’s stock valued at $79,856,764,000 after purchasing an additional 4,502,976 shares during the period. Holocene Advisors LP boosted its position in shares of Tesla by 132.2% during the 3rd quarter. Holocene Advisors LP now owns 6,157,000 shares of the electric vehicle producer’s stock worth $2,738,141,000 after purchasing an additional 3,505,000 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Amundi grew its stake in shares of Tesla by 20.4% in the 2nd quarter. Amundi now owns 20,194,152 shares of the electric vehicle producer’s stock valued at $6,374,284,000 after buying an additional 3,422,270 shares during the period. 66.20% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

    Key Headlines Impacting Tesla

    Here are the key news stories impacting Tesla this week:

    • Positive Sentiment: RBC reiterated a “buy” on TSLA with a $500 price target — a signal that some large brokers still see meaningful upside tied to Tesla’s longer‑term story. MarketScreener Latest Ratings
    • Positive Sentiment: Dan Ives and other bulls kept high targets and public optimism about Tesla’s valuation if autonomy/robotaxi execution accelerates — a reminder investors are pricing optionality beyond car volumes. Dan Ives Maintains Street-High Tesla Price Target
    • Positive Sentiment: Record energy‑storage deployments in Q4 were disclosed alongside vehicle numbers — a business line that can help revenue diversification and offset auto weakness. Benzinga: Tesla Deliveries Slide, Energy Storage Hits Records
    • Neutral Sentiment: Some Wall Street coverage and commentators note Tesla can “shake off” the delivery miss because investors are focused on AI/autonomy upside — but that view depends on execution and timing. TSLA: Tesla Stock Rises Despite Missing Q4 Delivery Estimates
    • Neutral Sentiment: Canaccord and other sell‑side analysts are discussing CyberCab/robotaxi scale plans for 2026 — bullish if achieved but execution risk remains. Canaccord Genuity on CyberCab Production
    • Negative Sentiment: Tesla reported Q4 deliveries (~418k) down ~16% year‑over‑year and full‑year sales declined for a second consecutive year, missing already‑low Street expectations — the direct driver of today’s negative price reaction. Reuters: Tesla’s quarterly deliveries fall
    • Negative Sentiment: BYD overtook Tesla as the world’s top battery‑electric seller in 2025 — a strategic and competitive setback that raises pricing and market‑share concerns, especially in China and Europe. MarketWatch: BYD overtakes Tesla
    • Negative Sentiment: Regional weakness (sharp registration declines in parts of Europe) and the expiration of U.S. federal EV tax breaks were cited as reasons for demand softness — risks to near‑term volumes. Benzinga: Tesla’s European slump worsens
    • Negative Sentiment: Some broker moves trimmed targets/ratings (Truist trimmed price target to $439 and maintained a Hold; other houses remain cautious), adding pressure for disappointed near‑term returns. TickerReport: Truist lowers PT on Tesla

    About Tesla

    (Get Free Report)

    Tesla, Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) is an American company that designs, manufactures and sells electric vehicles, energy generation and energy storage products. Founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, Tesla grew into a vertically integrated mobility and clean‑energy company with Elon Musk serving as its chief executive officer. The company’s stated mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, reflected in its combined focus on electric drivetrains, battery technology, renewable energy products and software.

    Tesla’s automotive business includes a lineup of battery‑electric vehicles and related services.

    See Also

    Analyst Recommendations for Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA)



    Receive News & Ratings for Tesla Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for Tesla and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    ABMN Staff

    Source link

  • Tesla annual sales decline 9% as it’s overtaken by BYD as global EV leader | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Tesla annual sales have fallen for the second year in a row, a drop fueled by the removal of the federal tax credit in the U.S. and competition from Chinese automakers.

    Tesla delivered 1.63 million vehicles globally in 2025, a 9% fall from 1.79 million in 2024, according to figures released by the company. Notably, about 50,850 of those vehicles are considered “other models,” a collection that includes the Cybertruck as well as its older Model X and Model S.

    Tesla reported fourth-quarter sales of 418,227, a 15.6% drop from the same period last year and far more than analysts expected. Tesla stock fell more than 2% as the market opened after the New Year holiday.

    Tesla, once the global EV sales leader, has seen its market share in Europe and China eroded by the rise of Chinese competitors. China’s BYD, which delivered 2.26 million EVs in 2025, has now taken the top global EV sales spot. Tesla is also facing more competition in the United States — although notably not from Chinese automakers which are barred from selling vehicles in the country.

    But it was the elimination of the $7,500 U.S. federal tax incentive that seems to have delivered the biggest blow in the fourth quarter. Tesla sold a record-breaking 497,099 vehicles in the third quarter — a 29% increase from previous quarter — as consumers raced to buy EVs before the federal EV tax credit disappeared. Since then, sales have retreated in spite of efforts to woo buyers.

