bjl

Not really surprising. Hard to imagine a more cut and dried way he could've violated his settlement than lying about production rates.

At least this time he tweeted outside of market hours.

> Can someone point me to the starting point? I must be missing something. Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think?

The hard problem of consciousness has a long history, but two of the most influential contemporary philosophers in that area are David Chalmers and John Searle.

Not to mention the charity fraud scheme from a couple months ago, which they still haven't stopped doing.

>> Why would you attack some guy trying to help you achieve your goal of rescuing the trapped boys, and call him names on twitter

>Something I've been wondering about too.

Because it was a distracting and transparent PR stunt designed to nothing other than stroke Musk's ego.

This is Musk's PR budget in action, folks.

Dude, that UI was not merely 'confusing', it was clearly intentionally deceptive. Nobody here is dumb enough to fall for such blatant PR spin.

> In response to your other comments, I feel good assuming we're somewhere in the general brand feel of the EFF and Firefox.

That's laughable. Trust me, among the people who know about Brave at all, you're associated more with Dentacoin and Bitconnect than EFF and Mozilla. I expect you'll have a rude awakening when you're searching for your next job and people decide they don't want to hire a scam artist.

Come on, man. The 'donation' UI was clearly designed to deceive visitors into thinking that the creator signed up and customized it themselves. Brave fucked up big time, and you aren't doing your employer any favors by commenting here; at this point the only people who should be making statements are Brave's lawyers.

You're on a thread about Brave shamelessly committing donation fraud and you're surprised people aren't giving you the benefit of the doubt?

You realise those people didn't break the law, right? You can't just throw someone in prison because you don't like what they did, their actions actually have to be illegal.

Did you even click the link?

"His reporting with a partner and CNN exposed rampant fraud in California's drug rehab system for the poor, winning an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award."

> I'm not sure if this answer is in anything posted, however: 1) is that claim of someone with a "crushed spine denied an ambulance" proven, and 2) is "because it would've shown up on OSHA logs" proven as Tesla's reasoning, or just conjecture and/or speculation?

1) The source is named, and to be included in the article would've likely provided medical records backing up his assertions. Not to mention the fact that Tesla (which has previously demonstrated its willingness to go the media to try and discredit former employees) has not denied his claims.

2) There are multiple sources in the article that mention being taught by lawyers how to deny care in a way that avoids legal requirements to log incidents.

> I've never heard of them and likewise

That says more about you than the source, Reveal has broken a number of extremely important stories and won many awards for doing so.

> is this specific journalist (and perhaps the editor) known and associated with any awards the journal received?

You could've just clicked on the author's bio, but yes. "His reporting with a partner and CNN exposed rampant fraud in California's drug rehab system for the poor, winning an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award."

I find it somewhat amusing that you're trying to discredit a report by one of the premiere institutions of investigative journalism using a blog post on a site ran by a self-admitted Tesla fanboy. That's even setting aside the monetary conflicts of interest created by the fact that Tesla pays Lambert for shilling their cars.

That statement isn't exactly compelling. It just resorts to ad hominem attacks in an attempt to discredit a minor piece of the article, while deflecting/ignoring the major claims (like the worker with a crushed spine who was denied an ambulance because it would've shown up on OSHA logs).

Also, this report was done by one of the most respectable investigative news organisations in the world. Its hard to see how the PR wing of a corporation that just settled with the SEC for fraud could be considered more trustworthy.

He'd bankrupt himself if he tried to do that. If the share price drops to low all his creditors will margin call him, which would wipe out the vast majority of his wealth.

You speculated that this deal was more to his liking than the previous one. I was just pointing out how absurd that statement was given that this deal is worse than the other one in every respect.

This deal is strictly worse than the one he refused. Fines doubled from 10M to 20M, chairman ban increased from two years to three, new communication review process (not in the original deal), and they still have to install two new board members.

Why the short seller hate? They play a very important role in exposing fraud and inefficient allocation of capital.

For something to be insider trading, one of the people involved has to have breached their fiduciary responsibilities. Low-level employees typically don't have any fiduciary responsibilities to their company, so the firm that collects information from them is under no obligation to make it public.

That tweet was a classic non-apology. He tried to shift as much of the blame as possible for his actions onto the British ex-pat; I can't understand how people think that shows genuine remorse.

The first part of the tweet is entirely irrelevant, since whether or not it was true is unknowable. The second statement, on the other hand was a material statement of fact. Literally the only thing that matters is whether or not the statement 'Funding secured' was true at the time of the tweet.

If it was, then nothing happens (except a strongly worded letter from the SEC on proper disclosure methods). If it wasn't, however, then at the very least he's going to have to pay restitution to all the investors (both long and short) who lost money as a result of the tweet. At worst he's going to prison.

'Funding secured' has a very specific meaning in finance. And it definitely implies that he has a party that, contingent on a shareholder vote, has a legal obligation to buy out all existing shares (if necessary).

Not really. Accounts payable ballooned to around $3B, and cash on hand is only ~$2B (of which about $1B is in the form of revokable deposits).

If the software was known to be unreliable, then it shouldn't have been on the road. Everyone at Uber who worked on that project shares the blame.

Eh, I don't know, I've never felt the need to call someone a 'pedo' with absolutely no evidence. That kind of thing is completely beyond the pale.

That's not at all surprising, though, that's how journalism has always worked (protecting one's sources). I certainly trust the WSJ over anything that comes out of Musk's mouth, especially after those pedo accusations.

A sizeable majority of US Treasuries are owned by American citizens.

It amazes me how many people seem to have bought into his cult of personality. Hopefully his recent pedophile outburst will give them some pause, and lead them to consider the long-term societal effects of worshipping corporate oligarchs.

How is this out of character? He's constantly insulting people on Twitter.

Honestly, I'm surprised this one blew up more than the time he called a guy from South Africa a 'chimp'.

Absolutely disgusting on Musk's part. Calling an actual hero a child molestor simply because he called out an obvious PR stunt.

Hopefully Unsworth sues him for libel.