News
Tesla Fandom: Terrific or Toxic?
Tesla fans are passionate people, and it does not take a very vast amount of time to realize that. The brand itself has a certain appeal to it, and those who own the company’s most elusive products, like the 2008 Roadster, have about as much passion as those who own the $35,000 Model 3 variant. People love their Tesla products forward and backward. Usually, enthusiasm for a car company lies within the diehards that “supe” their cars up or are lifelong purchasers of the same manufacturer for a lifetime. For example, some people swear by Ford trucks, so much so that they will put a sticker on their rear windshield of a cartoon urinating on a Chevrolet logo.
The toxicity of brand loyalty lies in every camp. There is a point where loving a company you openly support comes to be too much, and your passions get in the way of being a responsible human being and considering other points of view. This is something I have noticed with some Tesla fans who are willing to attack other automakers and enthusiasts of different brands, and it seems to be based on the fact that there is a disagreement on which car company is superior.
To be clear, I think that there are a lot of amazing people in this community. I, personally, have learned a lot about Tesla vehicles in my year (so far) at Teslarati. When I came into this role as a transportation writer, I had very limited knowledge, and I considered myself to be a novice in terms of what was going on in the Tesla world. I was right.
Now, I consider myself to be an expert on the topic, but I am certainly not all-knowing, and that is okay. I continue to learn a lot from the people who have surrounded me throughout my journey as a writer, and a lot of the time, it is because many influencers in this sector are supportive, smart, and genuinely nice people.
However, there is a small selection of people in the EV community that are vicious and have let their passion for an electric car company overtake their humility. I feel that a disagreement or argument every once in a while is okay. However, having these ugly communications back and forth, on what seems to be a daily basis, is what is making a bad name for the Tesla community.
Earlier this week, Complex, a popular media and lifestyle outlet, shared the news that CEO Elon Musk had become the fourth richest man in the world. When scrolling through the replies on the Tweet that was shared, I noticed someone stating that Elon “doesn’t care about anyone but himself,” and “hasn’t done anything to help humans.”
This is where I got involved, merely stating that Elon’s mission, as described in the Tesla Master Plan, was to help humans.
This person and I traded several Tweets back and forth, and it got to the point where we both realized that minds were not going to be changed. I talked about Tesla Solar, and how it is three-times less expensive than the U.S. average, Elon’s mission as a philanthropist and entrepreneur, and I also debunked a few EV myths, like Teslas are not capable of towing or hauling.
My adversary, on the other hand, never made a relevant point. It was a discussion full of red herrings, and I decided that it was likely a waste of my time to continue. It never went past 4-5 messages to each other. The conversation simply ended, nobody was blocked, nobody was called a name, communication just halted.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
This is not something that I see very often when writing articles about other car companies. Nor do I see it when someone with a sizeable following Tweets a supportive message about an up-and-coming car company. For example, when Lucid had stated it had achieved a 517-mile EPA estimated range rating, the comments were “Make a car first,” and “Who cares.” Things of that nature.
I understand the frustration with car companies always gunning for Tesla, but how is competition a bad thing? How is the fact that all of these other car companies vocally admitting that Tesla is the benchmark a bad thing? I can’t find the answer.
Yes, Lucid needs to produce a car for the public. Yes, 517 miles is a lot of range, but we do need to see it on a production vehicle that will be delivered to a customer. Those are all reasonable assessments, but why does Lucid need to be attacked? They’re making electric cars, not gas ones. Isn’t that what this whole thing is all about?
At one point, Tesla was the “new kid on the block.” It was a little known, scrappy company looking to make a name for itself. It had its fair share of problems, and it worked through them. Other car companies are experiencing the same things Tesla did years ago. But when Tesla was new and fresh, gas car enthusiasts were saying, “Who cares,” and “They should make a car that works first.” Here we are today, over a million vehicles later, and ramping up to a yearly production rate that far exceeded anyone’s wildest imagination.
It is almost ironic to me that the same things that came out of ICE enthusiast mouths are coming out of Tesla fan’s mouths now. The Tesla loyalty is a good thing, to an extent, but it should never outshine the fact that competition is good. It should never outshine the fact that other car companies are working on getting rid of gas-powered engines. It should never outshine the fact that the global fight against toxic carbon emissions is slowly but surely turning in our favor.
