I don’t understand how anyone reasonable would think it’s somehow good that he “stands by his words”. He’s essentially confirming he’s a bigot, racist, and general waste of oxygen. Hopefully the “free market” can figure out what he does for a living and make his life suffer as much as he wants others to suffer.
It is a little refreshing compared to blanket denial and insisting the “true” racists are the people who call him out. Or crocodile tears and insisting “that’s not who I am”.
She warned them multiple times about issues and rumors of weapons. They did nothing. IIRC the child also had a decently long history of other issues. I would sue that school too.
His salary in 2022 was 17.3 million and that’s down from 18.7 million in 2021. They could have paid 200 employees 85k a year instead of one pointless executive. So maybe the executives are the reason for the company going under.
His other compensations, benefits, and free services like company jets and private dining, provide a very significant increase of their own.
C-level compensation is never merely in pay, there’s a whole incredibly expensive ecosystem to support as well.
And, in addition to his surprising decision to pay himself more than his predecessor, he was a major stock holder before he took over the position, so he’s getting dividends and stockholder equity as well.
Heyyyy, wait a minute.
Didn’t he decide to do a stock buyback with company funds? 3.5 billion worth over the past decade?
Weren’t those considered the kind of market manipulation that helped cause the Great Depression?
Not that I’m remotely defending corporate bloat, but it is important to do the math and make sure we’re fighting the right battles. Ford has around 175k US employees, if you divide that 3.5B over the ten years over the 175k employees, that’s only an extra $2000/employee/yr. $2000/yr is not going to help a factory worker’s future medical debt nor allow someone to afford a house or a family that couldn’t $2k ago. One could probably even with a straight face make the argument that 3.5b in stock buybacks sets Ford up for future sustainability, and ensures they can keep the bulk of those workers in the US that probably could be exported for cheaper.
What we need back is the culture of taking care of corporations that take care of you when you retire. Pensions and stock options for regular employees.
3.5B sounds like a lot, but Ford has around 175k US employees, if you divide that 3.5B over the ten years over the 175k employees, that’s only an extra $2000/employee/yr. $2000/yr is not going to help a factory worker’s future medical debt nor allow someone to afford a house or a family that couldn’t $2k ago.
Show me someone who wouldn’t take an additional 2K/year for the same work.
Jesus H. Christ. This is Mary Lou Retton. She was possibly the biggest sports celebrity of the 80s. She wasn’t just an Olympian, she was on TV constantly. She was one of the first sports stars women could really look up to.
And she doesn’t have health insurance.
This is such a criminal travesty I don’t even know what else to say but poor Mary Lou. I hope she’s unconscious so if the worst happens, she won’t feel it.
Wasn’t she on a Wheaties box? The first Female athlete on a Wheaties box, in fact? General Mills ought to pay back some of those cerealized profits. Heck, just republishing that box might raise enough money.
There’s a whole side issue about how screwed up our medical finance system is, but it’s not gonna get solved in time to pay that bill.
Or, hear me out, we wait until she dies, republish the box in memoriam, rake in the money, drop a couple of million into a donation saying we’ll help people with pneumonia and write off the taxes and claim some publicity! It’s win-win really!
some General Mills Executive about to get a huge bonus probably
I dunno if you’ve noticed, but America’s been in shambles a looong time. Education, Literacy, Healthcare, Economic mobility — almost every statistic related to quality of life for the people (aka the working class) — has fallen well behind the rest of the developed world.
It’s basically a failed democracy that’s halfway through the transition from oligarchy to fascist dictatorship, with both religion and conservatism leading the charge; as is tradition.
Except there is head nodding at working class people being “without”. Mary Lou Retton is a famous celebrity. The assumption is that fame equates to elite status with things the working class does not have. The shock is that even fame can’t get you health insurance.
You shouldn’t need health insurance. You should be able to get inpatient and outpatient care with tax payer funds and not walk away with a bill. As a country we should value the lives of the people living here more than we do.
If only we valued people for their inherent worth. You can see what a society values by what it spends on. Follow the money. Sounds like as escalated conflict somewhere is brewing that might keep funneling resources to the oligarchs.
According to previously unreported details that police released about the incident Wednesday, Donofrio repeatedly knocked, banged and kicked on the front door “while manipulating the door handle” while trying to enter the home.
