News
Pablo Escobar’s brother wants $100 million in Tesla shares for Not-a-Flamethrower dispute
Elon Musk is no stranger to taking on powerful forces that stand in the way of his Earth-changing missions, but drug lord families still seem like an odd addition to the list. Despite the improbability, infamous cartel founder and cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar has recently been linked to the serial entrepreneur over The Boring Company’s Not-a-Flamethrower, specifically through Escobar’s brother. Roberto Escobar claims Musk stole the Flamethrower design from him and plans to sue over it – unless Musk agrees to hand over $100 million dollars in either cash or Tesla shares, that is.
“Elon we both know you stole from me, I am OK to settle this right now for $100 million. Tesla shares is OK or cash. I will win in court, and you will lose more than $100 million,” Escobar said in a statement to The Next Web. “Maybe I will make myself new Tesla CEO with the courts?… Let’s settle this like gentleman. Send me the Tesla Shares to Escobar Inc.”
Someone associated with Musk’s business activities reportedly spent time with Escobar (the living brother, not the deceased drug lord) in the summer of 2017 wherein an Escobar Inc. toy flamethrower concept was discussed, according to a report originally published by TMZ. The Boring Company’s Flamethrower, announced in January 2018, apparently was a dead ringer for Escobar’s idea design-wise, leading cartel leader’s brother to angrily conclude that his idea had been stolen. Musk later responded to TMZ‘s report on Twitter, saying “It’s Not a Flamethrower, Mr Escobar.”
The dispute is interesting and unusual, to say the least, but we can be sure there’s one thing Boring clearly did not get from Escobar Inc. – the flamethrower’s purpose.
“I want the people to be able to burn money, like me and Pablo used to do. I burned probably a couple of billion dollars over the years. Literally burning the money. For many reasons,” Escobar was quoted as saying about the device.
Escobar is now weighing his legal options against Musk, although it’s not clear what options are exactly available.
Prior to 2013, if an inventor could demonstrate their invention predated someone else’s patented invention for the same thing, they could sue and work out a financially retroactive deal to be compensated for their work (more or less). However, with the enactment of the America Invents Act, the United States now has a “first to file” system that only gives inventors one year from public disclosure of their invention to file for patent protection. In Escobar’s case, he’s basically too late to file for a patent where it would matter most to Musk – in the United States. The only other legal workaround would seem to be a lawsuit over a non-disclosure agreement, which doesn’t appear to have happened here. It’s not enough that there were witnesses to the discussion, and it also doesn’t seem like there was even a handshake-type understanding over any claims to the design.
Another thing worth mentioning is that if The Boring Company has already filed for patent protection of its Not-a-Flamethrower design, it doesn’t appear to have published yet based on patent database searches. Since the idea was disclosed in January 2018 (or even 2017, based on Escobar’s claims), it’s now considered ‘prior art’ and renders any other highly similar patent filings ineligible for protection. It would appear that Escobar’s best bet for legal protection would have been to file for a patent right after Musk’s flamethrower was announced so both devices would have been in that muddy one-year window and open to a court fight. Alas, it’s all water under the bridge now.
The Boring Company had a few options to pursue here, actually. First, the tunneling venture could have filed for a design patent which only protects what their flamethrower looks like. These types of patent applications usually issue to full patents quickly unless the patent examiner objects to it based on similar designs. If Boring went this route, we should see a patent show up shortly if one was filed around the time of the product announcement in January 2018.
A second option The Boring Company could have taken was to file for a utility patent, meaning there was some sort of technical merit to the Not-a-Flamethrower’s design. These publish 18 months after filing unless non-publication is specifically requested. If Boring went this route, well, there are so many timelines that could have been taken, it’s hard to say whether we’ll see anything until a patent issues, assuming one issues at all. Regardless, the patent route was Escobar’s only real route for lawsuit-driven compensation, and he seems out of luck.