    Tesla’s declining sales comes as CEO Elon Musk tries to pivot the company away from the business of making and selling EVs and towards AI and robotics. Musk’s pitch is there is money to be made in “sustainable abundance,” a catchphrase used throughout the company’s recent Master Plan IV that describes an ecosystem of sustainable products, from transport to energy generation, battery storage and robotics.

    And yet, the bulk of Tesla’s income comes from its EV business. For instance, Tesla generated $28 billion in revenue in the third quarter, of which $21.2 billion came from selling EVs.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    [ad_2]

    Kirsten Korosec

    Source link

  • Tesla no longer world’s biggest EV maker after its sales drop for second year in a row

    [ad_1]


    Tesla on Friday reported a second straight annual drop in electric vehicle sales, as the phaseout of a $7,500 federal EV tax credit and mounting competition weighed on demand. With the decline, Tesla lost its title as the world’s bestselling electric vehicle maker. 

    The company said it delivered 1.64 million vehicles in 2025, down 9% from 1.79 million in 2024. Sales also declined in the fourth quarter, tumbling 15.6% to 418,227 vehicles, short of the 440,000 that analysts polled by FactSet expected.

    China’s BYD, which sold 2.26 million vehicles last year, is now the world’s biggest EV maker.

    Tesla has struggled amid heightened competition from rival automakers, as well as a backlash from some consumers over CEO Elon Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration. Musk had headed up the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, where he oversaw cuts to the government workforce and some funding programs before stepping back in May to refocus on Tesla.

    At the same time, the expiration last fall of the $7,500 EV tax credit likely hurt demand as it removed an incentive that had enticed some consumers to buy or lease electric vehicles, which tend to be pricier than gas-powered cars.

    Despite such challenges, Tesla’s stock finished 2025 with a gain of roughly 11%, as investors hope Musk can deliver on his ambitions to make the company a leader in robotaxi service and get consumers to embrace humanoid robots that can perform basic tasks in homes and offices.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Examining declining EV sales as Tesla lowers sales expectations

    [ad_1]

    Tesla put out an unusual warning Tuesday of lower than expected sales.

    The company was not the only electronic vehicle maker with lowered expectations. Several car companies, from General Motors to Porsche, have significantly slowed their EV rollouts, with some saying they will invest less in their electric divisions.

    Tesla predicts a second straight year of declining EV deliveries.

    “I think the charging times are going to have to get faster,” said Brian Moody, Kelly Blue Book executive director. “There needs to be more and more reliable chargers and there’s also going to be have to be a wider variety of vehicles at lower price points.”

    The latest sales figures come after a strong quarter a few months ago as people bought EVs ahead of the cancelling of the $7,500 federal EV discount.

    [ad_2]

    Scott Budman

    Source link

  • We Now Know What You’ll Be Charged if You Puke in a Tesla Robotaxi

    [ad_1]

    They barely hit the streets of Austin this summer (and still aren’t free of human attendants), but there’s apparently been enough activity in Tesla Robotaxis that reports exist about the cost of making messes in them, from puke to spilled coffee to vape stink. While the fees don’t seem overly stringent on the face of it, there’s enough vagueness in these policies that you may want to second-guess bringing anything that might spill in one of these vehicles.

    According to InsideEVs and @sawyermerrit on X, Tesla can charge a rider $150 for what, according to Merritt, the company considers “severe messes, such as biowaste or smoking in the vehicle” that’s currently available only in parts of Austin. Lesser offenses like “food spills, significant dirt and minor stains” result in a $50 fine. 

    Those charges aren’t on Tesla’s page about Robotaxi Rider Rules other than being charged an “additional fee” at “Tesla’s discretion.” Merritt, however, says Tesla will assess any additional cleaning required after a rider’s trip and then add a fee it determines appropriate through the user’s app. 

    Users who are charged can reportedly contest their fees by calling a customer support number.

    In terms of fairness, the closest comparison is Waymo, a service that has far more vehicles on the road, all of which can operate without a human on board—which potentially means more of a feeling of privacy and the resulting lax attitude toward cleanliness. Waymo charges $50 if the rider remembers to “self-report their mess during their ride.” However, an unreported, uh, incident in a Waymo can result in a fine of up to $100 from the company for the first violation and, “up to the cost of cleaning and your account standing may also be impacted,” on second violations. 

    And Waymo puts smoking or vaping in a separate violation category. Waymo issues a $100 fine for the first offense and, like Tesla, reserves the right to charge for a cleaning and put your account’s standing into question if there are any subsequent smoking-related offenses. For better or worse for riders, though, apart from smoking, Waymo doesn’t parse the concept of “mess” into categories as much as Tesla.

    Uber, which has launched a limited, human-supervised self-driving taxi in Dallas ahead of an autonomous version planned for 2026, also does not explicitly specify the terms of its Robotaxi damage fines in its code of conduct or payment terms. The Uber information page for riders of  the non-self-driving service simply states that on all trips, “riders are responsible for damage to the interior or exterior of a vehicle caused by incidents such as vomiting or food spills,” with fees handed over to the driver in full.  

