The space was ended abruptly 30 minutes later and it appears it was killed on Twitter’s side given that the usual metadata does not match what a closed Space has. This Space was being recorded and the replay is not available [3].
Musk now claims that they are fixing a “legacy bug” [4] and this is why Spaces has been disabled. In my opinion, Musk is behaving like a petulant child and his group of cheerleaders look more ridiculous and without backbone each day.
[1] https://twitter.com/forevereversley/status/16036127708929187...
[2] https://twitter.com/katienotopoulos/status/16036045712884695...
[3] https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1603622824177848326
The only people who actually do care about Twitter are journalists. Musk proceeds to ban some prominent ones from Twitter, for utterly frivolous reasons, which makes them realize that 1/ they're not immune to this and 2/ one of their main work tool is brittle, and will make them actively search for another, if they weren't already.
This behavior is strange. Either Musk is engaging in self-harm, for some reason, or he's testing how much he can get away with.
Or at least, want to pretend that they care, considering Tesla makes most of its money selling carbon credits to other companies so that they can pollute more. Buying a Tesla doesn't cause less emissions.
what are you basing this off of? Are you specifically saying buying doesn’t cause less emissions (ie manufacturing) or overall compared to a generic ICE car that a Tesla generates more emissions?
* Manufacturing. This includes not just the factory, but also the mining of lithium and other metals that is an environmental disaster.
* Electricity emissions through its lifetime: if you're in a country that uses primarily natural gas for its electricity production (like the US does), you might as well keep running an ICE instead, it'll be just as bad.
* Carbon credits granted, that will lead to the construction of one more ICE from another manufacturer.
Buying new cars will not solve problems. No matter if it's an EV or an ICE.
Believe me I agree. Check my post history. :)
> Electricity emissions through its lifetime: if you're in a country that uses primarily natural gas for its electricity production (like the US does), you might as well keep running an ICE instead, it'll be just as bad.
Uses primarily now doesn't have to mean uses primarily for all time. I'm also not sure how to compare here because you have a limited number of natural gas plants, coal plants, etc. and maybe you can reduce that actual output of c02 into the atmosphere. Can't really do that with an ICE. It'll be very difficult as well to really capture the systematic emissions. How do you account, for example, for the US military and required spending to maintain global oil supply? Should we account for it? Idk.
I agree that you raise valid points here in comparing carbon emissions, but these ideas don't translate into facts or "proof", which is what I originally asked for.