Perhaps in response to recent publicity, the Escobar Inc. Flamethrower just went on sale for $250, and according to its company website’s History page, 20,000 units will be produced. This, of course, is the exact amount the Boring Company sold at the original price of $500. Among other interesting news items, one of the gems from that same History page reads, “2004 – Roberto de Jesus Escobar Gaviria is freed from Itagui Prison based on excellent behavior.” This important moment in the Escobar Inc. chronicles is surely only matched by the successful launch of Escobar Inc.’s Flamethrower for burning cold hard cash in cocaine kingpin fashion.
News
Tesla Semi gets new product launch as mass manufacturing hits Plaid Mode
While the 1.2 MW Megacharger handles quick 30-minute en-route boosts, the Basecharger serves as a reliable overnight solution for longer dwell times at warehouses, distribution centers, fleet yards, and even, potentially, homes.
The Tesla Semi is getting a new production launch as mass manufacturing on the all-electric truck is gearing up to hit Plaid Mode.
Tesla has introduced a game-changing addition to its commercial charging lineup with the new 125 kW Basecharger for Semi. Launched this week as part of the new “Semi Charging for Business” program, this compact unit is purpose-built for depot and overnight charging of Tesla Semi trucks.
While the 1.2 MW Megacharger handles quick 30-minute en-route boosts, the Basecharger serves as a reliable overnight solution for longer dwell times at warehouses, distribution centers, fleet yards, and even, potentially, homes.
Our new 125 kW Basecharger is designed for longer dwell times and overnight charging of Semis. It’s the “home charging” for heavy-duty fleets.
It features a fully integrated design that eliminates the need for a separate AC-to-DC cabinet, simplifying installation. The 6 meter… https://t.co/ovy1C4PsRW pic.twitter.com/vBUCNMzs57
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) May 1, 2026
Delivering up to 60 percent of the Semi’s range in roughly four hours, perfect for overnight top-ups during mandated driver rest periods or while trucks are loaded or unloaded. Its fully integrated design eliminates the need for bulky separate AC-to-DC cabinets.
Tesla engineers tucked one of the power modules from a V4 Supercharger Cabinet directly inside the sleek post, resulting in a compact footprint. It also features a six-meter cable for layout flexibility. This is one thing that must have been learned through the V4 Supercharger rollout.
Installation and operating costs drop dramatically thanks to daisy-chaining. Up to three Basechargers can share a single 125 kVA breaker, slashing electrical infrastructure requirements. The unit outputs 150 amps continuous across an 180–1,000 VDC range, matching the Semi’s high-voltage architecture while supporting the MCS 3.2 standard.
Tesla Semi sends clear message to Diesel rivals with latest move
Priced from $40,000 for a minimum order of two units, the Basecharger is far more affordable than the $188,000 Megacharger setup for two posts. Deliveries begin in early 2027. Buyers also receive Tesla’s full network-level software, remote monitoring, maintenance, and a guaranteed 97 percent or higher uptime—critical for fleet reliability.
This launch arrives as Tesla accelerates high-volume Semi production at its Nevada factory, targeting 50,000 units annually. By pairing affordable depot charging with ultra-fast highway options, Tesla removes one of the biggest obstacles to electrifying Class 8 trucking: infrastructure cost and complexity.
Fleet operators stand to gain lower electricity rates during off-peak hours, dramatically reduced maintenance compared to diesel, and quieter yards at night. The Basecharger isn’t just another charger—it’s the practical bridge that makes large-scale electric semi adoption economically viable.
With the Basecharger handling “home” duties and Megachargers powering the road, Tesla is delivering a complete ecosystem that could finally tip the scales toward zero-emission freight. For trucking companies ready to go electric, the future just got a whole lot more charger-friendly.
News
Tesla revises new Intervention Reporting system with Full Self-Driving
It is the second revision to the program as Tesla is trying to make it easier to decipher driver and owner complaints, but also to make it easier to report issues within the suite for them.
Tesla has revised its new Intervention Reporting system within the Full Self-Driving suite that now categorizes reasons that drivers take over when the semi-autonomous driving functionality is active.