    Zoox, for its part, is very new, operating in Las Vegas with a waitlist forming in San Francisco. For now, it doesn’t specify how much it can charge a user, but it may charge you not only if a mess was left by you or your group, but also if another rider reports an earlier mess, and you failed to. The company says it, “may determine in our sole discretion that you or your guests caused the damage.”

    Should you choose to drive yourself around in a rented car, these charges are still better than the $400 smoking fine at Hertz and on par with the $150 fine Turo imposes for fluid spills or pet hair, for example.

    All of these cost comparisons are important because these so-called robotaxis gaining momentum in 2026 will continue to be promoted by their respective operators as autonomous even though they require various levels of human intervention, including at times paying gig workers to close stuck doors. And Tesla’s own vision of self-cleaning car interiors from a 2023 patent still exists primarily on paper. 

    That still leaves humans to pick up after you, your pet or your drunk friend.

    [ad_2]

    Zac Estrada

    Source link

  • Comparisons Between Waymo and Tesla Miss How Strange the Robotaxi Race Is

    [ad_1]

    Tesla’s valuation has been spectacular lately, closing at an all-time record of $489.88 earlier this month and still hovering pretty close to that astronomical figure as of this writing. Tesla bulls, notably Dan Ives of Wedbush capital, say this is because Tesla is on the verge of successfully deploying robotaxis, and that Tesla’s stock price could spike to $800 next year.

    A New York Times report from Thursday reads like a valiant attempt to talk sanity into anyone who believes the Wedbush Tesla narrative. It’s not going to work, because Tesla is selling a pretty wild fantasy that isn’t mentioned in the Times’ piece.

    Central to the Times’ report is the observation that in Austin, Tesla’s proof-of-concept city as a Robocar manufactuer-operator, an estimated 30 self-driving taxis have supposedly rolled onto the roads since June, an absolutely dismal number compared to Waymo’s 200 in the same city since March. The source the Times links to for the Tesla stat is a site called teslarobotaxitracker.com, which is run by an Austin-based robotaxi enthusiast named Ethan McKanna.

    And the Times points out that each and every Tesla self-driving taxi with passengers in it still has a human safety monitor—while Waymo’s fleet is unsupervised—at least inside the car. 

    The Times is far from the first to claim that Waymo is way ahead of Tesla. Jeff Dean, the chief scientist at Google DeepMind—who shares a parent company, Alphabet, with Waymo, wrote on Twitter earlier this month, “I don’t think Tesla has anywhere near the volume of rider-only autonomous miles that Waymo has (96M for Waymo, as of today). The safety data is quite compelling for Waymo, as well.” 

    Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, replied to Dean by making one of his famous outlandish predictions: “Waymo never really had a chance against Tesla. This will be obvious in hindsight.”

    One issue with any Waymo-Tesla comparison right now, however, is that Waymo’s business is running into some major potholes, and they might be relevant. This past weekend, Waymo had to shut down its service in San Francisco when its vehicles faltered at dark stoplights. It turned out that Waymo’s lack of safety drivers might have contributed to the problem, since the motivation for the shutdown was a logjam caused by the Waymo software’s high volume of requests for human feedback.

    But importantly, the bullish case for Tesla’s Robotaxi service doesn’t seem to be based on the existing ride-hailing service that relies on Model Y cars as autonomous taxis. It’s most likely based on the large scale rollout of a two-seater car without a steering wheel or pedals called the Cybercab that Elon Musk unveiled in 2024, and claimed will be available for purchase by the end of 2026.

    The supposed silver bullet for Cybercabs is that people will ostensibly buy them, and use them for their own transportation needs, but at other times release them into the wild as robotic servants that make them passive, or passive-ish, income. This would benefit Tesla in theory because it would rely on the Tesla app ecosystem, and Tesla would get a cut, while the car owners have to deal with charging, maintenance, insurance, cleaning, and everything else that’s annoying about owning a car.

    And we know Elon Musk has it in his head that he’s going to get something like a million Cybercabs onto the road—or at least some mix of hundreds of thousands of Model Y taxis alongside Cybercabs. We know this because if Tesla doesn’t deploy at least one million self-driving taxis, Elon Musk doesn’t get all of his notorious $1 trillion pay package

    The Times’s piece isn’t wrong to quote experts saying Tesla is “way behind Waymo.” But it includes passages like this that make near-religious faith in Tesla’s future revenue sound more mysterious than it is:

    Some analysts also doubt whether driverless taxis will generate trillions of dollars of revenue, as Mr. Musk has predicted, or be very profitable. For revenue to even reach hundreds of billions of dollars, many people would have to give up their personal vehicles in favor of riding in taxis, which is unlikely anytime soon, said Michael Tyndall, an analyst at HSBC.

