News
Tesla is willing to help other automakers, but ask nicely
Earlier this week, I wrote an article talking about the German car companies and their obsession with mentioning Tesla. Volkswagen, Audi, and BMW are all gunning for Tesla in terms of electric vehicle technology and manufacturing. While the three German giants admit that Tesla holds a multi-year lead in the EV sector, they all believe they can catch up to Elon Musk and the rest of the crew.
After publishing the article, Elon responded and said that Tesla was willing to help companies transition to sustainable forms of transportation because it would help the world as a whole. However, there is evidence to suggest that Tesla and Elon are going to help those who ask for it, not those who attempt to take information in a manner that could be considered “sneaky.”
Tesla is open to licensing software and supplying powertrains & batteries. We’re just trying to accelerate sustainable energy, not crush competitors!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2020
Additionally, one of Musk’s followers had asked if Tesla’s Autopilot could be shared with other automakers in an attempt to not only accelerate the charge towards semi and fully-autonomous driving. Musk simply replied, “Sure,” indicating that there did not seem to be any boundaries in terms of what Tesla would be willing to share with its “competitors” as capitalism would refer to them as.
Sure
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2020
To me, I found that simple “Sure” reply as one of the most interesting Tweets of Musk’s illustrious Twitter career. Not only has the CEO provided many of my friends and me with a fair share of laughs and me because of his great sense of humor, but his digs at other companies, as well as some of the more ironic things that he has said, have always intrigued me.
When he said, “Sure,” all I thought of was the lawsuit that Tesla currently holds against an Xpeng engineer who formerly worked for Tesla.
For those of you that are not familiar, Tesla sued Xpeng engineer Cao Guangzhi earlier this year, who used to work for Tesla.
Guangzhi allegedly stole pieces of Tesla’s Autopilot source code and attempted to sell it to Xpeng for financial gain. Guangzhi had downloaded portions of the code to his personal laptop and then shared it through Apple Airdrop, which is hard to track because of the encryption that Apple uses. However, he ensures that he removed it from his personal laptop before leaving Tesla to join Xpeng.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
The case is still ongoing.
But what I found most interesting about Musk’s simple one-word answer was the fact that he stated he would be willing to share Autopilot’s developments with other automakers. But it seems it needs to be done in good and harmless fashion, and not in a sneaky way. This is entirely understandable, in my opinion.
If Guangzhi did what Tesla is accusing him of doing, it would be seriously sneaky and flawed. Tesla is the leader in semi-autonomous driving thanks to the developments of its Artificial Intelligence team, led by Andrej Karpathy. What separates Tesla from every other company in self-driving is the fact that it is continuously improving thanks to the company’s Neural Network. As information is communicated to the Neural Network with every Tesla vehicle on the road, the company’s self-driving software becomes more sophisticated and more accurate as it can predict the next movements of the drivers around a car.
If this source code were to be leaked or given to another company, it could be detrimental to Tesla’s lead in the self-driving universe. I’m excited to see how the case plays out.
More recently, Tesla sued Rivian for poaching former employees and stealing trade secrets. Interestingly enough, I had some time to read over several pages of the complaint from Tesla to Rivian, and some employees openly admitted to taking confidential documents when they left Tesla.
I am a big Rivian fan. I think R.J. Scaringe, the company’s CEO, is a brilliant person who has a lot of potential to do amazing things. I have recommended to a couple of my friends that they should invest in an R1T instead of getting a Cybertruck because they don’t like the Tesla pickup’s design. But either way, it seems from my understanding of legal documentation, it is going to be up to Tesla to prove that Rivian asked these employees to take things and that they are openly going after past Tesla employees. I think that is going to be a tough cookie to crack.
But either way, Rivian didn’t go to Tesla for help directly. I feel that if they needed help with electrification or self-driving code, they should have reached out to Elon directly.
Elon has stated for years that the biggest enemy of Tesla is not competitors who are developing sustainable electric vehicles. The companies that are the biggest threat to Tesla are the biggest threat to us all, which are the ones who refuse to adapt to the sustainable transportation revolution. Companies that want to develop and improve internal combustion engine machines are a threat. Not financially, but environmentally, because they’re ignoring the apparent crisis that is going on in the world.
Does it seem like Elon wouldn’t be willing to help other automakers develop their vehicles if they asked for help? I don’t think so. Personally, when I look at Musk’s mission, I see a man who is interested in collaborating with anyone and everyone, as long as they are willing to admit that their push toward sustainability is the focus and not on the backburner.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
