His OPSEC is a Lie: Hegseth Must Resign Now

Hegseth’s statement about being “clean on OPSEC” while simultaneously sharing sensitive military plans in an unsecured commercial app with an unvetted group that included a journalist shows a profound disconnect from reality.

1215ET: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)
1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)
1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)
1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)
1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.
MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)
We are currently clean on OPSEC
Godspeed to our Warriors.

What’s particularly troubling is the contradiction between:

  1. Claiming to value operational security
  2. While completely failing to implement even basic security measures

The fact that detailed military strike plans were shared so casually, and that no one noticed an unauthorized participant for days, suggests either a complete lack of understanding about security protocols or a dangerous indifference to them, or both.

This kind of detachment from factual reality can be extremely dangerous in military contexts where lives depend on proper security procedures. History offers clear reminders of the consequences of OPSEC failures.

In 1961, the Bay of Pigs invasion collapsed partly because operational security was compromised—Cuban intelligence had detected preparations for the invasion, allowing Castro to mobilize and position his forces before the exiles even landed. The operation that was supposed to appear covert had become an open secret, with details appearing in newspapers like The New York Times days before the invasion.

Source: NYT

The impatient and sloppy approach demonstrated by Hegseth is especially concerning coming from senior defense leadership who should understand these historical lessons about the importance of protecting sensitive operational information.

It raises serious questions about competence and whether there’s a culture of saying the right words about security while ignoring the actual implementation of security measures.

Tesla FSD Can Only Full Self Drive 0.07% of a Typical Trip

When does a 1,400x safety gap become criminal negligence?

Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology has been the subject of dangerously failed promises every year since 2022 (unless you count it as part of the Autopilot failed promises repeatedly since 2016, shamelessly rebranded with a FSD fork of 2022). According to TeslaDeaths.com over 50 people have died during Tesla’s eight years of false safety promises. For those who have been asleep at their keyboard:

Since 2016 Elon Musk has promoted Tesla like a messianic gift, where driverless technology would arrive next year. And every year, as he gets richer for promising fantasy and instead delivering tragedy, it fails to come.

The latest Electrek data shows FSD has struggled to get above 200 miles between critical disengagements, achieving 400 at best.

For comparison, using Tesla’s own benchmark from the NHTSA for true self-driving capability, 700,000 miles between interventions is an equivalent to human driver safety levels.

This isn’t just a small gap to bridge. We’re talking about an improvement of 1,400 times better is required before Tesla could even begin to be considered as close to or safe as a human. With that in mind, Elon Musk has very prominently stated that this year Tesla will eliminate all crashes.

This year? 2025? Definitely not happening. Source: Twitter

Imagine if a pharmaceutical company announced they had a revolutionary cancer cure “ready for market” and going onto people’s bloodstream already, yet tests showed it was only 0.07% as effective as existing treatments.

Imagine boarding a plane advertised as “full self flying” that actually has a 99.93% chance of requiring an emergency intervention by the pilot during flight.

For six consecutive years, Elon Musk has promised FSD would achieve full self-driving “by the end of this year.”

Each deadline has passed without delivery. Now, instead of admitting the technical challenges, Tesla appears to be pivoting to attempting a 1950s concept of driverless. Their limited geo-fenced service – essentially adopting the same approach as RCA and GM before Musk was even born – has until now been criticized by Musk as “too difficult to scale.”

A 1950s RCA concept for geofenced driverless cars was promised to be reality by 1972. Source: Twitter

This matters because consumers have paid thousands of dollars for FSD capabilities based on these promises. Many purchased vehicles with the expectation that their cars would soon drive themselves, potentially increasing in value as “robotaxis.”

When examining the data and pattern of promises versus reality, it becomes difficult to view such Frank Abignale-like claims as unmoored optimism or detatched goal-setting. A 1400x performance gap isn’t something for patching over the air – it represents a fundamental chasm between current capabilities and promised functionality.

The Tesla brand promised an endless summer but has only delivered a colder and colder winter – a frozen wasteland of discontent, deception, and death

Regulators must recognize that a 1,400x gap between promise and reality isn’t just misleading marketing—it’s a public safety crisis demanding immediate intervention. Oh, I forgot, Elon Musk is using DOGE to get rid of the regulators who have said this already for years.

Tesla Fires Were Growing Long Before They Blamed Politics

2023 seems like a long time ago. Remember how the media basically ignored all the Tesla dealer fires back then?

Florida had a big one just last year, as did Massachusetts. A giant $300K damage one in California was interesting, particularly because Tesla said they couldn’t figure out the causes. Korea reported one too. And now we have another dealer on fire…

It is incredible just how many fires were happening for a decade already, with over 100 Tesla deaths reported by local news. Just food for thought when hearing that the government in 2025 wants to crack down on causes of Tesla fires.

Historical data from 2013-2023 | Projections for 2024-2026
Linear projection reaches ~65 incidents by 2026 | Exponential projection reaches ~95 incidents by 2026. Source: tesla-fire.com

China Reveals Weapon for Deep Sea Cable Attack

Following a series of suspicious recent undersea cable cuts, China has just revealed a weapon (power tool) engineered to disrupt global networks.

The tool, which is able to cut lines at depths of up to 4,000 metres (13,123 feet) – twice the maximum operational range of existing subsea communication infrastructure – has been designed specifically for integration with China’s advanced crewed and uncrewed submersibles like the Fendouzhe, or Striver, and the Haidou series.

Developed by the China Ship Scientific Research Centre (CSSRC) and its affiliated State Key Laboratory of Deep-sea Manned Vehicles, the device targets armoured cables – layered with steel, rubber and polymer sheaths – that underpin 95 per cent of global data transmission.