    It’s not that the Times is comparing apples and oranges. It’s more like they’re comparing otherwise decent apples with worms in them to magical apples from a wizard who claims his apples can grant wishes, but no one can have one yet. It’s more dubious and fantastical than the extremely sane adults in the room are even letting on with their pleas for sanity. But hey, let’s all just wait and see what the wizard has in store for us.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Pearl

    Source link

  • NHTSA launches investigation into Tesla Model 3 emergency door handles

    [ad_1]

    U.S. safety regulators have launched a probe into some Tesla Model 3 cars over the vehicle’s door handles. 

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said in a December 23 online filing that it received a complaint from a Tesla owner asking it to investigate the vehicle’s emergency door handles, with the motorist claiming that the “mechanical door release is hidden, unlabeled and not intuitive to locate during an emergency.”

    The driver claimed he was forced to escape from the vehicle’s rear window after the 2022 Model 3 caught fire, according to his account on an Atlanta local television news show.

    The probe covers roughly 179,000 Model 3 cars from the 2022 model year, according to the NHTSA filing. 

    Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    This isn’t the first time the Model 3 has come under scrutiny. In 2023, a couple crashed in Tacoma, Washington, after a design flaw in the Model 3 they were driving caused it to accelerate out of control. A separate issue with the door handle prevented bystanders from helping to rescue the couple, according to court filings. The accident killed the woman, Wendy Dennis, while leaving her husband, Jeff Dennis, severely injured.

    Other reports have also surfaced describing incidents in which people became trapped in a burning Tesla vehicle following an accident that allegedly incapacitated the electric doors, while occupants were unable to find a manual release. 

    Bloomberg reported this week that there have been “at least” 15 deaths over the last decade in which motorists or rescuers were unable to open the doors of a Tesla that had crashed and caught fire.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk Reportedly Insisted on Troubled Tesla Doors After a Warning

    [ad_1]

    An ongoing controversy about an alleged Tesla door design flaw got two new wrinkles this week, as troubling, who-knew-what-and-when questions about vehicle door handles began to swirl, along with a fresh federal investigation triggered by a harrowing complaint letter.

    As part of a months-long investigation by Bloomberg, a project timed to coincide with high profile inquiries from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the news outlet reported on Monday that Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk not only knew about the design flaw of the electronic door releases on the company’s vehicles, but advocated that they continued to be used.

    And on Tuesday, the NHTSA announced a new investigation specifically into the Model 3.

    According to Bloomberg‘s sources, engineers warned Musk against the electronic releases for the interior door handles during Tesla Model 3 development. The setup demands power from a 12-volt battery to operate the door with an electronic button. However, to address engineer concerns and meet federal motor vehicle safety standards, a manual release was also installed for passengers to use in an emergency or if the 12-volt battery was depleted.

    The problem that’s supposedly resulted in 15 deaths and many other incidents in popular models like the Model 3 and Model Y is that the 12-volt battery, separate from the propulsion battery pack, can fail in a crash. And many occupants were unaware of the unmarked manual release far away from the normal button.

    Tuesday’s investigation was prompted by a November letter to NHTSA by a 2022 Model 3 owner from Georgia who claimed he was, “forced to crawl into the rear seat and repeatedly kick the rear passenger window until it shattered,” when he was involved in a head-on collision that resulted in the vehicle catching fire and losing power to electrical accessories.

    Kevin Clouse said he sustained injuries that required three surgeries including a full hip replacement. Clouse cites a federal vehicle law requiring exit latches be marked and readily accessible.

    This news also comes at the end of a wild year for Musk that included a doomed stint at the White House and DOGE and an $878 million-pay package in November even with a quarter of shareholders not supporting him, while Tesla sales went into a global freefall over politics, unfavorable EV conditions, and increased competition.

    Tesla wasn’t the first automaker to pursue electric door handles, but not long after the Model S further popularized them, companies like Audi started using them. It’s also not the first company to face a person allegedly being trapped in one of their vehicles with electronic door handles. A man and his dog died in 2015, apparently after the electronic door release failed on a 2007 Chevy Corvette, resulting in a 2016 lawsuit by the victim’s family. The man, it appears, was unaware of a manual override to open the door when the battery fails.

    These mechanisms have been the source of reliability complaints and frustrations from owners and reviewers. Outlets such as Consumer Reports noted issues and even began ranking vehicles lower for usability problems—so much so that the magazine started a petition to automakers asking for safer doors.

    Tesla’s problems will persist next year as the NHTSA continues to investigate the millions of models on U.S. roads. The company has made some changes on new models and, in September, Tesla’s designer proposed a redesign of the releases on future cars.

    [ad_2]

    Zac Estrada

    Source link

  • Tesla’s ‘Mad Max Mode’ Points to a Big Problem for Self-Driving Cars

    [ad_1]

    “Mad Max mode” may sound like something out of a video game, but it is a real-life setting for cars currently plying America’s streets. And it poses genuine danger.

