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.”
News
Tesla Diner becomes latest target of gloom and doom narrative
The Tesla Diner has been subject to many points of criticism since its launch in mid-2025, and skeptics and disbelievers claim the company’s latest novel concept is on its way down, but there’s a lot of evidence to state that is not the case.
The piece cites anecdotal evidence like empty parking lots, more staff than customers during a December visit, removed novelty items, like Optimus robot popcorn service and certain menu items, the departure of celebrity chef Eric Greenspan in November 2025, slow service, high prices, and a shift in recent Google/Yelp reviews toward disappointment.
The piece frames this as part of broader Tesla struggles, including sales figures and Elon Musk’s polarizing image, calling it a failed branding exercise rather than a sustainable restaurant.
This narrative is overstated and sensationalized, and is a good representation of coverage on Tesla by today’s media.
Novelty Fade is Normal, Not Failure
Any hyped launch, especially a unique Tesla-branded destination blending dining, Supercharging, and a drive-in theater, naturally sees initial crowds taper off after the “Instagram effect” wears down.
Tesla makes major change at Supercharger Diner amid epic demand
This is common for experiential spots in Los Angeles, especially pop-up attractions or celebrity-backed venues. The article admits early success with massive lines and social media buzz, but treats the return to normal operations as “dying down.”
In reality, this stabilization is a healthy sign of transitioning from hype-driven traffic to steady patronage.
Actual Performance Metrics Contradict “Ghost Town” Claims
- In Q4 2025, the Diner generated over $1 million in revenue, exceeding the average McDonald’s location
- It sold over 30,000 burgers and 83,000 fries in that quarter alone. These figures indicate a strong ongoing business, especially for a single-location prototype focused on enhancing Supercharger experiences rather than competing as a mass-market chain
It’s not a ghost town lol. The @Tesla Diner still had over 30,000 burger orders and 83,000 fries orders in Q4. The diner generated over $1M in revenue in Q4, a $4M annual run rate, which is more than the average McDonald’s…. pic.twitter.com/XvAGLUqxej
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 4, 2026
Conflicting On-the-Ground Reports
While the article, and other similar pieces, describe a half-full parking lot and sparse customers during specific off-peak visits, other recent accounts push back:
- A January 2026 X post noted 50 of 80 Supercharger stalls were busy at 11 a.m., calling it “the busiest diner in Hollywood by close to an order of magnitude
TESLA DINER 🍔
Frantic!!!
Crazy busy. pic.twitter.com/wMbmr8SFFn
— Rich & Sharon (@HullTeslaModel3) January 4, 2026
- Reddit discussions around the same time describe it as not empty when locals drive by regularly, with some calling the empty narrative “disingenuous anti-Tesla slop.”
When we visited it last week it was packed. We had to wait to enter, get a table and go to the restroom. We were lucky to find a spot to charge.
— Rani G (@ranig) January 4, 2026
Bottom Line
The Tesla Diner, admittedly, is not the nonstop circus it was at launch–that was never sustainable or intended. But, it’s far from “dying” or an “empty pit stop.”
It functions as a successful prototype: boosting Supercharger usage, generating solid revenue, and serving as a branded amenity in the high-traffic EV market of Los Angeles.
News
Tesla stands to win big from potential adjustment to autonomous vehicle limitations
Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
Tesla stands to be a big winner from a potential easing of limitations on autonomous vehicle development, as the United States government could back off from the restrictions placed on companies developing self-driving car programs.
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will hold a hearing later this month that will aim to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. There are several key proposals that could impact the development of self-driving cars and potentially accelerate the deployment of this technology across the country.
These key proposals include raising the NHTSA’s exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles per year per automaker, preempting state-level regulations on autonomous vehicle systems, and mandating NHTSA guidelines for calibrating advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS).
Congress, to this point, has been divided on AV rules, with past bills like the 2017 House-passed measure stalling in the Senate. Recent pushes come from automakers urging the Trump administration to act faster amid competition from Chinese companies.
Companies like Tesla, who launched a Robotaxi service in Austin and the Bay Area last year, and Alphabet’s Waymo are highlighted as potential beneficiaries from lighter sanctions on AV development.
The NHTSA recently pledged to adopt a quicker exemption review for autonomous vehicle companies, and supporters of self-driving tech argue this will boost U.S. innovation, while critics are concerned about safety and job risks.
How Tesla Could Benefit from the Proposed Legislation
Tesla, under CEO Elon Musk’s leadership, has positioned itself as a pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its Full Self-Driving software and ambitious Robotaxi plans, including the Cybercab, which was unveiled in late 2024.
The draft legislation under consideration by the U.S. House subcommittee could provide Tesla with significant advantages, potentially transforming its operational and financial landscape.
NHTSA Exemption Cap Increase
First, the proposed increase in the NHTSA exemption cap from 2,500 to 90,000 vehicles annually would allow Tesla to scale up development dramatically.
Currently, regulatory hurdles limit how many fully autonomous vehicles can hit the roads without exhaustive approvals. For Tesla, this means accelerating the rollout of its robotaxi fleet, which Musk envisions as a network of millions of vehicles generating recurring revenue through ride-hailing. With Tesla’s vast existing fleet of over 6 million vehicles equipped with FSD hardware, a higher cap could enable rapid conversion and deployment, turning parked cars into profit centers overnight.
Preempting State Regulations
A united Federal framework would be created if it could preempt State regulations, eliminating the patchwork of rules that currently complicate interstate operations. Tesla has faced scrutiny and restrictions in states like California, especially as it has faced harsh criticism through imposed testing limits.
A federal override of State-level rules would reduce legal battles, compliance costs, and delays, allowing Tesla to expand services nationwide more seamlessly.
This is crucial for Tesla’s growth strategy, as it operates in multiple markets and aims for a coast-to-coast Robotaxi network, competing directly with Waymo’s city-specific expansions.
Bringing Safety Standards to the Present Day
Innovation in the passenger transportation sector has continued to outpace both State and Federal-level legislation, which has caused a lag in the development of many things, most notably, self-driving technology.
Updating these outdated safety standards, especially waiving requirements for steering wheels or mirrors, directly benefits Tesla’s innovative designs. Tesla wanted to ship Cybertruck without side mirrors, but Federal regulations required the company to equip the pickup with them.
Cybercab is also planned to be released without a steering wheel or pedals, and is tailored for full autonomy, but current rules would mandate human-ready features.
Streamlined NHTSA reviews would further expedite approvals, addressing Tesla’s complaints about bureaucratic slowdowns. In a letter written in June to the Trump Administration, automakers, including Tesla, urged faster action, and this legislation could deliver it.
In Summary
This legislation represents a potential regulatory tailwind for Tesla, but it still relies on the government to put forth action to make things easier from a regulatory perspective. Enabling scale, innovation, and profitability in a sector that is growing quickly would benefit Tesla significantly, especially as it has established itself as a leader.
News
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang explains difference between Tesla FSD and Alpamayo
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class,” the Nvidia CEO said.
NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has offered high praise for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system during a Q&A at CES 2026, calling it “world-class” and “state-of-the-art” in design, training, and performance.
More importantly, he also shared some insights about the key differences between FSD and Nvidia’s recently announced Alpamayo system.
Jensen Huang’s praise for Tesla FSD
Nvidia made headlines at CES following its announcement of Alpamayo, which uses artificial intelligence to accelerate the development of autonomous driving solutions. Due to its focus on AI, many started speculating that Alpamayo would be a direct rival to FSD. This was somewhat addressed by Elon Musk, who predicted that “they will find that it’s easy to get to 99% and then super hard to solve the long tail of the distribution.”
During his Q&A, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the difference between FSD and Alpamayo. His response was extensive:
“Tesla’s FSD stack is completely world-class. They’ve been working on it for quite some time. It’s world-class not only in the number of miles it’s accumulated, but in the way it’s designed, the way they do training, data collection, curation, synthetic data generation, and all of their simulation technologies.
“Of course, the latest generation is end-to-end Full Self-Driving—meaning it’s one large model trained end to end. And so… Elon’s AD system is, in every way, 100% state-of-the-art. I’m really quite impressed by the technology. I have it, and I drive it in our house, and it works incredibly well,” the Nvidia CEO said.
Nvidia’s platform approach vs Tesla’s integration
Huang also stated that Nvidia’s Alpamayo system was built around a fundamentally different philosophy from Tesla’s. Rather than developing self-driving cars itself, Nvidia supplies the full autonomous technology stack for other companies to use.
“Nvidia doesn’t build self-driving cars. We build the full stack so others can,” Huang said, explaining that Nvidia provides separate systems for training, simulation, and in-vehicle computing, all supported by shared software.
He added that customers can adopt as much or as little of the platform as they need, noting that Nvidia works across the industry, including with Tesla on training systems and companies like Waymo, XPeng, and Nuro on vehicle computing.
“So our system is really quite pervasive because we’re a technology platform provider. That’s the primary difference. There’s no question in our mind that, of the billion cars on the road today, in another 10 years’ time, hundreds of millions of them will have great autonomous capability. This is likely one of the largest, fastest-growing technology industries over the next decade.”
He also emphasized Nvidia’s open approach, saying the company open-sources its models and helps partners train their own systems. “We’re not a self-driving car company. We’re enabling the autonomous industry,” Huang said.