Tesla has a drug testing policy, so one can only assume that Musk will be failing it soon.
Tesla stock plunged 9 percent on Friday after a bizarre podcast in which CEO Elon Musk smoked weed and sipped whiskey, and two high-profile executives abruptly announced they were leaving the company.
Due diligence argle bargle shareholders bla bla bla.
I don’t really care, but I do care how a cop shoots the legit resident of the wrong appartment she tried to go home to. What fucked up chain of events leads to that?
soylent green
Bu-bu-bu-but…how could you possibly reconcile this erratic behavior that doesn’t actually impact the company’s future with his recent hint that he might take the company private?
Oh wait…
His plan to go private was a… pipe dream.
@1 When did this happen? It sounds appalling.
Too bad for Musky everyone is treated equally and there isn’t a different set of rules for rich people in our society… Yep.
@5:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/09/06/shooting-reported-cedars-near-dallas-police-headquarters
He’d still pass a drug test from one puff on a joint he didn’t even inhale
He says in the interview “It’s easy to demonize people. You’re usually wrong about it. People are nicer than you think.”
That’s fucking rich.
Capitalists hate when people like Musk forget they are just employees. He’s going to get slapped down hard.
Who effin care if Musk smokes weed and drinks whisky? All the best people do.
Weed, sure, but most forms of whisk(e)y are best classified as industrial waste produced as a byproduct of the manufacture of barrels for aging beer in.
Elon Musk is the guy who keeps calling a cave rescue person involved in rescuing children in that Thailand cave disaster, a pedophile.
Without any proof whatsoever.
I don’t pay much attention to Elon Musk. But right here, he vaporizes his credibility.
After this, it is impossible to see him as a “nice guy”.
Well, he apparently cares about his employees smoking weed – enough to drug test them, and fire them if they fail. So, are there valid reasons for that, or is it just to keep the peons in order?
Elon Musk has some weird hobbies.
Smoking marijuana on TV is the least of it.
Calling people child rapists without any proof is just not, you know, at all cool.
… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1bUvG5zlKM …
Storm in a teacup.
So long as he continues to smash into fossil fuel car sales I’ll grant him the right to be a fallible human being.
Well I hope not. He’s a doofus but at least he’s doing good with brains and rich man money.
Just like for so many rich assholes different rules apply. I personally witnessed multiple famous (British) faces in a sex slave auction party in central London in 1975. Being rich enough and buying a sex slave? No problem! Being poor and gay? Bad Hooman!
Yes becase electricity those cars run on comes out of magic electricity holes. I’ve personally observed this. Nothing coud be better than getting energy from holes in the wall. No pollution or greenhouse gases there. None of that damn fossif fuel burning involved. Smash away.
Cynical Skeptic @19, are you suggesting that since electric cars’ fuel is not entirely pollution-free, they are no better pollution-wise than non-electric cars?
Because if not, what you quoted makes perfect pragmatic* sense.
—
∗ The grant was phrased as a conditional, so it seems to me Lofty shares your naive inclination.
—
Re the OP, my personal opinion is that I like him better as a person because of his token toke than I did before. That was a cool thing to do in my estimation.
Cynical Skeptic @19, that is a pathetically stupid argument. Analysis shows that it is much harder to replace fossil fuels in fuel burning vehicles than it is to provide low pollution electricity to charge electric vehicles. Bio fuels are very poor substitutes for fossil fuels largely because of the amount of land and water needed to produce them whilst displacing food production or wildlife.
Electricity on the other hand is much easier to make from renewable sources. Cleaner power can be added to the grid in increasing amounts as it becomes available. Also many people have roof tops where they can place their own solar panels. And electric cars are much more efficient than fuel burning vehicles so need less energy to move.
Lastly, electric vehicles don’t blow large clouds of carcinogenic particles into the lungs of adjacent creatures. And you are suggesting that electricity is magical, derr.
The basic problem with Elon is that he thinks that the rules don’t apply to him–whether those rules are common human decency or the laws of physics. When he is accusing someone of being a pedophile purely based on where they live, how is he any different than the Q-Anon morons? However, when he thinks he can build a rocket that will take people to Mars, all while discarding 50 years of collected wisdom of spacecraft designers…well, it just scares the crap out of me that we are placing the lives of astronauts in that man’s hands starting next year.
Why does everyone still pretend “biofuels” can only mean growing separate, dedicated crops for fuel purposes? It’s fucking weird.
@Cynical Skepticism
I was taught that fossil fuel burning in cars was one of the biggest contributors to global warming, which is why America is the largest contributor to the problem despite China having more air pollution since we have more cars in the streets. Or maybe there is an “energy cannot be created or destroyed” angle here. Would electric cars be the solution since those cars still require energy its just that its coming from another source thus changing nothing? We would have to see if it requires less energy to charge a battery than it would to combust fuel directly. I don’t know as I am not well versed in physics or engineering, evident from the fact that I feel like I butchered the shit outta all these concepts.
It’s fucking weird that this far into the 21C there are still people who won’t back up their snarky posts without an example of what they mean.
logicalcat:
Less than you probably think.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
It’s not that energy is required, but that fossil fuel energy releases pollution that was sequestered from the environment.
Also, the proportion of electricity generated from fossil fuels is declining as its cost-benefits become ever worse compared to alternatives.
Also, electric motors are around 90-95% efficient at converting electricity into motion (and EVs normally have regenerative braking that recovers some of that kinetic energy back into electricity).
It’s complicated, but you have to consider the car’s life-cycle and the fuel cycle.
As an example of the latter, to fill a tank with petroleum requires that petroleum to be extracted as crude oil, transported to a refinery (using fuel), refined into petroleum (using fuel), transported to distribution centers (using fuel), transported to retail outlets (using fuel).
Electricity generation can avoid much that energy loss, though transmission losses are not insignificant.
Cynical Skeptic: the theory you’re referencing is the “long tailpipe” theory.
We can measure this, and we have. It comes out in favour of a central power plant and wires even if you’re burning the same fuel in a reciprocating plant. That’s the worst case. But in almost the entire world, there’s a large fraction of the grid that emits no carbon. That fraction is growing almost everywhere.
An honest comparison takes the entire lifecycle into account. For the US see here:
https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press-release/new-ev-analysis-even-cleaner
Basically, as of last year, there were only two parts of the US grid where gas-powered hybrids can compete on carbon emissions with a battery-electric car.