It is the second revision to the program as Tesla is trying to make it easier to decipher driver and owner complaints, but also to make it easier to report issues within the suite for them.
With the initial rollout of Full Self-Driving v14.3.2, Tesla included a new reporting menu that gave four options for an intervention: Preference, Comfort, Critical, and Other. A slightly revised version of Full Self-Driving with the same ID number then came out a few days later, changing the “Other” option to “Navigation” after numerous complaints from owners.
It appears Tesla has listened to those owners once again and has not only made it smaller and more compact, but also easier to report the issues than previously.
The new menu is now embedded within the request for a Voice Memo from Tesla, and does not block the entire screen, as the second rollout of the menu was:
Thank you Tesla! The new intervention screen is much better! @Tesla_AI pic.twitter.com/1lea9G27N1
— Dirty Tesla (@DirtyTesLa) May 1, 2026
There will likely be one additional revision to the Interventions Menu, as we have coined it here at Teslarati.
Unfortunately, at times, there are no reasons for an intervention at all, but the menu does not give an option to simply disregard the reporting and forces the driver to choose one of the options. We, as well as other notable Tesla influencers, indicated that there is not always a reason for an intervention.
For example, I choose to back into my parking spot in my neighborhood at least some of the time for the reason of charging. I usually hit “Preference” for this, but it sends a false positive to Tesla that there was a reason I took over that I was unhappy with.
Tesla begins probing owners on FSD’s navigation errors with small but mighty change
Instead, I’m simply performing a maneuver that is not yet available to us. When Tesla allows drivers to choose the orientation at which their car enters a parking spot, I and many others won’t have to deal with this menu.
Others are still skeptical that it will help resolve any issues whatsoever and prefer to disregard the menu altogether. It does seem as if Tesla will issue another revision in the coming days to allow this to happen.
Lifestyle
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
California just gave police power to ticket driverless cars, including Tesla’s Cybercab fleet.
California DMV formally adopted new rules on April 29, 2026 that allow law enforcement to issue “notices of noncompliance”, or in other words ticket autonomous vehicle companies when their cars commit moving violations. The rules take effect July 1, 2026 and officially closes a regulatory gap that previously let driverless cars operate on public roads with nearly no traffic enforcement consequences.
Until now, state traffic laws only applied to human “drivers,” which meant that when no person was behind the wheel, police had no mechanism to issue a ticket. Officers were limited to citing driverless vehicles for parking violations only. A well-known example came in September 2025, when a San Bruno officer watched a Waymo robotaxi execute an illegal U-turn and could do nothing but notify the company.
Under the new framework, when an officer observes a violation, the autonomous vehicle company is effectively treated as the driver. Companies must report each incident to the DMV within 72 hours, or 24 hours if a collision is involved. Repeated violations can result in fleet size restrictions, operational suspensions, or full permit revocation. Local officials also gained new authority to geofence driverless vehicles out of active emergency zones within two minutes and require a live emergency response line answered within 30 seconds.
Tesla Cybercab ramps Robotaxi public street testing as vehicle enters mass production queue
California’s new enforcement rules arrive at a pivotal moment for Tesla. The company is ramping Cybercab production at Giga Texas toward hundreds of units per week, targeting at least 2 million units annually at full capacity, while simultaneously pushing to expand its Robotaxi service to dozens of U.S. cities by end of 2026. Unsupervised FSD for consumer vehicles is currently targeted for Q4 2026, and when it arrives, Tesla’s fleet may not have a human to absorb legal accountability, under the July 1 rules.
Tesla has confirmed plans to expand its Robotaxi service to seven new cities in the first half of 2026, including Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Las Vegas, with the service already running without safety drivers in Austin. Musk has said he expects robotaxis to cover between a quarter and half of the United States by end of year.
Tesla Semi gets new product launch as mass manufacturing hits Plaid Mode
Tesla revises new Intervention Reporting system with Full Self-Driving
