Remember how the boss at work used to bring a pack of cigarettes and put it on the table to get everyone smoking? That’s what should be on your mind when the deadly donut box inevitably opens in a meeting room.
It’s estimated that as much as 70% of the US food supply is ultraprocessed.
“Two-thirds of the calories children consume in the US are ultraprocessed, while about 60% of adult diets are ultraprocessed,” Fang Fang Zhang, associate professor and chair of the division of nutrition epidemiology and data science at Tufts University in Boston, told CNN in an earlier interview. Zhang was not involved in the new research.
[…]
The United States has the highest level of ultraprocessed food consumption in the world — nearly 55% of the average American’s diet, according to the study. Researchers estimated reducing the use of those ultraprocessed foods to zero would have prevented over 124,000 deaths in the US in 2017.
It’s a dire warning, under the headline “Every bite of ultraprocessed food will increase your chance of an early death”.
The professor at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard isn’t mincing words about the threat to America:
“To me, slashing funding and people from science in the United States is like burning your seed corn. It’s not even eating your seed corn. It’s just destroying it,” he says. “What can be more human than wanting to use all of our knowledge, all of our effort, all of our resources, to try to make the lives of our kids safer and better than our own lives? A huge part of that aspiration requires, and is indeed driven by, science.”
In related news, air quality experts warned Iowa families during the 2024 winter against burning cheap seed corn because it would emit mustard gas and kill them.
Brian Button, an air quality specialist with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources …says the concern is the chemicals used to treat seed corn, when burned, emit powerful toxins like mustard gas [and because safer options exist] there’s no reason to burn seed corn. Button says unfortunately, folks with expired seed corn are trying to give it away to homeowners who have a corn-burning stove.
Unfortunately? Lack of fortune? That’s a weird way to describe predictable harms driven by extreme short-sighted financial greed.
Like it’s unfortunate that Americans are encouraged to burn seed corn despite the effect of being a literal weapon that will kill them?
Oh, wait, it gets even worse. Do these chemical weapons polluting seed corn carry any rationalization? Alas, science says there’s no benefit, just harms.
…the researchers found no evidence that neonicotinoids increased yield in corn.
America poisons its seed corn, dyeing it red, for no apparent good reason and many bad ones. Source: GLP
So while it’s shocking to hear a top scientist say America is now stupidly destroying seed corn, on the other hand there’s evidence that is exactly the thoughtless harm that some Americans have been trying to cause for generations. Trump is clearly the worst of the worst, yet not the only one.
One thing I remember clearly as a country boy is the farmers’ warnings in the 1980s about Ronald Reagan—they saw through the façade and predicted disastrous consequences for rural America.
The economic devastation by the GOP enabled corporate consolidation as banks seized family farms. Simultaneously, technology corporations pushed farmers into dangerous centralized platform dependencies through proprietary equipment and modified seeds. Local farmers recognized they were losing autonomy to corporate interests hiding behind Reagan’s policies, the same executives who surveyed farmland from helicopters, eagerly anticipating how a “golden age” of 1980s technology would replace generations of agricultural knowledge.
Thus, the push into pesticides represented something more insidious than mere agricultural tools. It was akin to how today certain social media platforms are manipulated to suppress beneficial content while amplifying harmful elements. Consider how a privileged heir of South Africa’s apartheid system, a man who openly discusses his plans to distance himself from ordinary citizens on Earth, has methodically undermined valuable online discourse while allowing destructive content to flourish for the benefit of the GOP. Should we be surprised that this individual self-describes himself as a dangerous threat to any American institutions setup to provide sustainability, while also claiming to embody American values more authentically than native-born citizens who work the land?
The historical record clearly shows how agricultural chemicals originated from American warfare technology and (like a Tesla) were known to be unsafe for deployment in or around communities, yet were dropped onto Americans anyway. Even during Reagan’s administration the New York Times was reporting on these connections, as if the exposure didn’t matter.
Chemicals like parathion and malathion were known to scientists as essentially diluted versions of the First World War nerve agents. When the EPA raised alarms (PDF) about careless use of militarized chemicals decimating honeybee populations, government officials remained inactive for decades. Honeybee colonies collapsed (let alone many other species) as direct WWI-era chemical weapons saturated the American landscape.
The effects were real for those of us in the front row. I grew up on the wide open Konza prairie fishing with a string tied to a stick, bringing home enough healthy catch to feed a family. By the time I was an adult, our healthy waterways and lakes, hundreds of miles from any big city, were showing up in tests as too poisoned from chemical weapons (carelessly sprayed pesticides).
