News
MyTeslaWeekend & James Stephenson debunk a lot of nonsense surrounding Tesla
MyTeslaWeekend and James Stephenson shared a deep dive into the nonsense and misinformation surrounding Tesla. And they debunked each one. There always seems to be Tesla critics who take things a bit too far. MyTeslaWeekend didn’t hold back. In the video’s description, he said,
“These guys use some really dishonest math. They deduct from one side without accounting for the other. They count something for GM or Stellantis, but not Tesla. They move numbers between columns as if that’s how accounting works. They’re lying liars. Not James’ words, but mine.”
Some of the topics they covered included zero-emissions vehicles (ZEV) credits not being taxpayer money, General Motors (GM) only selling 26 Evs in the last quarter of 2021, Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s actual compensation accounting, the pump and dump myth, and so much more.
ZEV Credits Are Not Taxpayer Money
James pointed out that some people seem to think ZEV credits are taxpayer money when this is not the case.
“Some people get the wrong-headed notion that regulatory credits are a stipend from the government; that governments are giving you taxpayer money. And that is not what’s going on at all. The money you’re making is from selling to your competitors who did not produce enough electric vehicles to comply with applicable law.”
The money, he added is for competitors who don’t want to pay fines to the government for non-compliance.
GM Only Sold 26 Evs In Q4 2021
Despite President Biden’s claim that GM is the EV leader, the automaker only sold 26 EVs in Q4 2021.
“In Q4 of 2021, General Motors sold 26 electric vehicles. They sold 25 Volts and they sold one electric Hummer, I believe, to Mary Barra. I think she was the buyer of the one electric Hummer.”
Tesla, he added, sold over 300,000 electric vehicles.
Elon Musk’s Compensation
Elon Musk as CEO of Tesla doesn’t take a salary and James added that he doesn’t get any cash bonus.
“Most CEOs do have either or both of those as part of their compensation package.”
“What Elon said was, ‘hey if I can’t grow the revenue and the market capitalization of this company, the value of people’s investments in this company by tremendous amounts, you don’t owe me anything. I’ll make zero dollars if I can’t do those things.”
James further explained how the gap accounting treatment works.
“As Elon made progress towards achieving those aggressive goals that I just outlined, Tesla had to record expense relative to the proportion to the twelves tranches that Elon was making progress towards achieving.”
“This is not widely understood. So, another thing that we saw in Q1 of 2022, the most recently reported quarter was ‘Tslaq’ crying foul over the reduction in SG&A year-over-year”
He pointed out that this group, ‘Tslaq’ which is mostly responsible for a lot of the misinformation against Tesla, said that last year, the number was larger than this year. So by the logic of this group, Tesla must be committing fraud.
“‘It has to be fraud. There’s no way your SG&A could have come down by that much year-over-year.’ Well, it’s because a year ago, Elon was still making tons of progress towards achieving these market cap and revenue and even milestones. And this year, the work’s done already. It was almost completely achieved by the end of 2021. So there’s almost nothing left to pay against it.”
‘Elon Musk is a Pump and Dump’ Myth
MyTeslaWeekend shared his biggest pet peeve that he sees all the time which is the constant claim that Elon Musk is nothing but a pump and dump. James shared his thoughts.
“He owns more shares now than he did a year ago or two years ago. And he’s probably going to buy more shares if he can extricate himself from the Twitter situation. So, he still owns more Twitter stock than anybody else does right now. Far more than the people on Twitter’s board combined.”
Elon Musk is also often accused of pumping and dumping Dogecoin however he hasn’t sold his Doge. In fact, he’s recently reaffirmed his support of Doge. In addition to Doge, and Tesla, some critics have claimed Elon has pumped and dumped SpaceX stock and MyTeslaWeekend pointed out that this isn’t a publicly traded stock.
Debunking the nonsense is something that is done on a regular basis and the video, I think is a gem in the treasure box. You can watch the full video below.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
