Neither of those actually prove that when he announced that he wanted to make Tesla a private company, that he did not actually ever intend to do so. If it was not legally possible for him to do, then why would it have caused a panic in the first place?
Now, to address the particulars....
The first thread you mentioned was isolated, and was approximately 4 months earlier... I would suggest that it is more circumstantial than anything else. It might be more prudent to examine what was happening at Tesla at the time that prompted the remark than to assume it was relevant to his later comments in August about making Tesla private.
The second link you provided is not him so-called rambling incessantly about a single topic, it is a search result showing tweets by Musk over a period of time that happen to contain the word "shorts". You don't go around assuming that this is evidence that Musk has some sort of weird thing about eggs that he keeps bringing the topic up, do you?
IANAL, but I do know that the legal definition of "fraud" does entail actually having an *intent* to deceive.
Now obviously proving intent in a court of law can be problematic, but you can sometimes prove that there is probable intent.
So, what evidence exists that might show probable intent to cause harm that couldn't also be far more easily explained as the actions of someone who was simply overstressed, and starting to make bad decisions?
Time off from being chairperson will probably be good for the guy, to be honest...
And of course, it's fair to hold him accountable for any financial damages he caused with his statement, but I don't think it's fair at all to assume that he ever intended to cause harm. As the old saying goes, justice without mercy is not justice at all, it is tyranny.
Oh, I never said he shouldn't be punished, and I think him stepping down as chairperson is the LEAST that should happen...
I just think hanging the term "fraud" on acts that can easily be explained by stupidity is not right... because at the very least, it lowers the bar for fraud to that of simply making a mistake that happens to cost other people money. It's fair to hold him responsible for what he said and did, but it's not fair to say he intended to cause financial harm to anyone.
I agree with 110010001000 that he made it up completely to try and hurt the short sellers.
Do you have some evidence to the effect that this was his probable incentive?
Because from everything I've read, this was just an example of a man who spoke too hastily about something that everybody freaked out about. There is precisely zero evidence that he ever actually intended to defraud anyone. The fact that people may have lost money over it might certainly be his fault, but that doesn't mean he ever intended to deceive, and in the legal definition of fraud, you do have to show probable cause for actual intent. Consequences that happen to result in financial loss for someone does not prove fraud (although it may still merit compensatory damages).
... Musk supposedly commited fraud. As far as I can understand he said one day that he had secured funding to make the company private. This spooked a lot of people, but there's no indication he was trying to lie about it.
Then, by my understanding, a whole shitpile of people basically begged him not to go through with it because it would be catatsrophically stupid.
In the aftermath of that social onslaught, Musk apparently had some sense knocked into him and so he announced he would not be making Tesla private This doesn't mean he necessarily ever lied, but had definitely spoken far too hastily, because it was not something that had apparently thought through.
But again.... how is any of this fraud?
Stupid as shit, sure.... and it's only fair there should be consequences for that, but fraud?
Fraud requires an intent, or at least a probable intent, to deceive, and I just didn't see that coming from him on this point. He had no incentive to deceive anyone about taking Tesla private... he had his reasons, and presumably they weren't good enough in the big picture to justify actually doing that. That just means he made a mistake, it doesn't mean he lied about it.
Again though, mistakes can reasonably have consequences, but hanging the term "fraud" on it is, I think, a pretty gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.
It's the "line of sight" thing that bothers me the most, really... because I can easily envision situations where the craft is flown into areas that you don't directly see, except by what the camera on the device will show you, but it's not invading anyone's privacy or flying in any area it shouldn't be either.
For example, making an obstacle course out of large cardboard boxes and navigating the drone through it entirely by on-board camera... obviously of no danger to anyone, but still technically in contravention of the "line of sight" requirements.
Exactly my point... that people who fly their drones responsibly and unobtrusively would be very likely able to continue to use their drone exactly the way they always have without any legal repercussions, even if they don't have any kind of license or registration to do so.
Heck, I'd think that a high flying *KITE* probably poses more of a risk to low-flying aircraft than a drone that is being responsibly flown would. I've flown kites as a kid *way* way higher than any drone I've ever seen go.
You never know when a helicopter's gonna be around
When you are flying about 30 to 40 feet from the ground in a public park, it's a pretty safe bet that a helicopter isn't going to be flying there. The drone might occasionally go out of sight as it passes behind a tree, but helicopters aren't going to be landing in such heavily wooded areas either because there's no room for them
Because as I said, all the documention I've read says that it's power source was good for at least 14 years of steadily providing 100w of power or more.
My point is that it was my understanding that the speed of light is constant, period. and bringing up any notions of frames of reference is superfluous at best, outright misleading at worst, because it suggests that two different frames of reference could measure two different speeds for light, which isn't true.
It doesn't know what final exchange the number is at, it only knows what exchange it will have to talk directly to in order to route to that number... there may be an unknown number of exchanges inbetween you and the target number. If the caller fakes their number, for example for a single line for a large company to forward the 1-800 number for the company instead of the in-house line that the caller may be calling from (and for which there would be no direct phone access to from the outside), the next exchange down the line has no way to know that the number is not real.