One of my best fishing spots ever was the small creek and watering hole just to the left of this old photo… which feels like I took it a million years ago.
The shortsighted policies of dumping chemical weapons for profit reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what truly builds national strength and security. When I was invited to personally meet with Senator Bob Dole in the early 1990s, he unapologetically lectured me with a troubling mindset behind this GOP strategy, lamenting how the foreign war-torn nations I had experience in wouldn’t allow wealthy Americans like him to acquire cheap land for future development. He perfectly encapsulated the problem: treating essential resources—whether agricultural land, scientific knowledge, or literal seed corn—not as foundations for sustainable prosperity, but as commodities to be devastated and then exploited for quick remote profits regardless of long-term local consequences.
American peace and prosperity has always depended on planting seeds for future generations, not poisoning them or selling them to the highest bidder. President Grant perhaps understood this better than any other leader, as he created the Department of Justice and National Parks, using federal troops to protect and preserve ecological and human rights. The destruction of our metaphorical and literal seed corn isn’t unfortunate, it’s the very predictable result of policies that prioritize short-term gains for a very few over national resilience.
America has strayed from valuing long-term sustainability. And as any wise farmer knows, once the stupid flamethrowers of the angry oligarchs burn your seed corn, you can’t just plant fantasy coins to grow next season’s crops.
Junior Health Minister Edwina Currie’s 1988 anti-smoking campaigns had made her a target of very powerful tobacco and agriculture lobbyists. They pushed the Prime Minister to sack her when she tried to warn the public about egg safety.
Edwina Currie uttered a sentence in December 1988 that would rapidly end her ministerial career and send Britain’s egg industry into an alleged “crisis“:
Most of the egg production in this country, sadly, is now affected with salmonella.
Was she entirely accurate? No. She should have said “much” or left out the word “most”. That wordplay doesn’t sound like a crisis, though. Was there a genuine health concern that needed addressing? Absolutely. Egg production in the UK was affected with salmonella and she was correctly saying they could do better.
Government data showed concerning links between infections and egg consumption. Cases in Britain had more than doubled between 1982 and 1988. She brought to public attention that there was a real problem. Currie’s assessment was correct, despite an imperfect delivery by including a vague word “most”.
Most of the time we shouldn’t say most.
What followed was a textbook case of self-serving defensive semantics as tactics, trying to avoid bad news, rushing to shoot the messenger to undermine the message. Notably, egg sales were suddenly reported by the industry to plummet overnight and they demanded the government give them handouts (penalty payments) while they slaughtered millions of their hens. The industry reported it lost tens of millions, demanding even further government handouts. How convenient for the salmonella spreaders they could so immediately demand victim status compensation.
The industry reaction’s effect on Currie? They forced her to resign in disgrace. The industry effectively capitalized on her report; a political moment was seized to secure government subsidies while deflecting attention from evidence of neglect in safety practices. The government provided £20 million in compensation without first establishing an independent investigation into the actual scale and cause of the problem being subsidized. Talk about ironic evidence of corruption in the food industry that had led to the poisonings in the first place. Who were the victims again? Did the 27,000 sick get any of those millions in compensation, ever?
The business tactic of explosive anti-accountability was perhaps as predictable as it was unfortunate. Public health warnings in England must be nuanced or they could naturally trigger fear responses known to “plague” them, if you get my drift.
…human ectoparasites, like body lice and human fleas, might be more likely than rats to have caused the rapidly developing epidemics in pre-Industrial Europe. Such an alternative transmission route explains many of the notable epidemiological differences between historical and modern plague epidemics.
Scientists keep trying to figure out what caused the plague, while cynical and cruel businesses always seem to have another model in mind…
There was an emergence of a social narrative that Jews had caused the Black Death [by] people who noticed that, in fact, getting rid of Jews was a way of getting rid of debt, as well as taking possession of their wealth. The eruption of the plague had simply given an external reason for this to occur.
Thus, consider how a proud “keep calm and carry on crowd” somehow was pivoted into excited self-serving behavior like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off at the very mention of a potential risk that needed thoughtful response. Instead of a measured action and patience about investigating a “most” eggs claim through scientific clarifications, somehow the egg industry was allowed to leverage mass panic to their favor, ginning up a hunt for…a very convenient scapegoat, a trusted source of concern.
