News
Elon Musk’s flamethrower gets reprieve in CA after lawmaker’s bill falls through
California lawmakers recently blocked proposed restrictions for the sale and use of The Boring Company’s Not-a-Flamethrowers in the state. The suggested restrictions were authored by LA Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles), who earlier this year issued a strongly-worded criticism of the device.
The Boring Co. Not-a-Flamethrower was launched by Elon Musk earlier this year. The devices, which Musk dubbed as a “super terrible idea,” were sold for $500 each during a limited run of 20,000 units. All 20,000 Not-a-Flamethrowers were sold out within four days, raising $10 million for the tunneling startup.
While the Boring Co. Not-a-Flamethrower proved incredibly popular, LA Assemblyman Miguel Santiago found nothing amusing about the device. At the end of January, Santiago issued a press release strongly criticizing the firestarter.
If this is real, I’m outraged and you should be too. If this is a joke, then it’s a terribly insensitive one given that we’re coming off of the worst wildfire season in history. Either way: NOT FUNNY. NOT GONNA HAPPEN. pic.twitter.com/82n00um9Bf
— Miguel Santiago (@MSantiagoAD54) January 29, 2018
Santiago would go on to author AB-1949, better known as the Flamethrower Bill. The bill’s first iteration proposed several restrictions on the sale and use of flamethrowers in California. As could be seen in a copy of the Assemblyman’s bill, owners of Tier II flamethrowers (devices that can shoot flames at least 2 feet but not exceeding 10 feet, like the Boring Co. Not-a-Flamethrower) must have a valid pyrotechnic operator license from the State Fire Marshal and the necessary permits before they are allowed to use the device. Without these documents, buyers of the Boring Co. flamethrower would be at risk of fines or even imprisonment. Here is an excerpt from the Assemblyman’s original bill.
“Any person who uses or possesses any Tier I or Tier II flamethrowing device… without a valid flamethrowing device permit issued pursuant to this part is guilty of a public offense and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or in the state prison, or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both imprisonment and fine.”
Santiago’s bill was largely supported by the police and fire officials. As the bill advanced, however, it was eventually amended. The amendments in the bill were primarily focused on Santiago’s proposed restrictions on Tier II flamethrowers, which are less powerful and less likely to cause harm. The suggested imprisonment and fines for individuals using Tier II flamethrowers without permits were struck off the bill as well.
Santiago eventually narrowed the scope of his bill, suggesting that the devices like the Boring Co. Not-a-Flamethrower must carry a safety label. Even this, however, was stalled on Friday, when the bill was held at the Assembly Appropriations Committee. As noted in a San Francisco Chronicle article, the Flamethrower Bill ultimately became a victim of the state’s “suspense file” process, where legislative leaders usually kill bills that can pose an embarrassing vote for the party.
It is pertinent to note that the Boring Co. Not-a-Flamethrower is more of an oversized butane torch than a full-fledged flamethrower. The device shoots flames similar to the Weed Dragon, a torch that can be bought at hardware stores. Tier I flamethrowers, such as the XM42-M, are on an entirely different level, as these devices are capable of shooting flames up to 30 feet.
For now, however, reservation holders of the Boring Company Not-a-Flamethrower could look forward to the upcoming pickup party on June 9 at Los Angeles. The event, which would feature the handover of the first 1,000 Not-a-Flamethrowers, will also include fun activities such as photo booths, marshmallow toasting sessions, and zombie simulations. Deliveries of the Not-a-Flamethrowers would follow soon after.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Tesla’s breakthroughs with its 4680 battery cell program mark a significant milestone for the electric vehicle maker. This was, at least, as per Elon Musk in a recent post on social media platform X.
Tesla confirmed in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter that it is now producing 4680 cells whose anode and cathode were produced during the dry electrode process.
Why dry-electrode matters
In a post on X, Elon Musk stated that making the dry-electrode process work at scale was “incredibly difficult,” calling it a major achievement for Tesla’s engineering, production, and supply chain teams, as well as its partner suppliers. He also shared his praise for the Tesla team for overcoming such a difficult task.
“Making the dry electrode process work at scale, which is a major breakthrough in lithium battery production technology, was incredibly difficult. Congratulations to the @Tesla engineering, production and supply chain teams and our strategic partner suppliers for this excellent achievement!” Musk wrote in his post.
Tesla’s official X account expanded on Musk’s remarks, stating that dry-electrode manufacturing “cuts cost, energy use & factory complexity while dramatically increasing scalability.” Bonne Eggleston, Tesla’s Vice President of 4680 batteries, also stated that “Getting dry electrode technology to scale is just the beginning.”
