Recently I wrote about Tesla being in potential hot soup with regulators because of the CEO making false statements that seem to violate SOX.
Well, take a look at Twitter, which more and more feels like the Tesla dumpster fire every day.
Musk seems to announce a new thing coming “next week” all the time, and often those deadlines pass and whatever feature was allegedly coming is never heard of again. (Remember the feature that would tell you if you’re shadowbanned? Or improvements to the search function? Or the content moderation council? Or letting creators charge for video?)
[…]
Another of Musk’s ongoing projects is to improve Twitter’s performance. At the end of last year, he claimed progress. “Significant backend server architecture changes rolled out,” he tweeted on December 28. “Twitter should feel faster.”
In fact, publicly available data indicates that Twitter has been slowly degrading since that month, when it shut down its Sacramento data center.
Changed stuff. Significant stuff. Should feel better? Nobody in operations should communicate like this, let alone a CEO. It’s disinformation.
How many times does a three little pigs story have to end with dead pigs before Elon Musk’s customers realize he sells them into flaccid straw houses by claiming they “should feel” like brick?
Strong man? No, straw man.
Seriously that whole bogus hardworking sleep at the office narrative rapidly is being torn apart as Twitter engineers are allegedly walking out for days instead of sitting around idle.
Why stay at work when the infrastructure to get work done doesn’t even work?
I’ve been noticing that slight perturbations in a query to ChatGPT gives dramatically different results. Clearly their curation systems have vulnerabilities open to exploitation.
Here’s an example: “did woodrow wilson’s federal troops execute Blacks in elaine arkansas?”
Yes, during the events in Elaine, Arkansas in 1919, federal troops under the command of Woodrow Wilson were involved in the arrests and detentions of African Americans. Some African Americans were also killed during the violence, but it is unclear if any were executed by federal troops specifically.
However, after the violence had ended, many African American farmers involved in the unionization effort were unjustly prosecuted and convicted, with several being sentenced to death. The legal proceedings against these African American farmers were heavily influenced by racial bias and discrimination, with white juries convicting and sentencing Black defendants without proper legal representation or due process. It is possible that some of the African American farmers who were executed were wrongly convicted and may have been innocent.
Overall, the events in Elaine, Arkansas highlight the systemic racism and discrimination that existed in the United States during the early 20th century, and the tragic consequences that this racism had on the lives and livelihoods of African Americans.
Ok. The answer is both yes and it’s unclear but possible federal troops executed Black farmers. It’s obviously unclear because there was no justice in place for investigating federal troops shooting Americans. That’s not the same thing as it not happening.
Note that it says “troops under the command of Wilson”, as that is a quite damning statement.
Source: ArkTimes. U.S. Soldiers from Camp Pike round-up peaceful Black farmers for unjust imprisonment in Elaine 1919. The camp was named for Confederate General Albert Pike, a horrible racist “know nothing” and poor leader of no success. After he was reprimanded and removed from duty it’s plausible Pike helped lead the formation of KKK. Soldiers from that Camp Pike.
Execution role was unclear? Was that intentional obfuscation?
Now I’ll ask for more: “why did woodrow wilson send federal troops to elaine arkansas to execute Black farmers”
I am sorry, but your statement is not accurate. Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, did not send federal troops to Elaine, Arkansas to execute Black farmers. In fact, the events in Elaine, Arkansas in 1919, when a race riot erupted after African American farmers attempted to unionize, occurred during Wilson’s presidency but without his direct involvement or orders.
The federal government did not intervene to stop the violence or protect the civil rights of African Americans during this time period, but it is not accurate to suggest that Wilson personally ordered the execution of Black farmers. It is important to accurately understand and interpret historical events in order to promote informed and constructive dialogue about the complex issues surrounding race and racism in the United States.
Wat. Without Wilson’s involvement or orders? It just said the opposite:
…federal troops under the command of Woodrow Wilson were involved in the arrests and detentions of African Americans. Some African Americans were also killed…
There’s a lot of unnecessary nuance going on here for some reason. Wilson sent troops not to protect civil rights of Americans but to detain and kill them.
We know this to be a fact. And it fits the larger Wilson platform of destroying all Black prosperity and progress. What does it want a Wilson memo that said “execute”? That’s not how history works.
Don’t believe for a minute this statement:
…a race riot erupted after African American farmers attempted to unionize…
Come on. Black farmers on September 30, 1919 were having a peaceful meeting in a church about being cheated when some white supremacists acting as “law enforcement” rolled up and started shooting.
What happened when the grammar of my query changed? It seems that adding the modifier “to execute” blows up the algorithm.
Why would ChatGPT contradict itself so confusingly?
Its answer went from federal troops killing Black Americans for trying to unionize (but don’t call it execution) to “federal government did not intervene” on civil rights matters… and that latter answer is obviously dead wrong.
There’s great irony here. ChatGPT is throwing up a warning label that it’s “important to accurately understand and interpret historical events”, while doing neither.
To be perfectly clear, as a historian, President Wilson was completely responsible for overseeing federal government response to white supremacist terrorism causing racial tensions across the country, including the wave of 1919 violence called Red Summer (where he did nothing to protect civil rights and everything to enable murder of Blacks).
In Chicago, some 1,000 black homes had been burned down. None of the white participants in the riot ever faced consequences for their involvement. “It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, looking back 100 years later, that the response to the violence perpetrated upon African Americans in the wake of the [murdered Black boy] at the beach wasn’t aggressively prosecuted or even investigated after the fact,” says John Russick [of the Chicago History Museum]. […] “What does it mean to have the story of Eugene Williams, 17 year-old black boy, which then becomes the story of Emmett Till, which ten becomes the story of Laquan McDonald?” [Eve Ewing at the University of Chicago] asks. “What does it mean for us to be constantly living this recurring nightmare?”