1988 egg “crisis” used shameless tactics to avoid admitting scale of safety errors in egg production
Certainly, Currie’s delivery included a word that needed clarification. Who was more imperfect, the salmonella spreaders or the politician? Her use of “most” instead of very specific percentages transformed a targeted warning into an industry-wide condemnation. And in retrospect her job raising attention to a rising problem was effective. She was invoking the point that food poisoning from eggs jumped from 12,500 in 1982 to about 27,000 in 1988. That’s a lot of bad eggs, even if not most!
The “most” significant communication failure actually came after Currie had made her point. Industry representatives, media outlets, and government officials rushed into “don’t keep calm, don’t carry on” outrage instead of proper education. Rather than accept the criticism, contextualizing the risk, rather than providing leadership through the criticism and feedback, rather than providing consumers with practical safety guidance and goals, the egg industrialists under fire focused heavy return fire on destroying Currie herself.
How dare she say something was imperfect? How dare she focus on the bad things and bring attention on a worsening problem that had made 27,000 people sick?
The aftermath of the scandal presents a troubling paradox: the messenger who raised a very legitimate concern faced career destruction for a LOW imperfection in her delivery, while those who allowed salmonella to spread in the first place faced minimal scrutiny for CRITICAL imperfection in their delivery.
The egg producers who had failed to maintain adequate safety standards somehow emerged as the only victims of their own imperfections, while decrying any amount of imperfection as unacceptable in others. The industry stepped back in horror instead of forward into being potential contributors to resolving the real public health issue.
The British Egg Industry Council said it was seeking legal advice on whether it could sue Mrs Currie over “factually incorrect and highly irresponsible” remarks. A spokesman said the risk of an egg being infected with salmonella was less than 200 million to one. The National Farmers’ Union said it might seek legal damages.
The doubling of salmonella cases in five years to 27,000 people was effectively sidelined by industry representatives’ focus on defending their economic interests. Their claim of “200 million to one” odds of infection were foul, as it contradicted reliable government data showing rapidly increasing illness rates.
This pattern repeats itself regularly in public discourse to this day, and especially in security discussions with regard to technology such as the unsafe Tesla designs. We still see efforts to punish those who highlight uncomfortable truths, while counter-attacks are unleashed by those responsible for creating problems to avoid taking any accountability.
From whistleblowers to scientists warning about climate change, a tendency to attack messengers remains one of the most counterproductive social habits in risk management.
Currie’s egg scandal was about a collective inability to process warnings without feeling personally attacked, and trying to throw everything at the source to disarm the warnings. It highlighted a social response, if not a cultural one, where a panic instinct was to curate a simple villain story to avoid thinking hard about complex solutions.
The irony? The Lion Quality mark introduced after her scandalous “more” has made British eggs among the safest in the world. Currie’s warning, imperfect as any warning, ultimately is what led to very needed significant improvements in food safety.
…the industry did have a problem and was giving too many people food poisoning. Farms tried to clean up but the real breakthrough came in 1998 when the vaccination of hens for salmonella was introduced at farms backing the new British Lion mark. All the big egg producers put the marks on their eggs. From 1998 there have been falls almost every year in the number of human cases of Salmonella enteritidis. In 1997, there were 22,254 cases. In 2005, there were 6,677.
Perhaps it’s time we recognized someone who took the fall for speaking uncomfortable truths in British society, for her imperfectly delivered message bringing everyone a more perfect world.
She deserved “more” thoughtful responses than the unfair and imperfect panic and persecution in the place that prides itself on a decorum of perfection. In retrospect, all the claims of harm by the egg industry were targeted political propaganda that evaporated the power of a person whose job it was to improve health. Currie explained it herself later:
…the numbers of confirmed cases continued to run at about 30,000 a year for the next decade, with about 60 deaths a year. […] There really was a problem with eggs. The hens’ oviducts had become contaminated with a new variant of salmonella, which did not kill the birds, but showed up in infected eggs, and caused a particularly virulent food poisoning in humans. It resulted from laying stocks being fed “protein” that turned out to be ground-up dead chickens. Similar insane feeding practices led to BSE in cattle in the 1980s and 90s. […] Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were equivalent to a bunch of lunatics. They’d appointed themselves apologists for the farming industry – not their role, as public regulators and advisers. They were unscientific and incompetent. […] I hadn’t made a mistake – not in the substance. I was public health minister. If something wasn’t done during the winter of 1988, I could foresee that we would have an epidemic on our hands…
The egg industry’s response went beyond mere defensiveness, employing legal threats, contestable statistics, and claims of catastrophic financial harm to undermine a health official raising legitimate concerns. The subsequent events raise questions about whether public panic was unfairly manipulated and leveraged to secure financial benefits by the very industry that should instead have focused on its obviously flawed safety standards.