Tesla’s 4680 battery program
Tesla first introduced the dry-electrode concept at Battery Day in 2020, positioning it as a way to eliminate solvent-based electrode drying, shrink factory footprints, and lower capital expenditures. While Tesla has produced 4680 cells for some time, the dry cathode portion of the process proved far more difficult to industrialize than expected.
Together with its confirmation that it is producing 4680 cells in Austin with both electrodes manufactured using the dry process, Tesla has also stated that it has begun producing Model Y vehicles with 4680 battery packs. As per Tesla, this strategy was adopted as a safety layer against trade barriers and tariff risks.
“We have begun to produce battery packs for certain Model Ys with our 4680 cells, unlocking an additional vector of supply to help navigate increasingly complex supply chain challenges caused by trade barriers and tariff risks,” Tesla wrote in its Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
News
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Even Tesla China seems to have caught the Optimus V3 fever, with the electric vehicle maker teasing the impending arrival of the humanoid robot on its official Weibo account.
As per Tesla China, Optimus V3 is “about to be unveiled.”
Tesla China hypes up Optimus V3
Tesla China noted on its Weibo post that Optimus V3 is redesigned from first principles and is capable of learning new tasks by observing human behavior. The company has stated that it is targeting annual production capacity of up to one million humanoid robots once manufacturing scales.
During the Q4 and FY 2025 earnings call, CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla will wind down Model S and Model X production to free up factory space for the pilot production line of Optimus V3.
Musk later noted that Giga Texas should have a significantly larger Optimus line, though that will produce Optimus V4. He also made it a point to set expectations with Optimus’ production ramp, stating that the “normal S curve of manufacturing ramp will be longer for Optimus.”
Tesla China’s potential role
Tesla’s decision to announce the Optimus update on Weibo highlights the importance of the humanoid robot in the company’s global operations. Giga Shanghai is already Tesla’s largest manufacturing hub by volume, and Musk has repeatedly described China’s manufacturers as Tesla’s most legitimate competitors.
While Tesla has not confirmed where Optimus V3 will be produced or deployed first, the scale and efficiency of Gigafactory Shanghai make it a plausible candidate for future humanoid robot manufacturing or in-factory deployment. Musk has also suggested that Optimus could become available for public purchase as early as 2027, as noted in a CNEV Post report.
“It’s going to be a very capable robot. I think long-term Optimus will have a very significant impact on the US GDP. It will actually move the needle on US GDP significantly. In conclusion, there are still many who doubt our ambitions for creating amazing abundance. We are confident it can be done, and we are making the right moves technologically to ensure that it does,” Musk said during the earnings call.
Elon Musk
Tesla director pay lawsuit sees lawyer fees slashed by $100 million
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
The Delaware Supreme Court has cut more than $100 million from a legal fee award tied to a shareholder lawsuit challenging compensation paid to Tesla directors between 2017 and 2020.
The ruling leaves the case’s underlying settlement intact while significantly reducing what the plaintiffs’ attorneys will receive.
Delaware Supreme Court trims legal fees
As noted in a Bloomberg Law report, the case targeted pay granted to Tesla directors, including CEO Elon Musk, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, Kimbal Musk, and Rupert Murdoch. The Delaware Chancery Court had awarded $176 million to the plaintiffs. Tesla’s board must also return stock options and forego years worth of pay.
As per Chief Justice Collins J. Seitz Jr. in an opinion for the Delaware Supreme Court’s full five-member panel, however, the decision of the Delaware Chancery Court to award $176 million to a pension fund’s law firm “erred by including in its financial benefit analysis the intrinsic value” of options being returned by Tesla’s board.
The justices then reduced the fee award from $176 million to $70.9 million. “As we measure it, $71 million reflects a reasonable fee for counsel’s efforts and does not result in a windfall,” Chief Justice Seitz wrote.
Other settlement terms still intact
The Supreme Court upheld the settlement itself, which requires Tesla’s board to return stock and options valued at up to $735 million and to forgo three years of additional compensation worth about $184 million.
Tesla argued during oral arguments that a fee award closer to $70 million would be appropriate. Interestingly enough, back in October, Justice Karen L. Valihura noted that the $176 award was $60 million more than the Delaware judiciary’s budget from the previous year. This was quite interesting as the case was “settled midstream.”
The lawsuit was brought by a pension fund on behalf of Tesla shareholders and focused exclusively on director pay during the 2017–2020 period. The case is separate from other high-profile compensation disputes involving Elon Musk.
Elon Musk explains why Tesla’s 4680 battery breakthrough is a big deal
Even Tesla China is feeling the Optimus V3 fever