    In an homage to the main character from George Miller’s dystopian 1979 film and its sequels, originally portrayed by current Trump supporter Mel Gibson, Tesla created Mad Max mode as an option for vehicles equipped with its “Full-Self Driving” (FSD) system. The Mad Max icon is a mustachioed smiley face wearing a cowboy hat, bearing less of a resemblance to the film’s titular vigilante than to Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s brother, Kimbal. (Warner Bros., which released the films, has not filed suit.)

    Despite its name, FSD does not enable the car to drive itself. Rather, it is an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS), capable of changing lanes, making turns, and adjusting speed as long as a human driver remains alert and ready to take over. Other automakers, such as Ford and GM, also offer ADAS systems.

    Mad Max mode is starkly different from other FSD settings like “Sloth” and “Chill.” Teslas using it will roll through stop signs and blast past other vehicles on the road. One driver posted a YouTube video showing his Mad Max-enabled Tesla hitting 82 mph while whizzing by a 65 mph speed limit sign. A social media user wryly suggested that Mad Max “should just immediately write you a ticket when you turn it on.”

    Tesla made Mad Max mode available briefly in 2018 and then reintroduced it in October. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration quickly announced a safety investigation; the agency declined to give an update on its status.

    Musk’s company is not the only one programming its vehicles to treat traffic laws as suggestions rather than requirements.

    Waymo’s robotaxis (which, unlike ADAS such as Tesla FSD, do not require anyone in the front seat) have been spotted in San Francisco blocking bike lanes and edging into crosswalks where children are walking. In a recent Wall Street Journal story titled “Waymo’s Self-Driving Cars Are Suddenly Behaving Like New York Cabbies,” a Waymo senior director of product management confirmed that the company has programmed its cars to be more aggressive. He said that recent adjustments are making its robotaxis “confidently assertive.”

    Welcome to our brave new computer-powered future, where companies will determine which road rules are obeyed and which are ignored. We might not like what they decide.

    Mad Max, unleashed

    Traffic laws occupy a curious niche in the U.S., where most drivers break them regularly and without consequences.

    “There is this built-in acknowledgment that going 5 miles per hour over the limit is okay,” says Reilly Brennan, a partner at Trucks Venture Capital, a transportation-focused investment firm. “In other parts of our life, that wouldn’t be acceptable, like going 5% over in accounting or when a doctor performs some kind of task.”

    Indeed, many otherwise law-abiding drivers occasionally change lanes without using a turn signal or double park while grabbing coffee, knowing that these behaviors are technically illegal, but believing they are unlikely to result in a crash or fine.

    Driving more than 25 mph over the speed limit is a different story. Most people avoid doing so unless, say, rushing a child to the hospital, given the risk of getting into a crash or receiving a pricey ticket.

    But unlike humans, robotaxis and ADAS can violate traffic laws regardless of situational context. “You’ve taken away the agency of the person to decide whether it’s reasonable to break the law at that time,” says Phil Koopman, professor emeritus of computer science at Carnegie Mellon, who has studied autonomous driving extensively.

    Furthermore, companies like Tesla and Waymo may be shielded from the consequences of both minor and major traffic violations. The driver of a Tesla running FSD, for instance, is expected to remain alert and ready to take over, and the company claims that the driver—not Tesla—is liable for mishaps or collisions.

    “You have a company deciding to break the law, but the driver is being held responsible and suffering the consequences,” Koopman says. Last August, a Florida jury rejected Tesla’s attempts to pin crash responsibility on drivers alone, awarding $243 million to the family of a person struck and killed by a Tesla running Autopilot, the company’s less advanced ADAS. Tesla is appealing.

    Producers of fully autonomous software shoulder more responsibility for their vehicles’ actions than car companies offering ADAS. Still, accountability isn’t a given for them, either. State law in California and Georgia currently does not allow police to ticket vehicles without a driver, though California will close that loophole next year. (A Waymo spokesperson said the company supported California’s change).

    Everyone’s a road warrior now

    Without liability for traffic law violations, companies may program their vehicles to take more risks. Tesla likely launched Mad Max mode to appeal to the company’s hardcore customers, says author and podcaster Edward Niedermeyer, who has written a book about the company’s history and is currently writing a follow-up.

    “Tesla has a baseline incentive to release all kinds of weird, quirky, unique software updates that cost them almost nothing and fuel their online fan base,” he says. “Mad Max mode is an example of that, and it happens to also reflect the company’s casual attitude toward public safety.”

    Waymo’s robotaxis do not behave nearly as aggressively as Teslas running Mad Max. But the company faces an incentive to turn its assertiveness dial up a bit, if only to match the expectations of its paying passengers, who have become accustomed to violating traffic laws when they themselves sit behind the wheel. Driving “like your grandmother”—as writer Malcolm Gladwell described his Waymo passenger experience in 2021—isn’t exactly a juicy marketing line.