There isn't any... but in general, an exchange has no way to know what exchange a call *ACTUALLY* originated from if it didn't originate in the exchange connected directly to it.
The telecom companies that is forwarding that info to you has no way to know that the caller spoofed their caller ID. Not only do you have to trust the exchange you are getting the call from, but you must trust the exchange that connected to that exchange, and so on, all the way to the original caller, and there is no way for the receiver to positively identify these exchanges if the original caller happened to send false information in the first place.
The only fix for this would completely break backwards compatibility and would in general make it all but impossible to make long distance calls.
It can also be indicative of an amount that is simply significantly more than expected, rather than reflective of any kind of absolute percentage of the total. For example, "the water in the old well was teeming with e-coli".
It's possible, even likely, that the Watch could tell I was faking.
I somehow think it is more likely that it's not very good at recognizing serious falls in the first place.
Unless the stunt woman actually went and caused real serious injury to herself on at least one fall and it *did* correctly identify that as a real fall, then I'm more inclined to think that this is feature that doesn't work as well as they might advertise it to.
Citation? Because that's not what I read... I had heard that it was going to go for at least 14, and probably longer than that, depending on performance at the time.
What about accelerating ones? Moving along a circular path at some constant velocity has a constant acceleration towards the center of the circle, for instance... is the speed of light any different? I wouldn't have thought so, but if it's only constant in non-accelerating reference frames, I don't know....
So somehow, the MMRTG that they installed on this beastie that was supposed to steadily provide over 2kwh of electricity for at least 14 years somehow magically decayed its plutonium fuel source in less than 6?
I think that this rover has a messed up idea of what "half life" means.
And I see that you are failing to understand that localized temperature increases caused by mechanical processes such as windmills are *NOT* going to affect the earth's climate. Climate change can cause temperature increases, not the other way around.
Tenure raises the standards for termination through due process considerations, but tenured employees can still be terminated for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance... In fact, one of the most common reasons for terminating a tenured employee outside of financial exigency is because of the discovery of inappropriate or criminal activity, either in the past or simply outside of work hours. These sorts of things are invariably laid out as part of the tenure labor contract, and barring any explicit indication to the contrary, there is no particular statute of limitations on the discovery of such activities, nor the requirement that they had ever even suffered any formal charges, let alone a conviction, so a tenured employee's past bad life choices, no matter how long ago, can certainly end up biting them in the ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither of those actually prove that when he announced that he wanted to make Tesla a private company, that he did not actually ever intend to do so. If it was not legally possible for him to do, then why would it have caused a panic in the first place?
Now, to address the particulars....
The first thread you mentioned was isolated, and was approximately 4 months earlier... I would suggest that it is more circumstantial than anything else. It might be more prudent to examine what was happening at Tesla at the time that prompted the remark than to assume it was relevant to his later comments in August about making Tesla private.
The second link you provided is not him so-called rambling incessantly about a single topic, it is a search result showing tweets by Musk over a period of time that happen to contain the word "shorts". You don't go around assuming that this is evidence that Musk has some sort of weird thing about eggs that he keeps bringing the topic up, do you?
IANAL, but I do know that the legal definition of "fraud" does entail actually having an *intent* to deceive.
Now obviously proving intent in a court of law can be problematic, but you can sometimes prove that there is probable intent.
So, what evidence exists that might show probable intent to cause harm that couldn't also be far more easily explained as the actions of someone who was simply overstressed, and starting to make bad decisions?
Time off from being chairperson will probably be good for the guy, to be honest...
And of course, it's fair to hold him accountable for any financial damages he caused with his statement, but I don't think it's fair at all to assume that he ever intended to cause harm. As the old saying goes, justice without mercy is not justice at all, it is tyranny.
Oh, I never said he shouldn't be punished, and I think him stepping down as chairperson is the LEAST that should happen...
I just think hanging the term "fraud" on acts that can easily be explained by stupidity is not right... because at the very least, it lowers the bar for fraud to that of simply making a mistake that happens to cost other people money. It's fair to hold him responsible for what he said and did, but it's not fair to say he intended to cause financial harm to anyone.
Do you have some evidence to the effect that this was his probable incentive?
Because from everything I've read, this was just an example of a man who spoke too hastily about something that everybody freaked out about. There is precisely zero evidence that he ever actually intended to defraud anyone. The fact that people may have lost money over it might certainly be his fault, but that doesn't mean he ever intended to deceive, and in the legal definition of fraud, you do have to show probable cause for actual intent. Consequences that happen to result in financial loss for someone does not prove fraud (although it may still merit compensatory damages).
Then, by my understanding, a whole shitpile of people basically begged him not to go through with it because it would be catatsrophically stupid.
In the aftermath of that social onslaught, Musk apparently had some sense knocked into him and so he announced he would not be making Tesla private This doesn't mean he necessarily ever lied, but had definitely spoken far too hastily, because it was not something that had apparently thought through.
But again.... how is any of this fraud?
Stupid as shit, sure.... and it's only fair there should be consequences for that, but fraud?