A female resident of the home called 911 as Donofrio kicked the door, while a male resident went to retrieve a firearm elsewhere in the home, the news release states. The homeowner owned the gun legally, “for the purpose of personal and home protection,” according to police.
While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,” at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window that struck Donofrio in his upper body, according to police.
Under those circumstances, I don’t blame the homeowner for using a gun to defend himself and the other female resident. This guy was literally breaking into their home. If it had been me, I would have been terrified and very thankful to have a gun on hand for defense. I’m sure a lot of people here will protest to the shooting, but I would urge them to really think about what they would have done in such a situation. I don’t know what Donofrio’s reasons were for trying to break into the home, but they hardly matter; the fact is, he did try, and the residents of the home had every reason to think they were in danger. If we had multi-shot stun guns that could reliably incapacitate an intruder, I’d say he should have used that rather than a lethal weapon, but current stun guns aren’t that reliable and only fire once before needing to be reloaded. That a life was lost is sad, but I agree that no criminal charges should be filed in this instance. However, I’m not saying that I entirely agree with the Castle doctrine on which this is based, as I’m not intimately familiar with it, but the general notion of being able to use lethal force to defend oneself against a home intruder I do agree with on principle.
The guy at the door was not an immediate threat to life or limb, save his own. Firing a gun was not justified without threat, IMO. But I guess in the USA you can murder people to save your property (not your life).
Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,”
How much more “immediate” do you need? A complete stranger is trying to break into your home to do god knows what is the epitome of a clear and immediate danger to me.
What would you have done? Opened the door and welcomed them in?
Opening the door may have saved everyone in this case.
Did they try to communicate with the person? Look through the widow to see whether the person is armed? Flee? Get a non lethal weapon like a bat, knife, pepper spray? Hide? There was time for the home owner to go get a gun before the window broke. I assume, since this is USA, that it was already loaded (😂) so I’m sure it didn’t take too long, but did they try ANY of those things? Unlikely, and that’s unfortunate.
Which is why if you attack someone with those (and don’t kill them, if you do it’s just murder) you get charged with assault with a deadly weapon, friend? See how that plays out for you in court.
Though you are right even if you were far off base from my point, it is easier to defend yourself with a gun than a bat or a knife.
Again, you’re wrong. It’s easier to kill people with a gun than a bat or a knife. My point is that this case shouldn’t be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text) because other avenues for dealing with the situation existed and were possible. In that case, I’d rather be charged with assault than murder.
No, read it again, I believe you’ll find I did acknowledge that you were right, a gun is more effective than melee weapons if you have to defend yourself.
My point is that this case shouldn’t be a situation calling for the castle doctrine (based on the text)
Strange interpretation of castle doctrine, mind sharing the relevant portion that would preclude this man from self defense? The whole thing about castle doctrine is exactly to shut people who say “you should have waited until he put the knife in your throat, then shoot him,” like yourself, up. When someone breaks in, breaking a window, to gain unauthorized entry to your house, their reason for doing so is frankly irrelelvant, it is reasonable to defend yourself to your fullest ability and not put yourself in further danger to protect the invader. If you want to take the chance that it’s a drunk kid not looking for violence, take it, but don’t force others to incur undue risk, teach drunk college kids not to break and enter. He shouldn’t be charged with either for defending his home.
And in my example of attacking people with them being still murder if you kill them and assault with a deadly weapon if you don’t applies to all three weapons, gun, knife, and bat. That’s what I’m saying, the law does not differentiate based on weapon used, they differentiate based on reasonable standards of force, and you can only use all three of those if the standard for deadly force has been reached. If not, you will be in trouble for escalating it using any one of those three weapons. Fortunately for you however, if someone did break in, you’d meet that standard, so you can kill them with any of the three.
So declare your firearm and say fuck off or I will shoot, don’t just shoot. As a gun owner myself I would NEVER fire without trying to give verbal commands. I couldn’t see anywhere in the article any reference to discussion between the door window breaking and firing.
Idk man, I’m liberal as hell and even I have problems with that line of logic. Man’s smashing up their house, putting myself in the invadees shoes I’d be worried about warning the home invader(s) and making them use their weapons.
I’m not saying I think everything is fine and dandy in this situation, mfs are using guns way to much in America. But since the occupants had a gun for self defense AND their home was being broken into, I find it hard to blame them for defending themselves.