    “Consumers think that these systems should drive the way they drive,” Brennan says.

    Some circumstances clearly call for rule-breaking, such as moving across a double yellow line to navigate around a moving van that is being unloaded. “What we’ve learned through more than a hundred million real-world miles is that appropriate assertiveness is crucial for safety and traffic flow,” says a Waymo spokesperson.

    But other situations are trickier, such as dropping someone off in a crosswalk or bike lane when no parking spot is available. These behaviors may be common practice among human drivers, but they can endanger other road users and certainly inconvenience them. Last year, Waymo received 589 tickets for illegal parking in San Francisco.

    But the public may have limited patience for computer-powered cars that bend traffic rules or cause collisions. Researchers have found that people are more tolerant of risk in activities they can control (like driving) than those they cannot (like robotaxis). Case in point: A recent outcry erupted in San Francisco after Waymo vehicles ran over a cat and dog. Of course, countless American pets are killed by human drivers, including the estimated 100,000 dogs who die annually after being placed in truck beds.

    These tensions will not dissipate anytime soon, given how furiously makers of ADAS and autonomous vehicles are working to win over customers. Brennan envisions a future where riders might choose from varying levels of robotaxi assertiveness. “Right now, there is just one Waymo setting,” he says. But in a few years, there may be “three or four settings, and one of them is almost exactly like the way that you want to drive.”

    For that to happen, humans will have to grow accustomed to self-driven cars zooming past speed limits and playing chicken with pedestrians in crosswalks. Companies are designing their autonomous systems to reflect how humans drive, for better and for worse.

    By David Zipper

    This article originally appeared in Inc.’s sister publication, Fast Company.

    Fast Company is the world’s leading business media brand, with an editorial focus on innovation in technology, leadership, world changing ideas, creativity, and design. Written for and about the most progressive business leaders, Fast Company inspires readers to think expansively, lead with purpose, embrace change, and shape the future of business.

    Go inside one interesting founder-led company each day to find out how its strategy works, and what risk factors it faces. Sign up for 1 Smart Business Story from Inc. on Beehiiv.

    [ad_2]

    Fast Company

    Source link

  • Elon Musk Becomes First Person Worth $700 billion Following Pay Package Ruling

    [ad_1]

    Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s net worth surged to $749 billion late Friday after the Delaware Supreme Court reinstated Tesla stock options worth $139 billion that were voided last year, according to Forbes’ billionaires index.

    Musk’s 2018 pay package, once worth $56 billion, was restored by the Delaware Supreme Court on Friday, two years after a lower court struck down the compensation deal as “unfathomable.”

    The Supreme Court said that a 2024 ruling that rescinded the pay package had been improper and inequitable to Musk.

    Earlier this week, Musk became the first person ever to surpass $600 billion in net worth on the heels of reports that his aerospace startup SpaceX was likely to go public.

    In November, Tesla shareholders separately approved a $1 trillion pay plan for Musk, the largest corporate pay package in history, as investors endorsed his vision of morphing the EV maker into an AI and robotics juggernaut.

    Musk’s fortune now exceeds that of Google co-founder Larry Page, the world’s second-richest person, by nearly $500 billion, according to Forbes’ billionaires list.

    Reporting by Rajveer Singh Pardesi in Bengaluru, Editing by Franklin Paul

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • TechCrunch Mobility: Bankruptcy takes out two | TechCrunch

    [ad_1]

    Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for all things “future of transportation.” To get this in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility!

    The year in transportation started with a couple of bankruptcies — Canoo and Nikola — and now it’s ending with two more. Rad Power Bikes is coming to an end — or at least a bankruptcy. The electric bike company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, weeks after it warned employees that it could shut down without new funding. A spokesperson told TechCrunch the company will continue to operate while the bankruptcy case proceeds, and it’s looking to sell the business within 45-60 days.

    And then there is troubled lidar maker Luminar, which also filed for bankruptcy this week. The Luminar bankruptcy does not seem like a let’s-help-it-live-another-day type of situation. 

    The Luminar filing, which occurred after months of layoffs, executive departures, and a legal fight with its largest customer, Volvo, notes the company plans to sell off the business. It has already reached a deal to sell its semiconductor subsidiary. While the company will continue to operate during the bankruptcy process to “minimize disruptions” for its suppliers and customers, Luminar will eventually cease to exist once it’s completed, senior reporter Sean O’Kane reported. Want to learn more? I recommend reading O’Kane’s piece that looks at how Luminar’s doomed Volvo deal helped drag the company into bankruptcy.

    Even though the year was bookended by some failures, that doesn’t mean 2025 wasn’t filled with innovation and growth. The emerging robotaxi industry has indeed emerged. With that I have noticed new kinds of autonomous vehicle-adjacent companies popping up, and I expect that to become a trend in 2026. 

