News
Elon Musk roasts WSJ coverage of fatal Tesla crash, defends Autopilot
Tesla CEO Elon Musk roasted the Wall Street Journal for their coverage of the crash that killed two men involving a 2019 Model S. Mainstream media reports claimed that the vehicle was “driverless” in an attempt to cast bad press on Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems. Musk shared new details regarding the vehicle involved, revealing that the car was not subscribed to the Full Self-Driving program, a voluntary purchase made by Tesla owners, nor could it have been operating on Autopilot due to a lack of road lines.
Musk, in a reply to a skeptical Twitter user who didn’t believe a media outlet’s coverage of the accident, said:
“Data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled & this car did not purchase FSD. Moreover, standard Autopilot would require lane lines to turn on, which this street did not have.”
Tesla alleged “driverless” crash in Texas: What is known so far
The Wall Street Journal reported the story with the headline “Fatal Tesla Crash in Texas Believed to Be Driverless.” This uses the automatic association that Tesla electric vehicles have with self-driving programs. However, Tesla does not, nor has it ever claimed to have a self-driving vehicle or software that would make a car drive without the driver needing to pay attention. Tesla has a suite called Full Self-Driving (FSD) but has maintained that it is still the driver’s responsibility to pay attention to the road and abide by all road rules. The FSD suite is available for $10,000 and can be purchased at any time.
Your research as a private individual is better than professionals @WSJ!
Data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled & this car did not purchase FSD.
Moreover, standard Autopilot would require lane lines to turn on, which this street did not have.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2021
However, the vehicle involved in the accident was not subscribed to the FSD program. Tesla keeps records of its cars and can track whether any car has FSD or not. Musk claims that data logs that have been recovered thus far show that the involved vehicle did not have FSD.
Additionally, Tesla’s basic Autopilot suite, which now comes standard on every vehicle, would not have been able to function with the road conditions presented in the area of the accident. Standard Autopilot requires road lines to be functional. This road was unmarked, so Tesla’s basic Autopilot feature would not have been active. It’s impossible.
Unfortunately, Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving suites are usually the first points of blame when an accident occurs. When Tesla’s are involved in violent or fatal accidents, they are very publicly covered by media outlets. It only adds fuel to the skeptic’s fire against the FSD and self-driving programs that Tesla is currently working on completing. In the past, Elon Musk has stated that Tesla may accomplish Level 5 autonomy by the end of 2021, but the CEO and the company have never claimed that a Tesla vehicle can drive itself. The company has also enforced several barriers that would prevent a driver from letting the vehicle operate independently. If a driver does not keep their hands on the steering wheel while the car is in motion, the vehicle will automatically pull over, and Autopilot will be deactivated for the remainder of the drive.
The company also has revoked FSD access to some drivers after abusing the capabilities of the software and not handling it responsibly.
This should dismiss the idea that AP was somehow the cause of this horrific incident. I pray for the family and friends of the deceased. Let’s trust the real investigators will discover what really happened here. pic.twitter.com/0tp8Vbh6fH
— Mikey Likes (@mliebow) April 18, 2021
Reports indicate that the NHTSA has launched an investigation into the Texas crash to determine the cause of the fatal collision.
Tesla recently released its Q1 2021 Safety Report, which showed that cars operating on Autopilot are nearly ten times safer than cars that are being operated by a humans.
Elon Musk
SpaceX to launch Starlink V2 satellites on Starship starting 2027
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls.
SpaceX is looking to start launching its next-generation Starlink V2 satellites in mid-2027 using Starship.
The update was shared by SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink Vice President Mike Nicolls during remarks at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, Spain.
“With Starship, we’ll be able to deploy the constellation very quickly,” Nicolls stated. “Our goal is to deploy a constellation capable of providing global and contiguous coverage within six months, and that’s roughly 1,200 satellites.”
Nicolls added that once Starship is operational, it will be capable of launching approximately 50 of the larger, more powerful Starlink satellites at a time, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
The initial deployment of roughly 1,200 next-generation satellites is intended to establish global and contiguous coverage. After that phase, SpaceX plans to continue expanding the system to reach “truly global coverage, including the polar regions,” Nicolls said.
Currently, all Starlink satellites are launched on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket. The next-generation fleet will rely on Starship, which remains in development following a series of test flights in 2025. SpaceX is targeting its next Starship test flight, featuring an upgraded version of the rocket, as soon as this month.
Starlink is currently the largest satellite network in orbit, with nearly 10,000 satellites deployed. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates the business could generate approximately $9 billion in revenue for SpaceX in 2026.
Nicolls also confirmed that SpaceX is rebranding its direct-to-cell service as Starlink Mobile.
The service currently operates with 650 satellites capable of connecting directly to smartphones and has approximately 10 million monthly active users. SpaceX expects that figure to exceed 25 million monthly active users by the end of 2026.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s xAI and X to pay off $17.5B debt in full: report
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Elon Musk’s social platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI are reportedly preparing to repay approximately $17.5 billion in outstanding debt in full.