Same, progressive who believes people have the right to defend their house once someone is clearly trying to force their way in.
I’m uncomfortable with that loophole only because of you’ll recall, several years back a black lady knocked on a stranger’s for because her car broke down in front of that house and got ventilated without discussion.
That’s wack as shit, and I have to wonder how police would determine a frame-up if that particular trashbag had broken the window to make it seem like the lady was breaking in.
Only solution that comes to mind is a ring-like device which only records to local storage.
Absolutely, I think there should be certain objective things that have to happen before “fearing for your life” is a valid defence.
Someone breaking your window after trying to enter forcefully through your door is where I start thinking it’s okay to use a deadly weapon to defend yourself.
Someone knocking on your door (regardless of the time of day) is not a reasonable situation to fear for your life, at least to the extent where you attack the person.
I’m uncomfortable with that loophole only because of you’ll recall, several years back a black lady knocked on a stranger’s for because her car broke down in front of that house and got ventilated without discussion.
I don’t know the specific case you’re talking about, but that isn’t actually the law, that is a failure of our justice system, the shooter could have gotten convicted for that (based off your description I should add, if I’m missing details that would exhonerate the homeowner, like an outside gate already having been breached, then that’s another matter). In my area, you are required to have signs of forced entry before you can defend yourself in this manner, and if someone shot through the door my DA would certainly try the case, but then the jury can decide if “guilty or not guilty,” and that’s how you end up with both false convictions and “false releases” like the one you mentioned. Unfortunately however I’m unaware of a more fair system than the one we have, but I’m open to ideas.
Could have been avoided? Maybe. But at some point the onus is on the person breaking into your house to…idk, not do that? Like there’s a spectrum between what you can do, what you should do and what you have to do and asking some questions first is certainly something you can do. Maybe even something you should do, but protecting your family from someone who is breaking into your house is something you have to do. This isn’t Ralph Yarl who got popped twice for standing on the porch, or those girls who were still in the car and backing out of someone’s driveway when they got clipped. Dude tried to break into the house by kicking the door in, that didn’t work, so he tried a different way of breaking into the house which would have worked had he been left to it.
I’m usually pretty firmly against preemptive violence as self defense but this seems rather cut and dry to me. I would have done the exact same thing the homeowner did here, and I think that it’s doubly good that the homeowner wasn’t charged.
Ya, he “surely” could have rationally had a conversation with a black out drunk that’s been trying to kick a door in, smash the glass and open it from the inside, because that’s what sane people do when they think they’re at their own house…right?
I mean I’m not in the camp of thinking the homeowners were necessarily in the wrong, but have you seriously never heard of someone breaking their own window to get back into their own property when they were locked out? Also, yea it is possible to communicate with a blackout drunk person, or at least try to warn them.
I dont know the whole situation, but if they didn’t make any effort to communicate or warn the guy before they shot him, I do think that’s cold hearted. If they did try to communicate and were ignored, then I think they didn’t do anything wrong.
Legally speaking they are obviously in the clear. I just dont know if this was acceptable from a moral perspective to me without knowing the full details yet.
I’m upvoting you simply because I think you’re debating in good faith and even though I don’t agree with you, I think you’re adding something real to the conversation.
While I do think the situation would likely have ended better if the homeowner had tried to engage the invader in reasonable conversation before pulling the trigger, I don’t think he should be legally required to do so. Remember: it was the home invader’s actions that caused this whole situation. People keep winging about the homeowner’s responsibility to take action to *protect *the invader of his home, but no one is acknowledging that the invader could have prevented all of this by simply not invading the home. People who behave this way have problems, but they’re virtually always not the people they are harming with their actions. They need help, surely, but they also need to be isolated from the general population and punished for the harm they do to others.
And for those who chime in to object to the fact that I said people should be punished for their crimes, just know that I’m all for prison reforms that make prisons safer and help people begin new lives after they’ve served their time, but that I ABSOLUTELY FUCKING DEMANDthey serve their fucking time. I have no use for people that can’t wrap their pathetic brains around the notion that crime and punishment are inextricably linked. It’s not about vengeance. The entire reason we have a justice system is so that we can punish criminals in a more objective, humane way than victims can with their tendency towards revenge rather than justice.