    The scale of robotaxis was largely driven by Waymo’s fast-paced growth, although Zoox and Tesla have also started to set up shop. This next year could be when we see these companies really squaring off in the same markets; it will also be the year when companies will face even greater scrutiny over safety and how robotaxis fit into daily life.

    Meanwhile, EVs have had their struggles this year and automakers have struggled to adjust.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    For instance, Ford is pivoting yet again. The company said this week it is ending production of the fully-electric F-150 Lightning as part of a broader companywide shake-up that will put more emphasis on hybrids and gas-powered vehicles. As part of its shift, Ford is turning to the increasingly popular “extended range electric vehicle” version of the truck, which adds a gas generator that can recharge the battery pack to power the motors for over 700 miles. It’s also getting into the energy storage business — gotta do something with all those batteries — and says it is still committed to producing a midsized electric truck that will go on sale in 2027. 

    But hey, the EV is not dead. And the promise of smaller, more affordable ones are looming in the near distance with the imminent launch of Rivian’s R2 and Slate Auto’s electric truck. 

    Housekeeping note: This is the last newsletter of the year. The next time you hear from me, I will be in Las Vegas for the annual tech trade show known as CES. Going? Reach out. 

    To everyone, thank you for reading, participating in the polls, and sending me emails (yes, even the critical ones). Your voice matters and I love hearing from you. See you in 2026!

    A little bird

    Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

    Reporter Jagmeet Singh, who is based in India, always seems to have birds chirping in his ear about startup deals. The latest is Spinny, the Indian online marketplace for used cars. 

    Spinny is raising around $160 million, funds that will be used to acquire car services startup GoMechanic. TechCrunch learned the Series G round includes a mix of primary and secondary transactions and will value the 10-year-old startup at about $1.8 billion post-money.

    Got a tip for us? Email Kirsten Korosec at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com or my Signal at kkorosec.07, or email Sean O’Kane at sean.okane@techcrunch.com.

    Deals!

    money the station
    Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

    Boatsetter and GetMyBoat, two companies that operate Airbnb-type business models for boats, agreed to merge

    Cowboy is back — sort of. The Brussels e-bike startup has been acquired by ReBirth Group Holding, a company that owns Gitane, Peugeot, and Solex. The e-bike startup had its buzzy moments but ultimately ran into problems, including a frame recall. The terms weren’t disclosed, but apparently it includes €15 million ($17.6 million) from existing shareholders. 

    Nirvana Insurance, an insurance tech startup focused on trucking, raised $100 million in a Series D funding round led by Valor Equity Partners. Lightspeed and General Catalyst also joined. Former TC reporter Mary Ann Azevedo had the scoop on the new valuation, which is now $1.5 billion.

    Notable reads and other tidbits

    Image Credits:Bryce Durbin

    Redwood launched a newly patented Battery Collection Bin designed to encourage consumers to recycle batteries. The system, which will launch in San Francisco, safely stores, packages, and monitors hundreds of batteries and battery-containing devices. 

    Rivian has added its branded “Universal Hands-Free” driving via a software update to its second-generation R1 EVs (not sure I am a fan of that term “universal hands-free,” btw). This upgrade will allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel on 3.5 million miles of roads in the U.S. and Canada (so long as there are visible painted lines). Also in case you missed it over the weekend, senior reporter Sean O’Kane took us inside Rivian’s bet on AI-powered self-driving

    Securing America’s Future Energy has a new CEO. Avery Ash, SAFE’s Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Special Initiatives, will become the organization’s next CEO.

    Slate Auto, the electric truck startup backed by Jeff Bezos, said it has collected more than 150,000 refundable reservations for its low-cost EV due out at the end of 2026.

    Sterling Anderson has been on the job at GM for six months and there is already chatter about him taking over as CEO once Mary Barra retires. My take: Anderson has big tasks ahead, so let’s all take a beat before assuming he’ll get that top post. GM president Mark Reuss is also in the wings. 

    Tesla has pulled its human safety monitors out of its robotaxis in Austin. The robotaxi service is limited with a fleet size numbering in the dozens. Still, it is a milestone. And for those wondering, the California Department of Motor Vehicles told me this week that Tesla has not applied for a driverless testing permit. The company only holds a permit to test autonomous vehicle technology with a human safety operator located behind the wheel. 

    Meanwhile, Tesla is facing a tricky situation in California. Here’s the gist: An administrative law judge agreed with the case initiated by California’s Department of Motor Vehicles and ruled Tesla engaged in deceptive marketing that gave customers a false impression of the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving driver-assistance software. The DMV wanted to suspend Tesla’s sales and manufacturing licenses in the state for 30 days as a penalty for its action, and a judge has agreed. 

    Ah, but wait. The DMV stayed the order and is giving Tesla 60 days to comply. That gives Tesla two options if it wants to keep those licenses: drop the Autopilot name or ship software to its cars that make them autonomous.

