From bad to worse, the new lawsuit by a security professional says Tesla was setup and managed like the Jim Crow South.

Working conditions at Tesla’s manufacturing plant in Fremont, California, have allegedly gone from bad to worse, with sexual assaults aboard company shuttle buses, drug and alcohol use onsite, all-out brawls breaking out between employees and “prevalent” bigotry – including widespread use of the N-word, a bombshell lawsuit reveals.

In a 159-page federal lawsuit filed Thursday and obtained first by The Independent, Ozell Murray, a former Fresno police officer in charge of security at the 22,000-person factory, claims he and his team “routinely” seized cocaine and fentanyl onsite…

Apparently the CEO even tried to normalize extreme racist abuse of non-white staff.

Murray’s supervisor… counseled him that Murray should be informing all new Black security personnel that the use of the ‘N-word’ was simply engrained [sic] in the culture at Tesla and, so, Murray should only be bringing aboard that are willing to accept and acquiesce to the prevalence of that word in the workplace. …an employee who had been previously victimized “had to actually resume working with their attacker and tormentor.”

Police raided bookstores in Kashmir this week to confiscate books by respected scholars and historians.

The authors named in this ban – Snedden, Schofield, Bose – are serious academics, far from propagandists. Perhaps to state the obvious, democratic societies don’t need to ban tepid scholarly books when government positions are strong on the merits. If India’s legal and moral case were unassailable, scholarly examination wouldn’t be criminalized.

Particularly notable is banning A.G. Noorani’s constitutional analyses, as one of India’s most respected legal scholars. If the state’s constitutional position were even a little bit sound, his work would be debated in context of the usual and useful scholarly work, instead of abruptly banned.

The bans also extend to historical accounts of what happened in 1947-48 (e.g. Pakistan independence from Britain), suggesting there’s an attempt to monopolize not just current policy but rewrite historical interpretations.

To make a finer point, the bans try to silence legitimate questions of regular political science.

• Why was the promised UN plebiscite never held?
• Was the Maharaja’s accession valid given the circumstances?
• What about documented human rights violations by security forces?
• How do we account for the massive military presence needed to maintain control?
• Why do many Kashmiris still reject integration after 77 years?

These aren’t on the fringe or conspiracy theories. They are documented concerns raised by international observers, UN reports, and human rights organizations. You know, the kind of pacifist stuff people are supposed to be debating to help avoid an abrupt escalation into militancy. The threat of 7-year prison sentences, for even being caught in possession of these ideas, isn’t messing around.

Why does a region need over a half million security forces to silence thought, if societal integration is supposedly a done deal and accepted?

Think about the stark irony of the ban. India positions itself as the world’s largest democracy, claiming superiority over Pakistan’s military-influenced governance and China’s authoritarianism. Yet Kashmir experiences severe lockdowns on the press, Internet shutdowns are routine (the 2019-2020 shutdown was the longest ever in a democracy), political speakers are detained under anti-terror laws, and now academic books are banned.

Can you see a massive credibility gap between India’s self-image and practices in Kashmir?

India is escalating tensions, closing off paths to genuine resolution. Real peace usually requires acknowledging difficult truths, the opposite of banning books that discuss them. What’s particularly striking is that the banned authors are known for proposing peaceful, negotiated solutions. The police raids to silence pacifists signals clearly that a narrative outside official doctrine – even the most common form of constructive criticism – has been marked unacceptable. That’s the opposite of what should happen in a confident democracy dealing with a settled issue.

Scented artificial rabbits have been deployed in Florida to trick snakes into revealing themselves.

An innovative new tool is being used to remove these destructive snakes from the Everglades ecosystem. Solar-powered, remote-controlled robots designed to look like rabbits are being strategically deployed at locations in South Florida to lure invasive pythons out of hiding so they can be removed from the Everglades landscape.

[…]

These innovative robots produce a heat signature and emit a smell designed to attract pythons. The robots are equipped with cameras that monitor for pythons and notify District officials when a snake is detected. Once notified, the District can dispatch a python removal agent to the area.

Now they just need to put a confederate flag on the rabbits for MAGA to reveal themselves.

There are many layers to this story. Fundamentally it’s about Tesla having a dealer who was confused by Tesla.

…Bosplus, represented by Liu, admitted he’d copied the information about FSD capability from Tesla’s official website on to the advertisement for the vehicle and wasn’t aware it didn’t have it.

The CEO of Tesla has repeatedly boasted his cars are capable of self-driving, but the devil is in the details, obviously. The cars aren’t capable of self-driving.

Instead, the Tesla … matches speed to surrounding traffic and assists with lane steering, and … parallel parking, lane changes and navigating interchanges.

That’s a far cry from driverless, describing basic functions that are not much beyond what any other car can do in 2025. Certainly nothing there sounds worthy of a dealer price jump. Yet the buyers complained they wouldn’t have purchased the vehicle if they’d known it didn’t have “advertised features”.

I have to call bullshit on this.

Anyone buying a Tesla must know it doesn’t have its advertised features.

That’s the brand. It doesn’t deliver.

Moreover, this Tesla apparently had other hardware issues with “import” charging port limitations.

Tesla confirmed with the couple that their model could not be fitted with FSD. Tesla also confirmed that the car was a Japanese import and had a different charging port, which could be changed but would result in slower charging of its battery.

So the obvious questions are why couldn’t FSD be installed, and why couldn’t the import charging port be swapped with a non-import one?

These seem like serious design defects created by a low-quality manufacturer, rather than any fault of a dealer. After all, the CEO doesn’t differentiate in his fraudulent marketing, literally promising for years that all his cars have sufficient hardware to self-drive. Here he is in 2019 talking to investors (2:35:48):

Are we sure we have the right sensor suite?
Should we add anything more?
No.

Investors were told the cars could self-drive, had all the hardware they needed. And that was years after 2016 when the CEO very clearly and fraudulently flooded a gullible press:

Musk announced that all Tesla cars being produced as of today, including the Model 3, will have everything they need onboard to achieve full Level 5 self-driving in the future. The news means that every Tesla vehicle, including the Model S and X as well as Model 3 cars made after today will eventually be able to achieve full autonomous driving, with what Tesla refers to as “a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver” via nothing more than a software update at some point in the future.

[…]

Musk said in a conference call in August [2016] regarding Tesla’s advancements in creating a car with Level 4 autonomous capability that “what we’ve got will blow people’s minds, it blows my mind,” and added that “it’ll come sooner than people think.” He’s certainly delivered with today’s announcement.

Oh, yes, journalists. He has “certainly delivered” with that 2016 announcement that all the hardware was already installed and capable, making driverless a solved problem. Uh-huh.

Is the dealer accountable when it repeats a CEO’s lies? A judge ordered the buyer get a full refund. I suppose that’s one way of holding a CEO accountable, although it should go further. Fine everyone who works for him.