I completely agree with you that there should be no legal requirement to warn an intruder before utilizing self defense. I just feel that its nuanced, and in this particular case, if I was the homeowner I would be screaming my head off warning the intruder that they are about to die in not such a polite way. I just would feel morally obligated to do everything I could to divert the situation, and I would hope most others would do the same before making the decision to end a life.
Wow you’re telling me the tidal wave of liberal shitposting on Reddit was wrong about this and they should have waited for the actual facts? I don’t believe it!!
I agree with you, I do. It should be legal to protect your property. The problem is when you have a gun, everything looks like a shooting. If you didn’t have a gun, how would you handle the situation? You could leave. You could lock yourself in an interior room and wait for the cops. You could fight them Kevin style. All of those options, at the end of the day, would give you a better chance of not killing somebody.
It’s not about protection of property to me. I don’t care about that. I care about people having the right to use all reasonable options for defending themselves against violent attackers. And to your point, might this person’s death have been avoided if the occupants of the home had fled or hid somewhere? Certainly. But should they be legally required to do so? No, not in my opinion. Reason being, I don’t think the impetus should be on victims to take their attackers’ well-being into account when it’s the attackers that are creating the problem in the first place. Telling a person who is scared for their life that they need to fight the impulse coming from their amygdala to fight back against a violent attacker is totally unreasonable. If a person is coming at me with their fists and I have a gun, I don’t think I should have to refrain from firing my weapon and take the hits my attacker is throwing, just to make sure he doesn’t die. What if I die? What if I lose an eye or get my face scarred up? What if he takes my gun and shoots me? No. No, fuck that, if someone is attacking me, they’ve given me permission to defend myself in whatever way seems reasonable to me, and I’m not risking my own life or even just serious injury because someone else has anger management problems. They’re the problem; they’re the threat to society; if they die, yeah that sucks, but it’s their fucking fault, not mine for defending myself against their violent behavior.
I’m so sick of people having all this empathy for violent criminals, and way too little for their victims. You want to tell other people to react in a calm, collected, pacifist manner when they’re being attacked, to risk their own lives and wellbeing for the sake of their attacker’s? Tell you what, you get yourself attacked somehow when you’re not expecting it and demonstrate how cool, calm, and pacifist you are under fire; you show the rest of us how easy that is. You do that, and maybe I’ll consider what you have to say, but until then, you’re just a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching bystander who has their priorities messed up and doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
That’s fine but where’s the line. If someone pulls up in your driveway, is it OK to shoot them? If they knock on your door? What if you have an argument and they throw popcorn at you? The last one was deemed reasonable in Florida. If you have a legitimate conflict with someone, is it just a matter of who kills who first? If someone breaks into your home, this case, he broke the glass and was trying to open the door. Can you shoot them? Do you need to warn them first? What if they were just outside walking around creepily. Is it OK to kill them? Can i provoke someone then when thry come at me, can i kill them? Where’s the line? This is a real question because right now the rules don’t make sense.
That’s not even limited by taxes, it’s limited by 4 fucking companies owning most of the tracks, and them being given free reign to run freight as shittily as possible, not maintain the tracks unless actively forced to, and giving precisely 0 fucks about passenger service.
The US likely cannot fix its rail issue without nationalizing the rail system. As a country, it has yet to admit that there are some many problems capitalism a) does not fix and b) actively makes worse.
Just remember Ethan Couch in 2013 diagnosed with Afluenza, A condition where someone is too rich to understand the consequences of their actions.
He was 16. He and a bunch of friends went to Walmart. They stole beer and drove drunk. He killed 4 people on the side of the road. A passenger in his car suffered brain damage and was paralyzed.
This kid was sentenced with a 10 year parole. He violated that parole by going to a party to drink. He and his mom fled to Mexico to avoid punishment. He was captured and then given a 720 day sentence in prison.
He murdered 4 people and paralyzed one of his friends. He got parole. Violated parole. Fled the country. And then was given 2 years in prison.
This is how you know that being rich sets you up for life. It doesn’t matter what they’ll do - it’ll end up a slap on the wrist at best. The system is unjust and corrupt.