There is an old saying that goes, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it at all.” I think many of us should remember this from time to time. If there is a disagreement with someone that occurs online, understand that points of view are rarely going to line up identically. Understand that people are going to think your opinions are ridiculous. Lastly, realize that someone disagreeing with you is an opportunity for you to expand your mind and learn something new. A conversation with someone who holds opposite opinions or points of view is sometimes the healthiest thing for the human spirit. There is a lot of evidence that suggests being around “Yes men/women” is a bad thing. Humans grow on adversity, and there is nothing worse than being around a bunch of people who you have everything in common with. Sometimes, it is helpful to mix it up and hear things that you don’t necessarily agree with.
So next time you catch someone online, and they’re saying something that seems to challenge your beliefs, take a minute and think about what they are saying. Does it make sense, or is their idea full of misleading and incorrect information? In the case of the short conversation I had earlier this week, I recognized that what this person was saying was false based on Elon’s merit and what he has done for the world thus far in his career.
Don’t block or put someone on blast because they said something controversial to you. I would imagine a healthier way to end the conversation is to simply say, “I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.” Calling someone names is childish, and stooping to the level they are taking if they begin calling you names makes you no better than they are. There’s a reason that it is called “taking the high road.”
Tesla’s mission is about sustaining life as we know it on Earth, or perhaps, on Mars. However, if we do not learn to cherish and respect views that differ from our own, our civilization will never make it. Breaking through boundaries and listening to points of view that are not necessarily on par with what we believe is sometimes the best thing for us. Even if you leave a conversation thinking, “That person has no clue what they’re talking about,” there are a series of benefits. You walked away respectfully. You learned that you and that person aren’t compatible. Lastly, you realized that there are people in the world that are the polar opposite to you. Those are just a few that come to mind.
I find it extremely important, especially at such a trying time in our world, that we respect one another as best as we can. Whether you’re a Tesla fan, Rivian fan, or a Lucid fan, be kind to one another. We are all in this together, and the push toward sustainable transportation is growing due to the efforts of each and every one of the companies that decided to manufacture EVs.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
SpaceX has revealed the date for the maiden voyage of Starship v3, its newest and most advanced version of the rocket yet.
Starship v3 represents a significant leap forward. At 124 meters tall when fully stacked, it stands taller than previous versions and boasts substantial upgrades.
The vehicle incorporates next-generation Raptor 3 engines, which deliver higher thrust, improved reliability, and simplified designs with fewer parts. Both the Super Heavy booster (Booster 19) and the Starship upper stage (Ship 39) feature these enhancements, along with structural improvements for greater payload capacity—exceeding 100 metric tons to low Earth orbit in reusable configuration.
SpaceX and its CEO Elon Musk have announced that the company aims to push the first launch of Starship v3 this Thursday. Musk included some clips of past Starship launches with the announcement.
Now targeting launch as early as Thursday, May 21 → https://t.co/2gZQUxS6mm
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) May 19, 2026
First Starship V3 launch later this week! pic.twitter.com/JFX4CrSfnY
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 19, 2026
There are a lot of improvements to Starship v3 from past builds. Key hardware changes include a more robust heat shield, upgraded avionics, and modifications optimized for orbital refueling, a critical technology for future missions to the Moon and Mars. This flight marks the first launch from Starbase’s second orbital pad, allowing parallel operations and accelerating the cadence of tests.
This will be the 12th Starship launch for SpaceX. Flight 12 objectives include a full ascent profile, hot-staging separation, in-space engine relights, and reentry testing. The booster is expected to perform a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, while the ship will deploy 20 Starlink simulator satellites and a pair of modified Starlink V3 units before attempting reentry.
Success would validate V3’s design for operational use, paving the way for rapid reusability and higher flight rates.
The rapid evolution from V2 to V3 underscores SpaceX’s iterative approach. Previous flights demonstrated booster catches, ship landings, and heat shield advancements. V3 builds on these with nearly every component refined, supported by an expanding production line at Starbase that churns out vehicles at an unprecedented pace.
Starship V3 is here putting SpaceX closer to Mars than it has ever been
This launch comes amid growing momentum for SpaceX’s ambitious goals. Starship is central to NASA’s Artemis program for lunar landings and Elon Musk’s vision of making humanity multiplanetary. A successful V3 debut would boost confidence in achieving orbital refueling and crewed missions in the coming years.
As excitement builds, enthusiasts and engineers alike await liftoff. Weather and technical readiness will determine the exact timing, but the community is optimistic. Starship V3 is poised to push the boundaries of spaceflight once again, bringing reusable interplanetary transport closer to reality.
Elon Musk broke his silence regarding the jury decision to throw out the case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. The Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI frontman has already indicated that an appeal will be filed regarding the decision, which went against him yesterday.