One final thing to consider is just how much Junior Health Minister Edwina Currie had the support of the public, yet this wasn’t enough to keep her in office. That’s important context for how certain powerful businesses conspired to remove a servant of the public, even against the public’s wishes.
March 2025 the Tesla driverless experience is still blind to objects and humans in the road. Arguably it has only gotten worse as the company intentionally removed critical safety equipment, slashing costs despite known risks to life and property. Source: Screen grab from Mark Rober video
Tesla’s response of course to findings like this has never been to address safety concerns with engineering, but instead a barrage of debate tactics and threats. Thus, it’s time again to watch the masterclass in military intelligence methods unleashing their usual terminological obfuscation/smoke game.
The media machine [using Soviet scaffolding repurposed by KGB officers to run their Russian dictatorship] seeks to not only provide an alternative narrative with a Russian version of events, but also to cause general confusion and question the whole notion of the truth. It provides varying accounts of events, often based in truth, that work to sow discord and confusion.
This is not a theoretical experience for American engineers working on safety reports, this has been a long-time fundamental public safety issue by design.
Everyone knows the Kremlin seeks to use information to deny, deceive, and confuse… You could spend every hour of every day trying to bat down every lie, to the point where you don’t achieve anything else. And that’s exactly what the Kremlin wants
An engineer’s hands are tied up with truckloads of misdirection and misinformation so they can’t possibly do engineering? A truth-teller delivering transparent results is accused of manipulation by the biggest manipulators, up is down, math and physics no longer can be real… in the fog of information warfare. We know how and why many people will die, until we’re facing a tidal wave of “nothing is real” attacks.
March 2025 a Tesla autopilot still runs over children like it’s 2016, with sensors unable to handle normal road conditions as if negligent by design. Over 50 people have so far been killed by Tesla autopilot flaws.
Notably the angry mob spins their attacks as a “defense” strategy to protect their assets, their way of life, as if they are the real victims and not the people who will be killed by design. They’re blasting information weapons out into the Internet with a claim to be protecting something they consider so valuable, so critical to their own survival, any lives lost by others (e.g. killed by Tesla) get reframed as just collateral damage.
A Tesla balloon designed to be made of lead has a “good” reason for never getting off the ground…
Consider the irony. A Tesla vision failure means it can’t “see” a child mannequin and runs it over without any regard for human life. Tesla defenders don’t “see” this as design failure, but rather focus on what they can “see” as an attack by anyone who dares to speak the truth of exactly how and why a child would be killed.
It’s a kind of consistency in trained and limited vision, an inability to process real outcomes, that’s a result of military-like basic training about who deserves to live or die.
“You’ll Believe What We Tell You To” Say Tesla PK Shock Troops
Tribune.com.pk’s recent mob-rule-sounding propaganda blast attacking Mark Rober’s Tesla test is a perfect example of how the military intelligence of an unnamed nation state can unleash weaponized words to deflect meaningful criticism to float the stock value underpinning one of their key foreign assets.
The techniques we’re seeing mirror Soviet “Operation Infektion” that falsely claimed AIDS was a US bioweapon – a playbook preserved and upgraded by those who deployed it originally. Despite having an economy smaller than Italy’s, this nation maintains disproportionate global influence operations, as essential to its power as oil revenues. Like inheriting a Cold War nuclear arsenal then repurposing it for neighborhood extortion, former intelligence operatives now running a dictatorship deploy their keyboard armies against threats to their investments. Tesla’s terminology battles represent just one theater in this broader campaign – flooding discourse with confusion to exhaust experts and undermine regulation. The ultimate goal remains unchanged: enable rapid wealth extraction by using asymmetric information attacks to prevent accountability for preventable harms and deaths.
With that in mind, thousands of keyboard warriors from an unknown country are now on a campaign to attack Rober as if he “misrepresented Tesla” because he supposedly tested “Autopilot” not “Full Self-Driving”, as if any of those words have actual meaning and a distinction matters when the fundamental issue is Tesla in 2025 demonstrates the complete failure to detect a wall and mannequins it claimed a decade ago to be a solved problem. More to the point, Tesla claimed it would be the first to solve this safety issue and be the most safe car on the road, placing itself above all other designs and engineers unequivocally and without exception.