Driving drunk is absolutely stupid and anyone who does should be punished. The kids a shithead and deserved about 10 times more the prison sentence he got, but he did not start the night planning to kill 4 people with his friends. It was an accident, completely and absolutely preventable and one he is solely responsible for and should have gone to prison for his negligence, but an accident.
This girl told her boyfriend she would kill him this exact way. She had this planned. She drove by that same place earlier. She got in that car knowing it was going to to end the way it did.
Only one person in those examples intended to kill someone, and then followed through with the plan. Murder is worse than unintentionally killing and hurting people through negligence.
The loss of life is tragic, but I’m not sure what she’s upset about. Tourists didn’t come there to mock or make light. They just have bad timing in paradise.
Tourism will play a huge part in helping the community recover economically too. They’re going to need tourists to stay/come back asap. I thought the Greek president was canny to offer tourists affected by the wildfires in Rhodes a free holiday next year.
I hear the challenge right now is that even before the fire there was a housing shortage. Tourists should not travel to Hawaii right now if those hotel beds can instead be used to shelter displaces people near term.
Ya exactly. “It’s okay if a local people are exploited by industry and country. It helps the economy” is such a terrible take and I genuinely don’t know why people here are defending it
I was thinking more along the lines of a large proportion of locals must work in the tourist industry - whether that’s owning hotels, working in them, owning touristy shops, tour guides, surf instructors etc etc. The locals haven’t just suffered loss of life, property and sites of historic importance, a lot of them will lose their jobs without tourism. “Economy” was the wrong term I guess. People need those jobs not just to live but to rebuild their lives and their property.
I'm hoping that the Hawaii and Maui gov'ts don't allow rich people to grab the land afterwards, instead allocating all of it to traditional Hawaiian people.
I don’t think destroying the Hawaiian economy would help the homeless problem in Hawaii. If anything, what needs to be happening is that the Hawaiian government needs to set up temporary housing and support rebuilding efforts.
Tourists should not travel to Hawaii right now if those hotel beds can instead be used to shelter displaces people near term.
I am not saying there should not be any tourism. I am saying that near term, there is likely a shelter need that needs to be addressed. Putting tourism on hold for a few months won’t kill tourism. Hawaii shut down for the pandemic and had very strict Covid requirements as the world re opened. I think it can shut down for a few weeks until more aid and support arrives and is built.
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Yeah, for a few weeks, absolutely, the government should be buying up vacant hotel rooms in bulk while they arrange temporary housing
NP. My take was very quick and short. I think tourism will likely always be a big part of Hawaii’s recovery, and will help the recovery. But I just want to know that the workers and people that live in hawaii have roofs over their heads when things re open.
I mean we can all sympathise. We know why she’s upset. If she took more than a couple of minutes to calm down, she’ll argue herself that the country needs tourists and that they can’t be blamed for wanting to make the most of their holidays.
Out of personal experience, it’s incredibly frustrating to see people happy and smiling when your whole world is collapsing around you. It’s irrational but it makes sense.
The companies who sold them a vacation should have refunded everything and apologized, but you don’t see anyone pointing that out.
I get it, but if they’re upset, I still wouldn’t be able to afford to flush a Hawaiian vacation for any reason and I don’t think even the people who are swimming can afford it. I would be respectful by sticking to places that didn’t just have a wildfire, but if it’s going to cost me $10,000 USD (a year’s income to me, this is purely hypothetical and I don’t know the actual cost of a Hawaiian vacation but it sounds expensive) then I can’t do much more without endangering my own financial stability. Remember, $10k is 2/3 of a new car’s sticker price, the part that indefensible is that the area burnt to the ground and a couple dozen (according to the camera footage) horrible people were swimming there.
That’s an insane estimate lol. That’s how much Maldives would be at a nice hotel.
This year it cost $5000 total for my package with 2 people in Kauai and we went expensive. Last year it was closer to $3000 for flights and hotel in Oahu.
Fair enough. Just note that I didn’t make a typo when I said I make the equivalent of just barely 5 digits of income. $3000 isn’t a vacation to Hawaii, it’s a once-every-5-years PC upgrade.
I’m not sure I understand your analogy. Someone making $10,000 is risking their financial stability either way by booking a trip that costs $3-10k. The money is already spent whether they go or not.
