News
Destroying Tesla stores partially acceptable, says nearly 40% of U.S. study’s respondents
It appears that a growing number of people are willing to justify or even applaud the idea of killing people like Elon Musk or Donald Trump.
A study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed a rather disturbing trend in the United States. Based on the study, it appears that a growing number of people are willing to justify or even applaud the idea of killing people like Elon Musk or Donald Trump. A notable number of the study’s respondents also stated that they find it partially acceptable to destroy Tesla stores as a form of protest.
The NCRI Study
The NCRI’s study was initiated to determine people’s support for political violence. As per the organization, calls for political violence towards people like Trump and Musk are becoming increasingly normalized. The same is true for property destruction, such as the firebombing of Tesla stores and Superchargers and the vandalism of consumer vehicles.
For its study, the NCRI surveyed 1,264 U.S. residents, balanced to reflect census data on race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. Respondents were then asked demographic information, political identity, several political and psychological scales, and questions concerning their acceptance of specific forms of political violence.
Musk, Tesla, and Trump
Some troubling trends emerged from the study, including the fact that 57.6% of respondents who self-identified as left of center stated that destroying Tesla dealerships is partially acceptable. Even more disturbing was the fact that 48.6% of respondents who self-identified as left of center reported that if someone murdered Elon Musk, they would at least be somewhat justified. For U.S. President Donald Trump, this number was higher at 55.2%.
Without isolating respondents who self-identified as left of center, 39.8% of the study’s respondents still stated that destroying Tesla stores is partially acceptable, 31.6% still stated that killing Elon Musk was somewhat justified, and 38.5% still stated that killing Donald Trump was somewhat justified.
What the NCRI Says
Joel Finkelstein, the lead author of the NCRI’s study, stated that an “assassination culture” of sorts is emerging, especially following the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the hands of Luigi Mangione in December 2024. As could be seen in social media activity of people against Musk or Trump, calls for the assassination of the CEO and President are abounding among their harshest critics.
“What was formerly taboo culturally has become acceptable. We are seeing a clear shift – glorification, increased attempts, and changing norms – all converging into what we define as ‘assassination culture.’ It’s not just Luigi anymore. We’re seeing an expansion: Trump, Musk and others are now being openly discussed as legitimate targets, often cloaked in meme culture and gamified online dialogue,” Finkelstein stated.
Below is a video about the NCRI’s study.
And below is the NCRI’s study itself.
-
NCRI Assassination Culture Brief by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Elon Musk has updated his timeline for when humans will walk on Mars and for when ships will simply get there.
The objective of getting to Mars has been one of Musk’s biggest goals since becoming a serial entrepreneur and realizing that time on Earth is limited. Musk has said several times he hopes to die on Mars, and not by impact.
Musk now believes that people will be on Mars in “roughly 5 to 7 years.” He said that a Mars lander will get there “a few years sooner.”
People on Mars in roughly 5 to 7 years.
Mars lander a few years sooner.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2026
The response from Musk comes after NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said that SpaceX’s biggest priority is the Moon and not Mars. Because of this, Isaacman conceded that he believes nuclear power and propulsion investments will provide “potentially the pathway with the fewest miracles required to put four people on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years.”
Of course, this is what NASA can do through taxpayer funding and nuclear investments, he added.
Musk’s grand ambitions are much more optimistic than most, and it is certainly a double-edged sword. This is not the first time timelines for Mars have been somewhat lofty, especially to those normal thinkers like you and me, not super geniuses like Musk.
In fact, the SpaceX and Tesla frontman has said on at least a dozen occasions that we could be on Mars in the coming years. Musk said 2020 would be the big year as early as 2009. In 2020, he was “highly confident” of a landing in 2026, and had even said 2024 in a best-case scenario.
The point is, the range has varied, and it’s anyone’s guess when we’ll get there. This latest adjustment to the timeline is typical of Musk, and while the Moon has seemingly taken priority over Mars, it is still worth mentioning that the ultimate goal is to make life multiplanetary, and it starts potentially with the Red Planet.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) got an absolutely crazy price target rating from Raymond James after the company experienced a tough first few weeks following its Initial Public Offering (IPO).
Despite the tumultuous start, SpaceX has plenty of believers, and the company’s massively successful Starship launch last Friday, its 13th test flight of the massive rocket, went so smoothly that Raymond James analysts pushed its price target on the company to roughly 7 times its current trading level.
SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before
The firm officially put a “Strong Buy” rating and an $800 price target on the stock. It currently trades at around $113. Its all-time high is $225.64, reaching this trading level shortly after shares first went public.
Raymond James’ price target is tied to the firm’s confidence after Starship’s 13th test flight. Analysts at the firm said it was an incremental step that reduces engineering risks, citing the widely successful heat shield test that CEO Elon Musk recently detailed, the smooth deployment of Starlink V3 satellites, and a successful in-space engine relight.
SpaceX also managed to see Starship splash down safely in the Indian Ocean, while the Super Heavy Booster fell down to the Gulf of America with no incidents.
It is interesting to see these launches have such a tremendous impact on the stock and what investors think of it. After SpaceX initially delayed the Starship launch last week, shares fell tremendously. Most probably did not realize that the stand-down is a standard practice, especially if everything is not perfect.
The mission was initially aborted due to an issue with Raptor engines. This was resolved, and Starship launched last Friday after another delay on Thursday, which was caused by weather.
Now that analysts have seen what SpaceX launches are capable of and how impressive the feat is, firms are adjusting their price targets accordingly, making it known that they have high expectations for the space exploration company.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has responded to reports that Volvo is officially discontinuing the LiDAR sensor on two of its cars.
Volvo announced that it would officially scrap LiDAR systems on its EX90 and ES90 vehicles in various markets. In Norway, owners will get a €1,800 compensation for features that will never arrive due to this decision. There will be no option to remove the unit from vehicles, either.
The issue stems from Volvo’s supplier, Luminar, and its bankruptcy filing. Luminar will no longer be able to supply LiDAR units to Volvo for the EX90 and ES90, effectively axing any use the unit has on vehicles. Volvo will phase out the data collection processes via the LiDAR system, and it will not be utilized whatsoever.
Musk saw the story on X and responded, stating:
“I did try to warn them. Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.”
I did try to warn them.
Humans drive using neural nets and optical sensors. Same is true for robot cars.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2026
Musk has been publicly vocal about his disdain for LiDAR systems, once calling them “a fool’s errand,” as he has consistently kept the outlook that they are not needed for effective self-driving.
The typical example used as evidence for this by Musk is humans themselves: made with only eyes and memories, humans are capable of navigating a car by using what they can see and what they’ve personally experienced on the road.
Elon Musk argues lidar and radar make self driving cars more dangerous
“Same is true for robot cars,” Musk says, as Teslas have eight exterior cameras that help see everything surrounding the vehicle, and a neural network that analyzes behavior and tendencies with every mile driven.
Tesla is a vision-only self-driving company that ditched sensors and radar several years ago in favor of cameras. Behind this effort, the company has established a reputation for having one of the most robust self-driving platforms in the world.
Musk’s big bet with Tesla on its self-driving program’s strategy has widely paid off. Other companies continue to utilize things like LiDAR, radar, and sensors for effective self-driving, but Tesla has shown that there is more than one way to give consumers a strong and accurate driver assistance suite.
The real question is: who will be the first company to take Musk’s advice and attempt a self-driving platform based on cameras only, or even license FSD for themselves?
Elon Musk updates the SpaceX timeline for Mars
SpaceX gets an absolutely crazy price target after rough IPO