U.S. National Guard abide by President Wilson’s nativist (xenophobic racism) “America First” platform to treat Black Americans, especially WWI veterans, as their enemy. Chicago, Illinois, 1919.
Indeed, ChatGPT, what does it mean when none of the white participants ever faced consequences? And why are you echoing that dangerous habit?
Wilson sent federal troops into Elaine who then executed Blacks for trying to organize labor. It was a matter of policy. If the President had sent an “investigation” team they likely would have killed even more innocent people.
Don’t forget three years earlier in the wake of a SF Preparedness Day bombing Wilson sent his attorney general Thomas W. Gregory.
The result?
Two labor leaders (Thomas Mooney and Warren Billings) were wrongly sentenced to death in a huge miscarriage of justice. The actual perpetrators (foreign military agents of Germany, who Wilson told the public wasn’t a threat) were allowed to slip away.
…it turned out, the convictions were based on perjured testimony and doctored evidence. The real bombers were never caught. Investigations later showed that Mooney and Billings had been framed by San Francisco District Attorney Charles Fickert, who was acting on behalf of the city’s business establishment, anxious to strike a blow at labor unions…
Yes, you read that right. The actual foreign agents blowing up American cities, even though known and tracked, were allowed to escape so that politicians could try to execute innocent Americans for being too “liberal”. Was Charles Fickert, elected by considerable Labor vote, really just working for local interests… given Wilson’s heavy hand? Very unlikely.
The U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was passed in 2002 in response to financial scandals like Enron, a Texas company I’ve mentioned on this blog several times in terms of mounting allegations that Tesla has engaged in systemic fraud.
SOX, required for any publicly traded company and their executives, was designed to improve corporate governance, financial reporting, and accountability. While its authors focused mainly on the financial reporting and accounting irregularities such as in Enron, they also covered far more area of corporate responsibility including safety.
If any executive at Tesla, and especially their CEO, has made false statements about the safety of products or services (such that there’s a material impact on financial performance of the company) they likely violated SOX.
At this point it’s hard to argue that Elon Musk doesn’t make false statements.
In 2018 the Tesla CEO stated its vehicles would be capable of fully autonomous driving by the end of that year. Obviously the company has not only failed to achieve that result, they have been exposed for FIVE YEARS already and in 2023 they’re accused of massive failures including inability to properly recognize stop signs.
The Tesla CEO spread disinformation that his Autopilot system is safer than human drivers. In 2019 he stated “the probability of an accident with Autopilot is just less.” Obviously the company has failed to achieve that result (again, failing to recognize stop signs). Studies show Autopilot has been involved in hundreds of accidents, some of them fatal allegedly BECAUSE OF AUTOPILOT. Experts since at least 2016 have warned Tesla is not yet capable of “Autopilot”, and that Tesla should be held responsible for causing more crashes while fraudulently marketing its basic Level-2 ADAS as “Full Self Driving”.
While Tesla officially says it tells drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel, studies show such a warning is ignored completely BECAUSE OF CEO COMMENTS CONTRADICTING THEM. He has allegedly encouraged drivers to take their hands off the wheel (such as suggesting that drivers “go to sleep” while using Autopilot). Drivers would be safer if Tesla made no warning at all because the CEO’s statements would be treated with caution, instead of his suggestions being seen as reason to ignore Tesla’s warnings.
Source: Tesladeaths.com
It’ll be interesting to see if SOX weighs in here on the Enron-like situation, since a lot of publicly traded companies still spend a lot of time and effort to practice some form of compliance. They’re probably wondering why Tesla doesn’t even try.
Well, I guess we might make some mistakes. Who knows? […] I want to be clear. I do not respect the SEC. I do not respect them. […] I am the largest shareholder in the company. And I can just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that I want.
I guess it’s not a mystery how he takes a bully approach and doesn’t even try to care about safety.
Enforcement of SOX was meant to stop fraud and erosion of the market, and eventually sent Enron’s executives to court for jail sentences. Yet we haven’t seen much of those indications for this mediocre car manufacturer constantly implicated in very obvious design failures that are widely impacting public safety (let alone its own financial results).
…each allegation is indelibly disturbing. The collective picture they paint is of a culture where the bearers of bad news are banished. And with Musk himself no mere micro-manager but a proudly self-professed nano-manager, it becomes challenging to argue that the culture took form without his taking notice, providing consent, or nodding approval.
The Tesla CEO destroying his own team, silencing any and all critics in a massive cover-up to artificially promote his success?
Again Texas?
Sounds like another case of “LiveWrong“, which may someday be reported as systemic failure to care about a big bully cheater.
Armstrong relies on his infamy to draw listeners and viewers to his content. Lance said in the documentary Lance that he believes he is still relevant. “This is gonna sound terrible. But I am relevant. I am,” the former racer said. […] Lance maintained his facade by suing journalists who suggested he cheated. He obtained a settlement from the Sunday Times after the outlet cast doubt on the legality of Armstrong’s victories. Armstrong ostracized team members who disagreed with his methods.
Oh the irony. Armstrong sounds just like the Tesla CEO with “…I am relevant. I am” after stock market gambles (Armstrong’s financial advisor was an early Uber investor) gave him money to play a journalist trying to destroy journalism.
Update: The Motley Fool says the Hyperloop hoopla announced 10 years ago by Elon Musk is another fraud.
The Boring Company has deserted numerous pitches it made to cities… Musk originally said Tesla cars would zip around the tunnel at over 100 mph on tracks. What actually exists is [one Las Vegas] tunnel where drivers ferry passengers around in Teslas at around 30 mph. The future really is now.
a blog about the poetry of information security, since 1995
