Tesla Autopilot continues to be taboo to many people, and it is understandable. In a world where people have absolute control over everything in their life, it is tough to assume many people would be comfortable with their car driving itself. But the issue is, many people, countries, and entities are not willing to give the self-driving characteristic a chance.
Despite Autopilot’s impressive performance figures, Germany announced this week that Tesla could not use the word “Autopilot” in any advertising, because it still requires the driver to remain attentive during its use. But the problem is, Autopilot, in any sense of the word, doesn’t state the vehicle in question can operate entirely on its own. Tesla’s description of the function also requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel at all times in case of an emergency.
But the issue really comes down to the taboo subject of self-driving vehicles. To my surprise, many people outside the Tesla community are still uninformed and misguided on Autopilot’s capabilities. Every time one of my friends or family members see a Tesla, they automatically think it’s driving itself, and the operator is sitting in the passenger seat playing on their phone.
We all know that Autopilot doesn’t work that way. And even though Tesla is head and shoulders above the competition in terms of self-driving capabilities, they still can’t drive themselves, but the company has never indicated that their vehicles are fully autonomous.
The Tesla community knows that.
However, there are groups of people and even entire countries that still seem to believe that Tesla’s Autopilot claims are unrealistic and “misleading.” In reality, the company’s cars do exactly what the electric automaker claims they do.
This is not the first time a country has thrown Autopilot away because Israel altogether outlawed any use of the capability in the past. However, after revisiting the case, Israel government officials got a more concrete understanding of how Autopilot works, and they allowed the use of the feature by vehicles that were capable of using it.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
In my opinion, everyone who is skeptical of Autopilot, especially those who are government officials, should be required to undergo a crash course of the feature and take a ride in a Tesla vehicle while it is using the characteristic.
However, there is something even more surprising to me personally about all of the taboo there is surrounding Autopilot. More of it is from Tesla skeptics and TSLAQ, but you rarely hear about Autopilot navigating through tricky road layouts on mainstream media outlets. It is more about Tesla vehicles that were using Autopilot, ending up in accidents.
Teslarati has covered a series of examples of Autopilot navigating plenty of interesting terrains and situations with relative ease. We cover accidents, too, but we clarify how they occurred. For example, this past week, a Model S collided with a State Trooper and an Ambulance. However, the driver was under suspicion for DUI, although it has not yet been confirmed.
Autopilot is a way for drivers to take the stress out of driving. I know, personally, that I don’t like driving very much. I was in two car accidents in high school, I was not the driver in either instance. Along with seeing accidents on I-95 near Baltimore and other winding backroads near my house, drivers scare me, and I rarely trust anyone operating a car that I’m in.
I would feel safer if Autopilot was operating every car on the road. Not only would the cars get better every single day because of Tesla’s Neural Net, but people wouldn’t be so unpredictable with their driving behavior, and I genuinely believe we all would be much better off.
In the past, technological advancements have been second-guessed. At one time, NASA launched a spaceship to the Moon, and it used less technology than an iPhone. Things advance and opinions change on something. People are going to eventually warm up to the idea of a car driving itself, and there is a chance that even the most vocal skeptics of the self-driving car movement will ultimately utilize the capability to get them from Point A to Point B.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