    One more thing …

    Some of you might not know that I am also co-host of Equity, a TechCrunch’s podcast about the business of startups. I generally co-host our Friday show, which offers commentary and analysis on the news of the week. 

    Every now and then I interview a founder or VC for the Wednesday show. My latest is an interview with Jiten Behl, partner at Eclipse Ventures and former chief growth officer at Rivian, who thinks we’re entering an era of major reindustrialization in the U.S. — one where factories run on AI-powered robots, not cheap overseas labor.  Check out the episode here.

    [ad_2]

    Kirsten Korosec

    Source link

  • He Got a Bunch of Money Again

    [ad_1]

    Yesterday, with a single slam of a gavel, Elon Musk got almost 14 percent closer to being a trillionaire.

    He wants you to think that you can’t hurt him by calling him greedy when things like this go his way. In his public life, he has cocooned himself inside a warm little excuse for his outlandish, endless pursuit of a larger fortune. He most recently laid it all out in a tweet on November 3, but he’s been pretty consistent about this for years.

    The excuse goes like this: human consciousness is good, but would die out entirely if all life on Earth were snuffed out. Earth is a finite resource and will eventually become uninhabitable or be destroyed. There is no way to avoid this, so it’s imperative that humanity find a way to persist without Earth—first by colonizing Mars, and then by using that step as a way to expand into other solar systems. He needs as much money as possible to get to Mars, therefore, if you squint, getting as rich as possible is actually heroic and Elon Musk is our savior. 

    This isn’t all wrong. There are disasters threatening Earth, and even if we survive those, our planet will only exist for a limited amount of time, after which it will be swallowed by the expansion of our sun when it depletes the fuel at its core and becomes a red dwarf. There are two common ways of shrugging this information off: a) The Armageddon or a similar religious or spiritual event will have ended our troubles by then, or b) Actually, human extinction is good. If you don’t subscribe to one of these ideas, then Elon Musk might seem like he has a good point. 

    Elon Musk doesn’t have a good point, however. And he remains, by any reasonable standard, absolutely nothing other than a greedy rich guy. 

    The idea that the Earth is on course for imminent doom is misplaced. As has been explained endlessly elsewhere, climate change isn’t going to make our species extinct. It’s just going to make life here harder and worse. The hard truth is that there’s no escape. We have to endure the horrible disasters and try, for generations, to repair the damage we’ve done.  

    But when you zoom out past short-term blips that Elon Musk performatively pretends to care about, like declining fertility, you’ll actually start to feel pretty hopeful. For most of our species’ existence on Earth, we competed with predators that were trying to eat us and steal our food, and we pulled through. Yeah, we’re currently all addicted to scrolling on our phones, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re built for survival, and we’ll do it on a cold Earth or a hot earth, with or without Teslas and satellite internet, until, say, the atmosphere becomes unbreathable in roughly a billion years, and, hell, maybe even longer than that. 

    All of which is to say that in the long term, the project of sending combustion-powered fuel tubes to the nearest planet in our solar system is a pretty goofy plan for saving our species. There’s no hurry to get off Earth, and anyway, we don’t currently know what to do about the fact that Mars colonists would be irradiated, and unable to grow food in the local soil. You and I have the same Google as Elon Musk, so it’s not like he doesn’t know about these problems.

    But he almost certainly knows his fantasies are increasingly out of reach within his lifetime. He’ll be pushing 60 before the point at which he himself says he’ll finally launch a crewed mission in his some of his more recent predictions. He’ll be somewhere in the range of 73 to 83 by the time he now claims there will be a self-sustaining city on Mars. And in recent months the fantasy has gotten weirder still. He now wants to etch his own AI-written encyclopedia in stone and distribute it on Mars and elsewhere in space.

    I can only guess that Musk is flailing. The fact that he’ll never see the creation of a Mars colony is coming into view for him. Maybe if he really hurries, he can strand a few corpses on the dead, red rock that is Mars—something he has acknowledged is part of his plan—before he himself slumps over dead atop his giant cash pile.

    Humanity will carry on without him. His time will come to an end, and the species he dreams of saving won’t have needed him. The current period of cartoonish inequality between the rich and poor will end. Our species will endure the slings and arrows of life on our imperfect planet, and if we’re lucky, perhaps a day will come in the future when we can pilot some unknown kind of craft comfortably to another star and set up a colony there. Maybe people in that colony will read a book that mentions Elon Musk after Croesus and Mansa Musa on a list of rich guys, back when there were rich guys. 

    Anyway, Musk has been fighting a years-long legal battle to save the $56 billion Tesla pay package that pushed him to the status of super-billionaire in the first place. Last year, a court agreed with certain shareholders who felt that Musk’s control of Tesla called the fairness of the pay package into question, and that package was tossed out. Well, he just won his appeal, and since the package has gone up in value over the years, he just got $139 billion richer. Good for him.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Pearl

    Source link