News
The case for Tesla to operate multiple car factories in the US has never been stronger
The recent controversial events surrounding Tesla and its main electric vehicle production plant in Fremont, CA, is one that will likely have repercussions on the company’s future. But beyond the controversy, the recent events surrounding Fremont highlight one key point: it is in Tesla’s best interests to ensure that its vehicle production facilities will no longer be exclusive to one state.
The Fremont factory and Alameda County’s insistence on keeping it closed has resulted in Tesla filing a case against the county. So far, the mayor of the City of Fremont and the City Palo Alto have sided with Tesla, and Elon Musk has remarked that the company’s HQ and future projects will be relocated to other sites, such as Gigafactory Nevada and a Texas site. In the midst of this all is a County Public Health Officer who has reportedly ignored Tesla’s efforts at proposing a reopening plan for the Fremont factory.
What is pretty ironic is the fact that among the carmakers currently operating a production facility in the United States, Tesla is arguably the most experienced in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. The electric car maker has successfully dealt with the virus in Shanghai, and following a government-mandated shutdown, Tesla was able to return to regular operations gradually. Once reopened, Gigafactory Shanghai adopted a series of serious anti-coronavirus strategies that helped the company’s workers stay safe despite the pandemic. Tesla intends to do the same in Fremont, if not more.
For now, reopening the Fremont factory will likely be the result of pressure on the county or a serious stroke of fortune that would allow Tesla and the County Public Health Officer eye-to-eye. Each of these requires more than its own stroke of luck, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. That is, if Tesla has multiple electric vehicle production facilities in the United States. If Tesla has another factory in the US located in an area that is more supportive of the company, it would not have to go through legal means to reopen its primary production facility.
Tesla’s next facility will likely be located in Texas, and so far, Sen. Ted Cruz has stated on Twitter that the state is fully behind the electric car maker. Texas actually makes sense for Tesla, especially considering that SpaceX, Musk’s private space venture, already has a facility in Boca Chica. If speculations prove right, Tesla can very well be building its first Terafactory in the state, which will be making the Cybertruck, and perhaps other vehicles like Model Y and Semi as well.
Tesla is now at a point where it is producing vehicles that are not intended for a small demographic of car buyers. With the advent of the Model 3 and the Model Y, as well as the upcoming Cybertruck, Tesla is taking on the mainstream market, an industry that counts its production numbers in the hundreds of thousands. This means that the company is now poised to meet the juggernauts of the auto industry like General Motors and Volkswagen head-on, provided that it has the resources to do so. It just has to make sure that its vehicle production activities could not be stopped just because of a single factory shutdown.
With this in mind, it may be a good idea for Tesla to expand its vehicle production capabilities far beyond the Texas Gigafactory/Terafactory. Tesla’s vehicle lineup does not end with the Cybertruck, the Roadster, and the Semi, after all. References to a Tesla van have been stated before, and Tesla has also hinted at a vehicle that’s smaller and more affordable than the Model 3. The more successful Tesla gets, and the more advanced the company’s Full Self-Driving suite becomes, the healthier the demand for Tesla’s vehicles will be. To accomplish this, it may be a good idea to look at legacy auto’s playbook for once, and start establishing car factories across the United States.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) fleet passes 8.4 billion cumulative miles
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system has now surpassed 8.4 billion cumulative miles.
The figure appears on Tesla’s official safety page, which tracks performance data for FSD (Supervised) and other safety technologies.
Tesla has long emphasized that large-scale real-world data is central to improving its neural network-based approach to autonomy. Each mile driven with FSD (Supervised) engaged contributes additional edge cases and scenario training for the system.

The milestone also brings Tesla closer to a benchmark previously outlined by CEO Elon Musk. Musk has stated that roughly 10 billion miles of training data may be needed to achieve safe unsupervised self-driving at scale, citing the “long tail” of rare but complex driving situations that must be learned through experience.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable.