Tesla fails 50% of the safety tests, meaning three child mannequins were run over by its flawed camera-only driverless system, compared with a car wisely using LiDAR. Source: Screen grab from Mark Rober video
Here’s the absurd logic at work, just to make clear how cruel and cynical the military intelligence system is at pushing Tesla into certain death of Americans (remember for purposes of information warfare severity, millions of people died during the Cold War from its targeted application):
Tesla markets the term “Autopilot” without shame in 2016, announcing autopilot capabilities removing any need for a human by 2017, and their CEO repeatedly states that anyone criticizing autopilot with caution about adoption should be held responsible for deaths — BECAUSE AUTOPILOT IS SOLD AS CAPABLE OF PREVENTING DEATH
People start to die because they trust Tesla marketing, with two fatal crashes immediately in 2016 and a pedestrian dead in 2018…
Tesla starts to passively criticize Autopilot itself by 2020, announcing “Full Self-Driving” that will do what Autopilot was sold to do.
Tesla in late 2024 changes the name of FSD to “supervised”, passively criticizing both Autopilot and FSD as being incapable of achieving their meaning, admitting they’ve never been using language correctly. Musk pumps even harder on the propaganda, claiming there will be ZERO CRASHES IN 2025, despite at least 52 deaths from Autopilot and FSD together so far)
Anyone testing these systems is accused of the crime that Tesla is committing, as if misuse of language is applied to anyone pointing out the misuse of language. It’s always “didn’t test the right system” because there is no actual system to test, just a shell game of opaque unaccountable abusive behavior that puts everyone in danger except Tesla.
This terminological methodology, well known to scholars of military intelligence and targeted attacks on populations, is designed for Tesla to never be held accountable. When deaths occur, the response isn’t to investigate and fix the technology, but to revise words and change definitions. When tests demonstrate failures, the reaction isn’t engineering revised and better safety systems, but semantic arguments to avoid engineering at all. Meanwhile, the body count continues to rise while Musk makes increasingly absurd safety claims detached from reality and attacks his critics with baseless claims they are doing what he does. It’s a casino mentality where he sets up mirrors and tables to unjust house rules such that anyone who dares to enter his realm can never win.
Deadly Tesla Disengagement
Learning how magicians lie is such a disappointment because the magic is lost. This is what the Electrek journalist discovered after being attacked by Tesla’s investors who demanded he believe in the magic:
NHTSA’s investigation of Tesla vehicles on Autopilot crashing into emergency vehicles on the highway found that Autopilot would disengage within less than one second prior to impact on average in the crashes that it was investigating…
Rober’s video captured this exact behavior! The magic gone in an instant. Watch carefully as the system disengages 17 frames before impact. This is a damning example of Tesla engineering designing coverups into friendly-fire situations. They built a feature to generate maximum plausible deniability to reduce their liability in a known deadly outcome they are responsible for creating. “The system wasn’t engaged during the crash” becomes the technical truth that masks the killer reality: the Tesla since 2016 promises of solving driverless completely by 2017 still fail to prevent a crash in 2025 that it should detect well in advance.
Seventeen LONG Frames Before Death
Other cars can do it today. Other cars didn’t promise to solve crashes by 2017. Tesla can’t do it today. Tesla promised to have it solved by 2017. You think it matters what words Tesla uses when they’ve proven since even before 2016 that none of their words can be trusted? Accepting their preference in terminology is like agreeing to let a toddler rewrite the dictionary in a way that helps them never be responsible for anything.
Tesla has been selling people a word salad unsafe for consumption. Their “apple” is actually a painted rock. And when someone breaks a tooth trying to bite into it, Tesla argues “this is our LOOKING apple, it can’t yet be bitten.” After many people lose their teeth Tesla announces “we have a banana for you to go with our apple.” Should someone test either the “apple” or the new “banana” they would discover both are painted rocks, to which Tesla says “forget the apple, we replaced the banana with another banana, and another one, and another one, next year the banana will be so edible nobody will break a tooth ever again”… and the next year more teeth are broken, repeating this advance fee fraud forever. It’s really no different than the 419 African email scam.