A Federal jury dismissed this high-profile lawsuit after less than two hours of deliberation due to a statute-of-limitations issue.
In a strongly worded post on X on May 18, Musk addressed the federal jury’s dismissal of his high-profile lawsuit against OpenAI, vowing to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision, according to Musk, was centered not on the substantive claims but on a statute-of-limitations technicality.
Musk’s lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused OpenAI co-founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of breaching the organization’s original nonprofit mission. OpenAI was established in 2015 as a non-profit dedicated to developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of all humanity, with Musk as a key early donor and co-founder before departing in 2018.
Musk alleged that Altman and Brockman improperly shifted the company toward a for-profit model, enriched themselves through massive valuations and partnerships (including with Microsoft), and betrayed founding agreements.
In his post, Musk emphasized that the judge and jury “never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.” He stated unequivocally: “There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!”
Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.
There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026
Musk argued that allowing such actions to stand without review sets a dangerous precedent. “I will be filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, because creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America,” he wrote. He reiterated OpenAI’s founding purpose: “OpenAI was founded to benefit all of humanity.”
The jury’s unanimous advisory verdict found that Musk’s claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment were filed outside California’s three-year statute of limitations. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers adopted the finding and dismissed the case. OpenAI hailed the outcome as vindication, while Musk’s legal team immediately signaled plans to appeal.
The trial, which featured testimony from Musk, Altman, Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and others, exposed deep rifts in Silicon Valley over AI’s direction.
Musk has long warned that profit-driven AI development, especially with closed models and powerful corporate ties, risks endangering humanity—contrasting it with OpenAI’s original open, safety-focused charter. OpenAI countered that the suit stemmed from business rivalry and that Musk himself had explored for-profit paths earlier.
Musk’s appeal could prolong the saga, potentially affecting OpenAI’s valuation (reportedly over $800 billion) and IPO ambitions. Supporters view his stance as defending nonprofit integrity, while critics see it as sour grapes from a competitor whose own xAI is racing in the AI arena.
Regardless of the legal outcome, the case has spotlighted critical questions about trust, governance, and mission drift in the rapidly evolving AI industry. Musk’s willingness to fight on suggests this chapter is far from closed, with broader implications for how charitable organizations—and the tech giants born from them—operate in the future.
Elon Musk
NASA updated Artemis III and SpaceX’s role just got more complicated
SpaceX’s Starship is the key to NASA’s Moon plan and the timeline is already slipping.
SpaceX has been at the center of NASA’s Moon ambitions for five years, and the updated Artemis III plan recently released by NASA makes that relationship more visible than ever. In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.89 billion contract to develop the Starship Human Landing System, selecting it as the sole provider to land astronauts on the Moon under Artemis III. Blue Origin filed legal protests, lost, and eventually received its own contract, but SpaceX was always the program’s primary lander contractor.
The original plan called for Starship to land two astronauts on the lunar south pole. That mission slipped as Starship development ran behind schedule, and in February 2026, NASA officially revised the Artemis III architecture entirely. The mission will now remain in low Earth orbit and serve as a crewed rendezvous and docking test between the Orion spacecraft and both the SpaceX Starship HLS pathfinder and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 2 pathfinder, with the actual Moon landing pushed to Artemis IV in 2028.
What makes SpaceX’s position particularly significant is the direct line between this week’s Starship V3 launch and the Artemis timeline. The Starship HLS is essentially a modified version of the V3 upper stage, meaning SpaceX cannot realistically prepare a lander for a 2027 docking test until it has demonstrated that the base vehicle flies reliably at scale. Flight 12, targeting this week, is the first data point in that sequence.
NASA has spent nearly $7 billion on Human Landing System development since awarding contracts to SpaceX and Blue Origin in 2021 and 2023, and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has indicated a desire to drive down costs going forward. As Teslarati reported, before Starship HLS can put anyone on the Moon it has to solve a problem no rocket has demonstrated at scale, which is refueling in orbit, requiring approximately ten tanker launches worth of propellant loaded into a depot before the lander has enough fuel to reach the lunar surface.
The Artemis III mission described by NASA is essentially a stress test for every system that needs to work before any of that happens.
SpaceX has gone from a launch contractor to the single most critical hardware provider in America’s return-to-the-Moon program. With an IPO targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and Elon Musk’s compensation tied directly to Mars colonization, the pressure on every Starship milestone between now and 2028 has never been higher.
SpaceX reveals date for maiden Starship v3 launch
Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision
