Connect with us

News

Elon Musk’s flamethrower gets reprieve in CA after lawmaker’s bill falls through

Published

on

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

Advertisement
-->

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.

Advertisement
-->

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.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Diner becomes latest target of gloom and doom narrative

Published

on

tesla diner
Credit: Tesla

The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.

The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.

The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.

This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.

Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure

Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.

Advertisement
-->

Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand

This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”

In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.

Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims

  • In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
  • It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain

Advertisement
-->

Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports

While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:

  • A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude

Advertisement
-->
  • Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”

Bottom Line

The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”

It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading

News

Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations

Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.

Published

on

Credit: Patrick Bean | X

Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.

These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).

Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.

Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.

Advertisement
-->

The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.

How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation

Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.

The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.

NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase

First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.

Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.

Advertisement
-->

Preempting State Regulations

A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.

A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.

This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.

Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day

Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.

Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.

Advertisement
-->

Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.

Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.

In Summary

This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.

Continue Reading

News

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo

“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance. 

More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system. 

Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD

Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”

During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:

“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies. 

Advertisement
-->

“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said. 

Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration

Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.

“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.

He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.

“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”

Advertisement
-->

He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.

Continue Reading