The update was shared initially in a report from Bloomberg News, which cited people reportedly familiar with the matter.
Morgan Stanley, which arranged the debt financing for both companies, has reportedly informed existing lenders that X and xAI plan to pay back the full amount of the $17.5 billion debt. Bloomberg’s sources did not disclose where the capital for the repayment would be coming from.
X, formerly known as Twitter, assumed roughly $12.5 billion in debt during Musk’s acquisition of the company. xAI separately borrowed about $5 billion through bonds and loans last June. The two firms merged last year under xAI Holdings.
Bloomberg noted that portions of the debt are relatively recent and may carry early repayment penalties. xAI’s $3 billion in high-yield bonds are expected to be redeemed at 117 cents on the dollar, reflecting a premium since the debt was expected to stay outstanding for at least two years.
X has been servicing tens of millions of dollars in monthly debt payments, while xAI has reportedly been burning approximately $1 billion in cash per month as it invests heavily in data centers, chips, and AI talent. That being said, xAI also concluded a funding round in January, where it raised $20 billion of new equity.
The repayment plans come as Musk consolidates several of his businesses. SpaceX recently acquired xAI, making it a subsidiary as the company explores plans for space-based data centers. The combined entity has been valued at approximately $1.25 trillion.
Bloomberg previously reported that SpaceX is targeting a confidential IPO filing as soon as this month, potentially positioning the private space firm for a public listing later this year. Representatives for Morgan Stanley declined to comment, and X and xAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin head calls out Handelsblatt’s claimed 2025 production figures
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
Tesla Gigafactory Berlin’s plant manager has publicly pushed back against recent reporting by German business publication Handelsblatt, which cited reportedly erroneous data about the factory’s production figures and financial performance.
Andre Thierig, Senior Director of Manufacturing at Giga Berlin, published a detailed post on LinkedIn challenging several points made in the publication’s coverage of the Grünheide facility.
In his LinkedIn post, Thierig called out Handelsblatt’s claim that 149,000 Model Y vehicles were produced at Giga Berlin in 2025. He noted that “the article is simply filled from front to back with false information and claims!
“I have to set the record straight here! In the last article about Tesla in Grünheide, the Handelsblatt speaks e.g. of 149,000 Model Ys built in 2025. WRONG!
“In 2025, we again produced over 200,000 vehicles. And this despite the fact that we stopped production in Q1 for the changeover to the new Model Y and then ramped it up again to 5,000 units per week over several weeks,” Thierig wrote.
He added that production increased each quarter in 2025 compared to the prior quarter and stated that more than 700,000 Model Y units have been produced at Grünheide since manufacturing began in 2022. For the first quarter of 2026, he stated that the factory is planning another production increase compared to the fourth quarter of 2025.
Thierig also questioned Handelsblatt’s reported 0.74% profit margin, writing that how the publication calculated the figure “remains reserved for their secret ‘calculation skills.’”
Beyond production data, Thierig highlighted Tesla’s broader footprint in Germany, stating that the company has invested more than €5 billion in Grünheide since 2020 and created nearly 11,000 permanent, above-tariff jobs. He added that Tesla is currently investing nearly €100 million into battery cell production at the site, which is expected to generate several hundred additional positions.
In a follow-up comment, Thierig noted that he did communicate with the publication’s editor-in-chief in an effort to “start fresh,” but he was informed that Handelsblatt’s current approach works just fine.
“Last year, I spoke to a representative of the Handelsblatt editor-in-chief and suggested that we “start anew” again. Handelsblatt turned down this offer on the grounds that their current approach works well for them,” Thierig noted.
Sönke Iwersen, Head of Investigative Research at Handelsblatt, responded to Thierig’s post, stating that the newspaper’s figures were based on Tesla’s own annual financial statements for the Grünheide entity.
He cited reported 2024 revenue of €7.68 billion, operating profit of €156.8 million, and net income after taxes of €55.6 million. Iwersen also referenced prior public comments from Elon Musk about Cybertruck demand, noting the gap between reported pre-orders and subsequent annual sales figures.
He also stated that the works council election eligibility figures Giga Berlin had dropped to 10,703 employees today from 12,415 two years ago.
“As far as production figures are concerned, these are figures from the data service provider Inovev. This is also stated in the article. Please compare this with Elon Musk’s information on demand for the Cybertruck. According to Musk, there were one million pre-orders. In the first year, 39,000 units were sold, in the second year 20,000. How can this be explained? With a million pre-orders?
“You yourself have repeatedly pointed out in recent months that no jobs would be cut in Grünheide because Tesla is different from the competition. Now a new works council is being elected in Grünheide. 10,703 people are eligible to vote. Two years ago, 12,415 people were eligible to vote. So there were exactly 1712 fewer from 2024 to 2026,” Iwersen wrote.