Fraud requires an intent, or at least a probable intent, to deceive, and I just didn't see that coming from him on this point. He had no incentive to deceive anyone about taking Tesla private... he had his reasons, and presumably they weren't good enough in the big picture to justify actually doing that. That just means he made a mistake, it doesn't mean he lied about it.
Again though, mistakes can reasonably have consequences, but hanging the term "fraud" on it is, I think, a pretty gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.
It's the "line of sight" thing that bothers me the most, really... because I can easily envision situations where the craft is flown into areas that you don't directly see, except by what the camera on the device will show you, but it's not invading anyone's privacy or flying in any area it shouldn't be either.
For example, making an obstacle course out of large cardboard boxes and navigating the drone through it entirely by on-board camera... obviously of no danger to anyone, but still technically in contravention of the "line of sight" requirements.
Exactly my point... that people who fly their drones responsibly and unobtrusively would be very likely able to continue to use their drone exactly the way they always have without any legal repercussions, even if they don't have any kind of license or registration to do so.
Heck, I'd think that a high flying *KITE* probably poses more of a risk to low-flying aircraft than a drone that is being responsibly flown would. I've flown kites as a kid *way* way higher than any drone I've ever seen go.
When you are flying about 30 to 40 feet from the ground in a public park, it's a pretty safe bet that a helicopter isn't going to be flying there. The drone might occasionally go out of sight as it passes behind a tree, but helicopters aren't going to be landing in such heavily wooded areas either because there's no room for them
More specifically?
Because as I said, all the documention I've read says that it's power source was good for at least 14 years of steadily providing 100w of power or more.
My point is that it was my understanding that the speed of light is constant, period. and bringing up any notions of frames of reference is superfluous at best, outright misleading at worst, because it suggests that two different frames of reference could measure two different speeds for light, which isn't true.
It doesn't know what final exchange the number is at, it only knows what exchange it will have to talk directly to in order to route to that number... there may be an unknown number of exchanges inbetween you and the target number. If the caller fakes their number, for example for a single line for a large company to forward the 1-800 number for the company instead of the in-house line that the caller may be calling from (and for which there would be no direct phone access to from the outside), the next exchange down the line has no way to know that the number is not real.
There isn't any... but in general, an exchange has no way to know what exchange a call *ACTUALLY* originated from if it didn't originate in the exchange connected directly to it.
The telecom companies that is forwarding that info to you has no way to know that the caller spoofed their caller ID. Not only do you have to trust the exchange you are getting the call from, but you must trust the exchange that connected to that exchange, and so on, all the way to the original caller, and there is no way for the receiver to positively identify these exchanges if the original caller happened to send false information in the first place.
The only fix for this would completely break backwards compatibility and would in general make it all but impossible to make long distance calls.
It can also be indicative of an amount that is simply significantly more than expected, rather than reflective of any kind of absolute percentage of the total. For example, "the water in the old well was teeming with e-coli".
Why is this word in quotes in the headline?
I somehow think it is more likely that it's not very good at recognizing serious falls in the first place.
Unless the stunt woman actually went and caused real serious injury to herself on at least one fall and it *did* correctly identify that as a real fall, then I'm more inclined to think that this is feature that doesn't work as well as they might advertise it to.
Citation? Because that's not what I read... I had heard that it was going to go for at least 14, and probably longer than that, depending on performance at the time.
Well yeah, that's what I figured... so what's this about so-called non-accelerating reference frames then?
Why bother saying that if it isn't equally true for any reference frame, whether it is accelerating or not?
What about accelerating ones? Moving along a circular path at some constant velocity has a constant acceleration towards the center of the circle, for instance... is the speed of light any different? I wouldn't have thought so, but if it's only constant in non-accelerating reference frames, I don't know....
I said 2khw, not 2kw.... over a day, 100W is 2.4kwh.
Although I realize that I missed the words "per day"....
Nonetheless, running out power only 6 years into a mission that is supposed to last at least a decade and a half does not bode well.
So somehow, the MMRTG that they installed on this beastie that was supposed to steadily provide over 2kwh of electricity for at least 14 years somehow magically decayed its plutonium fuel source in less than 6?
I think that this rover has a messed up idea of what "half life" means.
I would suggest that simply not approving of how a person conducts themselves at a private party would qualify as "any reason".
And I see that you are failing to understand that localized temperature increases caused by mechanical processes such as windmills are *NOT* going to affect the earth's climate. Climate change can cause temperature increases, not the other way around.
blargh... I need to use preview before I hit submit.
"outside of" should be "besides"... Freudian slip there. I just used the wrong word other than what I meant.
Tenure raises the standards for termination through due process considerations, but tenured employees can still be terminated for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance... In fact, one of the most common reasons for terminating a tenured employee outside of financial exigency is because of the discovery of inappropriate or criminal activity, either in the past or simply outside of work hours. These sorts of things are invariably laid out as part of the tenure labor contract, and barring any explicit indication to the contrary, there is no particular statute of limitations on the discovery of such activities, nor the requirement that they had ever even suffered any formal charges, let alone a conviction, so a tenured employee's past bad life choices, no matter how long ago, can certainly end up biting them in the ass.