News
Opinion: Fmr President Trump was wrong to call Elon Musk “another bullshit artist”
Former President Trump was wrong to call Elon Musk, “another bullshit artist.” The former president held a rally in Anchorage, Alaska, where he claimed that Elon Musk had said that he voted for Trump. The former president is well known for weaponizing mistruths to mislead his base.
Trump on Elon Musk: "You know, he said the other day, Oh, I've never voted for a Republican. I said, I didn't know that, he told me he voted for me. So he's another bullshit artist." pic.twitter.com/1cBiZsX1BJ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 10, 2022
The former president said that he wanted to “stop left-wing censorship and to restore free speech in America.” Following that, he promoted Truth Social and then made the following comments about Elon Musk.
“I tell you what. Elon is not gonna buy Twitter. Where did you hear that before? From me.”
“He’s got himself a mess. You know, he said to me the other day, ‘oh I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, “I didn’t know that. You told me you voted for me.’ So he’s another bullshit artist but he’s not going to be buying it. Well, he might later.”
The former president then instructed his base again to sign up for his social network, Truth Social.
Trump Is Wrong.
Many far-left talking heads are either mocking Elon Musk or celebrating this. However, Trump is completely wrong about Elon Musk, in my opinion. And his reasoning for not buying Twitter is, I think, due to the bot issues that plague the social network.
Twitter has a real problem with bots and fake accounts and doesn’t really seem to care about solving that problem. On the other hand, real accounts often get suspended for no reason. This happened to me in 2020 after Elon Musk responded to me about ventilators for Louisiana. This was before my account was verified. And I am not the only one who has had this happen.
Is Twitter worth $44 billion? I highly doubt it. Elon Musk was right to call out Twitter on its bot problem. He has been impersonated by both verified and non-verified accounts promoting crypto scams.
The Bot Attack On Elon Musk Before He Decided Against Buying Twitter.
What I haven’t seen the media address is the bot attack on Elon Musk right before he called off the Twitter deal.
Recently, Insider published an article breaking the story of Elon Musk’s new set of twins born last November. And strangely, that account’s tweet was supported by a lot of bots and fake accounts. We know this thanks to Andrea Stroppa, a contributor to the World Economic Forum, who shared research into the Insider account and its bots in a Twitter thread.
“Yesterday, an online media outlet published an article about Elon Musk’s personal life and a person close to him. These articles generated thousands of harassment, insults by some users, and malicious bots. Watch the video. Here’s what happened. A thread.”
Andrea Stroppa’s Thread
🧵Yesterday, an online media outlet published an article about Elon Musk @elonmusk personal life and a person close to him. These articles generated thousands of harassment, insults by some users and malicious bots. Watch the video
Here is what happened. A thread 👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/ukyGydQWxj
— Andrea Stroppa 🐺 Claudius Nero's Legion 🐺 (@andst7) July 8, 2022
Andrea continued.
“ThisIsInsider, part of Business Insider, published the article. Business Insider tweeted It multiple times article and then created a Twitter thread. A user contacted me through DMs, sending me a screen of suspicious comments below the tweets.
“The tip was correct. Around 9.000 tweets posted by bots in a couple of hours produced insults toward Elon and a person close to him. It’s interesting because, as you can note, tweets have an additional random character. It’s a trick to bypass potential spam detection.”
“Many real users also tweeted insults, but the n° of tweets produced by bots are not comparable, even If some of these real users might have a more significant impact. In fact, with quick network analysis, we found that these accs belong to a specific political group.”
“As Elon said attacks against him and his companies have increased over the past months. But recently, these attacks have involved even his family and people close to him. And about that, I want to share a personal thought.”
“Elon Musk is a strong person. Yeah, of course, he’s not a robot. He has feelings, so sometimes, these attacks push him down. But it’s ok. It’s the pressure that a person like Elon is ok to face but let’s keep his family and children away from these things.”
“As the last tweet of this thread, I’d love to mention this wonderful verse “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind…” Hosea (8,7).”
“To the people who insult the personal profile of a mother of two kids, we pity you.”
A Thought On Elon’s Evolving Political Stance.
This may seem random but I want to include a thought here. Elon Musk has gotten a lot of hate-fueled criticism from the far-left over his evolving political stance. I think that a huge part of the problem is also bots.
I’d share something on Twitter and the tweet would go viral. I’d get so much hate from accounts that were either new, had very few followers, or were old but very inactive with the exception of commenting on tweets about Elon Musk. Clearly bots or at least troll farms.
In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party.
But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.
Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold … 🍿
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2022
And these farms and bots, I suspect, are being used to make certain tweets more visible. And they amplify the sensation of a trend on Twitter. This includes Elon Musk. Combine this with the narrative of him being a far-right Republican being put forth and we have a hot mess.
Some of the accounts are also used to try to silence any truth cutting through the misinformation. For example, the tweet above is Elon Musk explaining why he chose to vote for a Republican for the first time. The hate that followed drowned out the truth itself.
For example, I find it odd that no mainstream media outlet commented or reported Senator Warren’s taking out Facebook ads against Elon Musk and literally spreading lies about him.
Yes, Elon has tweeted that he voted Republican for the first time. But many forget that he actually voted for President Biden. He also voted for Hillary Clinton.
And President Biden completely snubbed Elon Musk, Tesla, and even SpaceX. The current president even went on to claim that General Motors’ Mary Barra was the true leader of the EV industry when it is actually Tesla. And Tesla is still leading–unless you count hybrid electric vehicles as battery-electric vehicles.
But I’m no fan of the far right either.
Let’s have less hate and more love.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 29, 2022
The fact of the matter is that he actually called out both the far right and the far left. Elon Musk has been a bit harder on the left, I think it’s because he might feel as if the political platform betrayed him. He supported the left for the longest and now they are vilifying and jeering at him.
Many on this platform are making him the current thing to hate. Imagine having a platform you’ve believed in and rooted for suddenly make you their sworn enemy.
The Democrat vs Republican tribalism among otherwise intelligent people is most distressing.
Demonizing everyone who would vote for an alternate party is not constructive.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 31, 2022
Conclusion: Trump Was Wrong Here.
Former President Trump is wrong to call Elon Musk a “bullshit artist” especially since the former president isn’t known for being truthful. I think Trump is doing the exact same thing the media, left-wing and right-wing politicians, and crypto scammers are doing. He is, in my opinion, using Elon Musk’s name to simply generate more views and media attention.
I also highly doubt that Elon Musk told the former president that he voted for him. Or that he spoke with Elon Musk “the other day.”
Elon Musk
Grok Bot users hit with weekly limits early, Elon Musk explains what happened
Elon Musk said weeks ago during SpaceX’s third-quarter earnings call that the company’s Grok Bot, its autonomous AI Agent platform, was showing “the fastest growth of a product” that he’d ever seen in his life.
Now, SpaceXSI is scaling back Grok Bot users’ weekly limits, much to the surprise of those who have relied on it to take away monotonous tasks in their lives.
Elon Musk’s terse November 1 reply on X captured a sharp tension in the early days of agentic AI. Responding to a user who asked for a Grok Bot usage reset after hitting 100 percent with four days still left on the weekly cycle, Musk wrote: “The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue.”
@DogecoinNorway The cost of serving Grok Bot was unsustainably high relative to revenue
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 1, 2026
The post arrived amid a wave of similar complaints from paying subscribers whose meters had jumped unexpectedly toward or to the limit, sometimes overnight and with little corresponding activity. It also stood in clear contrast to statements Musk had made only days and weeks earlier.
On the SpaceX third-quarter earnings call in mid-to-late October, Musk had described Grok Bot in almost the opposite terms. He called it “the fastest growth of a product that I’ve ever seen in my life” and said he had “never seen anything grow this fast.”
Company figures put paid weekly users at roughly 800,000 earlier in the month, more than doubling over the prior period. Daily active users had climbed from under 100,000 in early September to over 600,000 by late October.
Musk emphasized that the product has no free tier and that users appear to be getting real value beyond what they pay. In other remarks, he noted that usage per user was rising rather than declining, the opposite of the usual decay pattern for new software.
Grok Bot, launched around August, functions as an always-available agent with its own persistent cloud computer; it can schedule, research, shop, browse, and execute multi-step workflows even after the user steps away. Access is bundled into X subscription tiers (roughly $30, $100, and $200 per month) and certain Cursor plans, drawing from shared weekly usage pools whose exact sizes have not been publicly detailed.
The economics of that model are what Musk’s November 1 post put in the spotlight. Agentic systems burn far more compute than ordinary chatbot exchanges. Each task can trigger repeated model calls, tool use, web actions, and sustained background work.
When growth is as rapid as Musk celebrated, the absolute compute bill scales quickly even if average revenue per user stays fixed under flat monthly subscriptions. Industry observers noted the opportunity cost as well: the same GPUs can be rented to other AI labs at higher rates.
A simple back-of-the-envelope comparison circulating after the post illustrated the gap: if every reported daily user paid the top tier, annualized subscription revenue would still be modest relative to the scale of compute infrastructure SpaceX is building and leasing to companies like Anthropic.
Some users also reported possible dashboard anomalies around the same period, though Musk’s framing treated the underlying cost-revenue imbalance as the core issue rather than a pure metering glitch.
The juxtaposition is the core of this exchange. Within roughly two weeks of publicly framing Grok Bot as an unprecedented success with strong unit economics and no free tier, Musk acknowledged that serving the same product had become unsustainable relative to the revenue it generates.
For the broader industry, the episode underscores a structural challenge of the agent era: demand is real and growing faster than many expected, yet the cost of fulfilling that demand through always-on, multi-step agents can outrun subscription pricing before companies can adjust limits, introduce metered billing, or raise prices.
Musk’s reply did not promise an immediate reset or higher allowances; it simply stated the constraint. In doing so, it supplied a rare, explicit public data point on the unit economics of a high-profile AI agent just as adoption numbers were still being celebrated as the fastest in Musk’s experience.
The tension between rapid, paid growth and the compute required to deliver it is now on the record.
News
Tesla owners who tap Emergency Drive Away for fun are in for a surprise
Tapping Activate on Tesla’s Emergency Drive Away reportedly triggers a $539 service bill without moving.
Tesla owners who press Activate on Emergency Drive Away may be on the hook for a service bill even if their car never leaves the Supercharger stall.
Yaro, who posts about Tesla service cases on X as @Tutrifour, said a customer called after tapping Activate while still plugged into a Supercharger. The owner was about to pull away, remembered the cable was still connected and stopped. The car never moved, but the touchscreen showed a red alert reading “Emergency Drive Away has been activated” with “Service is required” underneath. A Service Mode screenshot showed the active alert BMS_a228_EmergencyDriveAwayServiceRequired, which Yaro said only Tesla Service can clear.
Here is a lesson to Tesla owners. Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch. https://t.co/NZJENw4SQv
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 30, 2026
The cost of clearing it was the bigger surprise. “Don’t press Activate on the new Emergency Drive Away feature on your Tesla because service charges $539 to inspect the charge port and to clear the alert. Yes, even if you didn’t move the car an inch,” Yaro wrote. The $539 figure comes from that single case, and Tesla has not published a set price for the inspection or commented on the post. Yaro also noted that the car would still charge with the alert on screen.
Tesla launched Emergency Drive Away on October 1 with software update 2026.38.3, letting drivers pull away from a U.S. Supercharger with the cable still attached, as Teslarati reported. To use it, a driver shifts into Drive while connected, holds the brake and taps Activate. The prompt warns that driving with the cable connected will damage the vehicle and the Supercharger, and that short camera recordings will be shared with Tesla.
Tesla Charging has been clear about what follows a real activation. Repairs to a Supercharger stall can run up to $25,000 depending on the site, a service visit for the car’s charge port is mandatory, and deliberate misuse “will invoke additional penalties.” What the company had not spelled out is that the service requirement is triggered the moment Activate is pressed, not the moment the cable breaks away.
From an engineering standpoint, that is the cautious choice. Once Activate is pressed, the car cannot be sure the charge port latch was not stressed, so flagging it for inspection removes the guesswork. It also means the button carries a price on its own, which is a stronger deterrent against casual use than any warning screen.
Customer called because they have an active alert after tapping ACTIVATE on the new Emergency Drive Away feature. They didn’t actually drive away but were about to until they “remembered” they had the charge cable connected.
This alert can only be cleared by Tesla Service. https://t.co/SkHyJJPFwU
— Yaro (@Tutrifour) October 28, 2026
The report follows the feature’s first known real world use, when a driver in Austin during F1 weekend appeared to trigger it by accident and dragged the Supercharger cable along with the car. The Reddit user who filmed it said the driver seemed to have only half read the prompts.
For owners, the takeaway is to treat the red prompt as a stop sign. If it appears after shifting out of Park by mistake, shift back and unplug the normal way from the touchscreen, the Tesla app or the button on the charge handle. Activate is meant for moments when staying at the stall is the bigger risk, and Tesla is now pricing it that way.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk calls Earth’s data centers “peanuts” next to what SpaceX is planning in orbit
Elon Musk says SpaceX capex efficiency is underestimated as orbital data centers loom by 2028.
Elon Musk is pushing back on one of the biggest worries hanging over SpaceX stock. In a reply on X on Sunday, Musk said the company’s capital expenditure efficiency is severely underestimated. He was responding to a Milk Road Stocks post citing analyst Kyle Reidhead, who estimates SpaceX will need to spend roughly $470 billion over the next five quarters.
Reidhead built that figure around the target SpaceX set on its third quarter earnings call: 13 gigawatts or more of compute by the end of 2027. In his breakdown, Nvidia captures 83 to 89 percent of the spending. SpaceX ended the quarter with 1.7 GW of nameplate compute and guided to $35 billion to $40 billion in fourth quarter capex, as Teslarati reported.
Musk did not attach a number to his claim, but the earnings call shows the argument. CFO Bret Johnsen said new compute currently pays for itself in under a year at today’s pricing, and Musk said that window could shrink to six months next year. Using that pace, Reidhead argues about $230 billion of the $470 billion could come from operating cash flow and about $60 billion from SpaceX’s roughly $90 billion cash pile, leaving around $180 billion to borrow. Musk confirmed last week that SpaceX had already closed a new $40 billion debt raise to buy GPUs.
The ground buildout is not the end goal. It is what is meant to pay for the move to orbit. Replying on Friday to charts built from Sequoia partner Shaun Maguire’s SpaceX model, Musk wrote that “Terrestrial compute will be peanuts compared to orbital compute,” adding that orbital compute deployed per month “probably exceeds terrestrial around the end of 2028 and then far exceeds it in 2029.”
Maguire’s model shows how steep that path is. It has capex climbing from $88 billion this year to $290 billion in 2027 and $369 billion in 2028, with SpaceX burning $77.8 billion in cash this year and $122.6 billion next year before turning $114.9 billion cash positive in 2028. Musk’s response to the model was, “I think we can do better.”
The orbital half runs through Starmind. SpaceX plans to operate up to 1 million AI satellites flying in clusters of about 10, linked by roughly 10 terabits of bandwidth, with deployment of thousands of units starting as soon as late 2027 out of its Gigasat factory in Bastrop, Texas, according to SpaceX’s space safety page. Musk has said each Starmind spacecraft will carry more than 250 kW of solar power.
Getting there depends on launch volume. Maguire’s model assumes 250 Starship flights in 2028, up from two this year and 38 next year. The nearer test is financial: SpaceX guided to $33 billion to $37 billion in first quarter 2027 revenue, more than double the $14.58 billion it booked in Q3, and Musk reposted that guidance again on Sunday morning.