As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
With the fleet now past 8.4 billion cumulative miles, Tesla’s supervised system is approaching that threshold, even as regulatory approval for fully unsupervised deployment remains subject to further validation and oversight.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk fires back after Wikipedia co-founder claims neutrality and dubs Grokipedia “ridiculous”
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Elon Musk fired back at Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales after the longtime online encyclopedia leader dismissed xAI’s new AI-powered alternative, Grokipedia, as a “ridiculous” idea that is bound to fail.
Musk’s response to Wales’ comments, which were posted on social media platform X, was short and direct: “Famous last words.”
Wales made the comments while answering questions about Wikipedia’s neutrality. According to Wales, Wikipedia prides itself on neutrality.
“One of our core values at Wikipedia is neutrality. A neutral point of view is non-negotiable. It’s in the community, unquestioned… The idea that we’ve become somehow ‘Wokepidea’ is just not true,” Wales said.
When asked about potential competition from Grokipedia, Wales downplayed the situation. “There is no competition. I don’t know if anyone uses Grokipedia. I think it is a ridiculous idea that will never work,” Wales wrote.
After Grokipedia went live, Larry Sanger, also a co-founder of Wikipedia, wrote on X that his initial impression of the AI-powered Wikipedia alternative was “very OK.”
“My initial impression, looking at my own article and poking around here and there, is that Grokipedia is very OK. The jury’s still out as to whether it’s actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say ‘maybe!’” Sanger stated.
Musk responded to Sanger’s assessment by saying it was “accurate.” In a separate post, he added that even in its V0.1 form, Grokipedia was already better than Wikipedia.
During a past appearance on the Tucker Carlson Show, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has drifted from its original vision, citing concerns about how its “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” framework categorizes publications by perceived credibility. As per Sanger, Wikipedia’s “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list leans heavily left, with conservative publications getting effectively blacklisted in favor of their more liberal counterparts.
As of writing, Grokipedia has reportedly surpassed 80% of English Wikipedia’s article count.
News
Tesla Sweden appeals after grid company refuses to restore existing Supercharger due to union strike
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons.
Tesla Sweden is seeking regulatory intervention after a Swedish power grid company refused to reconnect an already operational Supercharger station in Åre due to ongoing union sympathy actions.
The charging site was previously functioning before it was temporarily disconnected in April last year for electrical safety reasons. A temporary construction power cabinet supplying the station had fallen over, described by Tesla as occurring “under unclear circumstances.” The power was then cut at the request of Tesla’s installation contractor to allow safe repair work.
While the safety issue was resolved, the station has not been brought back online. Stefan Sedin, CEO of Jämtkraft elnät, told Dagens Arbete (DA) that power will not be restored to the existing Supercharger station as long as the electric vehicle maker’s union issues are ongoing.
“One of our installers noticed that the construction power had been backed up and was on the ground. We asked Tesla to fix the system, and their installation company in turn asked us to cut the power so that they could do the work safely.
“When everything was restored, the question arose: ‘Wait a minute, can we reconnect the station to the electricity grid? Or what does the notice actually say?’ We consulted with our employer organization, who were clear that as long as sympathy measures are in place, we cannot reconnect this facility,” Sedin said.
The union’s sympathy actions, which began in March 2024, apply to work involving “planning, preparation, new connections, grid expansion, service, maintenance and repairs” of Tesla’s charging infrastructure in Sweden.
Tesla Sweden has argued that reconnecting an existing facility is not equivalent to establishing a new grid connection. In a filing to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, the company stated that reconnecting the installation “is therefore not covered by the sympathy measures and cannot therefore constitute a reason for not reconnecting the facility to the electricity grid.”
Sedin, for his part, noted that Tesla’s issue with the Supercharger is quite unique. And while Jämtkraft elnät itself has no issue with Tesla, its actions are based on the unions’ sympathy measures against the electric vehicle maker.
“This is absolutely the first time that I have been involved in matters relating to union conflicts or sympathy measures. That is why we have relied entirely on the assessment of our employer organization. This is not something that we have made any decisions about ourselves at all.
“It is not that Jämtkraft elnät has a conflict with Tesla, but our actions are based on these sympathy measures. Should it turn out that we have made an incorrect assessment, we will correct ourselves. It is no more difficult than that for us,” the executive said.