I don’t think it’s feasible for tourists that are already there should immediately up and leave. But any tourist who is still flying in should have rebooked elsewhere else. Airlines are offering free changes and hotels usually have flexible cancellations, especially with travel insurance.
The government should have positioned hotels as temporary shelters for Hawaiians that are displaced in this fire.
You don’t just double the cost for more people. The kids wouldn’t be renting their own cars and you could get a room with 2 kings rather than separate rooms.
In any case, the analogy doesn’t make sense because a family that can afford a $10,000 trip (when there are way cheaper options in even in Hawaii) can afford to switch their plans for a fee. They aren’t exactly worried about their financial stability. Airlines were offering to change for free anyways.
That would depend on the age of the kids. You’re right that a $10,000 trip for four would get you just about anywhere in the world, but whether its $5,000 or $500, a trip to Hawaii could be a once in a lifetime experience. Maybe they always dreamed of Hawaii instead of Fiji or Recife or the French Riviera. Nobody could have predicted these specific wildfires (climate scientists notwithstanding) when they were planning their trips.
Airlines were scrambling to provide flights off the island, and while hotels and rental companies are extending refunds now, most are only now doing it in response to this precise backlash.
I’m with you that people should leave the island, and visitors should delay or change their plans. Shit happens, and this sucks for everyone. But the people who have lost their homes, the people who have lost loved ones, they are the ones suffering and they have every right to be angry at the tourism industry that is still catering to clients above supporting relief efforts. Their anger is far more effective directed at the right people. Getting angry at crowds of tourists is like getting angry at the wildfire itself: understandable, but ineffectual.
At least on paper, they suspended her not directly for being a loony, but for being actively hostile to their attempts to investigate what she was saying and why.
Conspiracy theorists take note: They never attempted to “silence” her; they actually asked her to indicate in detail why she believed these things, and she twice refused to show up and explain. After the second time, they then suspended her license.
While board members emphasized the punishment is connected to the procedural issues and not the bunk health claims, the medical board’s staff makes clear the basis for its inquiry in their formal report. They asked Tenpenny what evidence she had that vaccines make people magnetic or interface with cell towers, and for more information about the claim that major metro areas are “liquifying dead bodies and pouring them into the water supply.”
Tenpenny failed to attend either of her two hearings before board staff. Her attorneys even failed to show up to the second. Forcing protracted litigation every time the board wants to interview physicians it regulates, he said, would render the body unable in practice to carry out its duties.
So I think things like this, and like the one about harvesting knee fluid from patients to resell on the black market, are actually a feature of the conspiracy theories.
If you start buying into something pretty plausible, and then later you come to your senses, it’s not that painful to just let it go and admit you were wrong. If, on the other hand, you buy into something that’s clearly batshit insane, then you can’t admit you were wrong and that any toddler could have seen that it didn’t make sense. Because at that point it’s tantamount to admitting that you’re a helpless gullible moron whom no one should ever listen to again.
And presto, you’re in deep, and you can’t let go, or you pay a terrible cost.
I think it’s subconscious. Once people have their identity sufficiently tied into a set of beliefs, it can be impossible to see their own logical mistakes. This can go for religion, politics, conspiracies, etc.
Maybe check out George Lakoff’s excellent book on the concept of reality framing, “Don’t Think Of An Elephant.”
I think it’s more about how those types of buyers view the manufacturers reliability long term. The man is unhinged and has proven with Twitter that if given the chance he will willingly fuck over users. Imagine giving a bully the ability to limit your driving range or disabling your vehicle on a whim because he decides he doesn’t like you or what your local govt says.
Not saying he would do it but he has proven repeatedly to be unstable enough to believe he could escape punishment for doing it.
Really emphasizes how vital “right to repair” is. If a Tesla didn’t have proprietary software and centralized control over its cars it wouldn’t matter how irrational Musk was. But Tesla owners have to trust Tesla to maintain both the hardware and software in their cars, which means buying a Tesla is a long-term commited relationship with that company. And same with Ford, GMC, every car company whose software is a black box - if you can’t repair your own vehicle, you have to trust the management of the car company won’t screw you over for fun and profit.
I read that someone had upgraded their P60 to a P90 by getting a new battery, all official and from Tesla and months later they updated his firmware and locked out the extra 30Kwh because it wasn’t the stock battery.
It’s shit like that that keeps me from owning anything Elon related.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.