In this new safety test video by the ex-NASA engineer we see someone showing a Tesla apple for what it is, and always has been, just a painted rock. It’s a LIE that has dragged on since 2016. Because LiDAR don’t LIE. There shouldn’t be controversy in this VERY OLD NEWS. The exact opposite in fact, this video should be welcomed like how someone who just placed 154th in a group event gets congratulated. Hey Mark, welcome, and thanks for participating in something that has been operating for over ten years with the same results. Welcome to Mark, welcome into the big tent with everyone who already understands that since 2016 Tesla has been selling “driverless” for hundreds of millions and more hundreds of millions without ever providing what they had claimed from the start.
Another Brick in the Wall Tesla Can’t See
While Tesla plays word games to undermine safety, the reality remains unchanged: their low-quality consumer-grade camera-only system simply and predictably fails basic tests that LiDAR-equipped vehicles have passed for a decade. This isn’t new to anyone with a clue because engineers have been demonstrating this fundamental flaw repeatedly and dramatically (although, I’ll admit, not as dramatically as this high-production new Disney-like video). The Dawn Project and numerous safety experts have shown these exact same failures in many media formats with the same conclusive results, yet Tesla removed safety in the false name of a fictional “efficiency”.
Elon Musk… has expressed his admiration for Rand’s work, particularly “The Fountainhead.”
In Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead,” the character Dominique Francon purchases a beautiful Greek statue that she genuinely admires, then deliberately destroys it by throwing it out the window. It’s almost like Elon Musk is that character, who destroys everything he touches to prove that is better (for him) than letting it exist in a world that doesn’t appreciate him enough. Musk’s “the best part is no part” psychosis is destructive thinking that removed critical safety sensors from Tesla vehicles, despite warnings from experts. In the same way he created DOGE to force a false “efficiency” of minimal human safety, resulting in preventable deaths (targeting non-whites).
The philosophy of the malignant narcissist isn’t a mystery, the intent to deny/withhold and harm aren’t hidden. Elon Musk repeatedly implies deaths of non-white children will be consistent with his life’s eugenicist mission to generate more white people as quickly as possible.
Killing children is by design, I’m afraid. “Pro-natalists” like Musk claim they aren’t racist, but their pressure to have children is solely focused on white women, while they back policies that literally kill non-white children. He’s a eugenicist.
Tesla killing children in the road thus is the outcome of his racist game, given the majority of people at risk will statistically be non-white. DOGE eliminating USAID is projected to kill at least 3 million non-white people, far greater than Tesla death tolls. Elon Musk is consistent in his plotting to do harm to very specific groups of people.
That’s why you have to understand in the fog of information warfare that Elon Musk makes increasingly absurd claims on purpose, recently promoting the nonsense that Tesla vehicles “won’t crash” in 2025 even as Tesla crash rates have actually accelerated even faster than fleet growth, according to NHTSA data.
Key Observations: Data clearly shows that both serious incidents (orange line) and fatal incidents (pink line) are increasing at a steeper rate than the fleet size growth (blue line). This is particularly evident from 2021 onwards, where: Fleet size (blue) shows a linear growth of about 1x per year. Serious incidents (orange) show an exponential growth curve, reaching nearly 5x by 2024. Fatal incidents (pink) also show a steeper-than-linear growth, though not as dramatic as serious incidents. The divergence between the blue line (fleet growth) and the incident lines (orange and pink) indicates that incidents are indeed accelerating faster than the production/deployment of new vehicles. Source: Tesladeaths.com and NHTSA
Tesla at War, Casualties Mounting
The public deserves better than semantic games. When a vehicle can’t detect a wall or mannequins in the road, the terminology used to market its driver assistance features becomes irrelevant. The question isn’t whether it was “Autopilot” or “Full Self-Driving” that failed, but why Tesla continues to deploy systems with demonstrated safety flaws and fights regulation rather than improving their technology.
As the Tribune.pk article unwittingly reveals, we’re witnessing a coordinated effort to shift discussion from “does this system have a correct outcome” to “which term was used at the moment of failure”. That’s a shell game designed to exhaust and confuse the public while real safety concerns go unaddressed and more and more people die by design.
The truth is simple: if your vehicle that has been vehemently and angrily defended since 2016 as “driverless” still can’t detect a child in the road or a giant wall, the terms don’t really matter. Over 52 people are dead. What matters is Tesla intentionally misleads people, they’re dead, and it shouldn’t be on the road anymore. At this point, Tesla should be recognized as a foreign-backed threat even worse than domestic terrorism, literally…
