News
Could Elon Musk tweet for all of eternity? Digital avatar technology could make it happen
Digital avatars are a blend of science fiction and our current reality, but where is that line drawn, really? Imagine the current minds behind today’s most promising technologies and businesses leaving electronic copies of themselves so that, rather than just existing in nostalgic memories, they could continue contributing to the global conversation for all of digital eternity.
That’s right. The tweets of Elon Musk wouldn’t just be archived for historic perusal. He’d still be tweeting (or opining on a similar platform) long after his great-great-great-grandchildren were graduating from high school on Mars.
Of course, that particular goal could likely be achieved with minimal coding effort utilizing a dataset of his public comments, but that’s not all digital avatar technology is proposing. Imagine being able to approach Elon for personalized business advice, his opinion on a proposed carbon regulation, or thoughts on the name of an off-planet colony, all without the real magnate (magnet?) being directly involved in the conversation – or even alive, for that matter.
MIT Technology Review recently published an article featuring Augmented Eternity, a company developing an application which will host digital personas based on its customers that can be interacted with posthumously. For example, a customer’s business persona could give advice on a corporate deal, and a private persona could be involved with family matters. Utilizing personal data analyzed by artificial intelligence to achieve its goals, Augmented Eternity isn’t the only business on the market for this kind of digital interactivity.
Eternime wants you to live forever as a digital version of your after you die. [Credit: Eterni.me]
The company Eterni.me describes its services as a collection of “your thoughts, stories and memories, curate[d] [into] an intelligent avatar that looks like you…[because]…we all pass away, sooner or later…eventually, we are all forgotten.” Another company with a focus on the living over the dead, ObEN, describes its product as “Personal Artificial Intelligence (PAI)” comprising “personalized digital avatars [that] look, sound, sing, and behave like you…capable of performing a variety of useful tasks.” With its product being a “verified intelligent 3D avatar…perform[ing] activities on your behalf”, ObEN takes direct aim at increasing present day productivity, i.e., benefitting the customer while they are alive.
Admittedly, the idea of storing personal data for use in an artificial intelligence environment isn’t a new one. The concept of creating an avatar embodying the personality of any person has at least been floating around since science fiction envisioned separating human minds from their bodies. One of the notable recent imaginings in entertainment of this concept was seen in the episode, “Be Right Back” from the British science fiction series, “Black Mirror”. In the episode, a widow is able to recreate her dead partner, first as a type of chat box, then a telephone personality, and finally a corporeal being, all by using data obtained via his public electronic records.
-->Another recent and compelling imagining of this scenario is found in the series, “Caprica”, wherein a teenage girl’s father uploads a sentient avatar of his dead daughter into an advanced robot. The sentience, perhaps, is the factor that makes the software most dangerous, and the avatar’s actions throughout the series confirm this concern. Danger and advanced artificial intelligence are two concepts that seem to come wrapped up in one another, and here we come full circle back to Elon Musk.
When asked what he sees about AI that others with less concern about its future do, Elon replied, “Smart people…define themselves by their intelligence and…they don’t like the idea that a machine could be way smarter than them, so they discount the idea…it’s the wishful thinking situation.” Having also posited that AI is more dangerous than nuclear warheads, there’s no mistaking his position that more care is needed towards the safety of its advancement.
Another major concern of Elon’s, however, is an extinction-level event which will end humanity, and this concern is part of what drives his and SpaceX’s mission towards colonization of Mars. Could digital avatars be a place where concerns and prospects find common ground? Aside from physically relocating part of humanity to another planet to ensure its long-term survival, encapsulating humanity in digital (smarter?) form as proposed by avatar companies might be another way to ensure the legacy of the species, not just individual customers.
Then again, if we’re all living in a simulation to begin with, digitizing our personas may just be completing the predicted circle of life. Stay tuned – the future of tech moves fast.
-->
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
-->It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
-->The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
-->News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
