Lifestyle
Why do people compare Fisker to Tesla?
On my way back from a great Memorial Day weekend trip to Mystic, CT for some “lobstah”, we played tag with a Fisker Karma with NY plates. We got to see the front, back and sides of the car in all it’s glory, and I must say it’s a pretty smart looking car aside from the plain backside. I knew that Fisker had gone bankrupt and the defunct battery startup A123 which supplies batteries to the car had been bought by a Chinese billionaire, but other than that I didn’t know much about the car or the company. So, while driving back my wife started started googling and reading the information to me. 
The Fisker
The first question we had while peering at the car through our peripheral visions was how the Fisker driver managed to make its way up here from NY? The answer is that while wikipedia calls the Fisker Karma an electric vehicle, it’s really a hybrid. There’s a whole area of research and writing on hybrids that I won’t get into. The interesting part is around terminology. If you run only on electric and use gas to power an electric generator, then how can you get by calling the vehicle an EV when you’re burning gas most of the time. Who are they fooling?
Sometimes EVs are actually hybrids.
There are two “fill” ports on the Fisker, one for electric and one for gas which we saw on both sides of the car. With gas the Karma gets about 20 MPG, and with electric the EPA rates it at a relatively-low 52 MPGe. The electric range according to the EPA is a paltry 32 miles (the Model S EPA rating is almost 10x that at 300 miles). Also, unless you’re a a bit nuts you can’t achieve EPA ranges which require driving on perfectly flat roads at 55 MPH. With these kinds of specs I’d call the Fisker “barely electric”. When you combine both the gas and electric range of the car the full range was 230 miles. So even though you’re burning gas you’re going to have to stop every 100 miles or so to fill up. The Karma is neither a very efficient gas car, nor a particularly good “EV”. What ultimately turned me off from purchasing a hybrid is the fact that the cargo/interior room is compromised by having to support two power systems. On the Fisker this was so pronounced that it got rated as a subcompact by the EPA. The Fisker’s interior was modern and different but more alone the lines of an evolution rather than a radical departure of technological advances and innovation like the Model S.
ASLO SEE: Is Tesla Motors disruptive or disturbing?
The Fisker had a solar panel on its roof which they claimed could gain up to 4-5 miles of extra range a week (if it was really sunny, all the time). Of course they gave up things like a panoramic sunroof for that benefit and the Tesla forums are full of people doing math showing that adding solar to the roof of a car just doesn’t make sense given the small return you can get. But, when you only have 32 miles of EV range, 4-5 extra miles is a huge percentage improvement.
I think the solar roof was really just a sales gimmick to make people think the car was green.
The Fisker had a sound generator that triggered automatically at speeds less than 25 MPH when running in pure EV mode to warn pedestrians of its approach. There are times in the Model S where it would be great to have some button you could trigger to make an obvious-but-not-rude sound. I’ve already been stranded behind slowly walking pedestrians that didn’t know I was following them in my Model S with the only option being a rude horn. Reports say the Fisker Karma can go from 0-60 in 5.9 seconds putting it in the same performance category as the Tesla Model S 60 and slower than the 85 and P85 versions. The Karma was also expensive with a starting price around $102K and going up to $116K, putting it in the class of the Porsche Panamera and the Tesla Model S.
Fisker The Company
Fisker, like Tesla, was a high tech startup company, but unlike Tesla, they chose to use another startup’s battery technology to power the vehicle instead of going with a dominant brand in battery technology.
MUST SEE: Panasonic and Tesla Reach Agreement to Expand Supply of Automotive-Grade Battery Cells
Tesla chose to put 7,000+ time-proven Panasonic batteries in their Model S and upcoming Model X. I’m a big believer in startup companies that innovate and don’t bet their success on the success of another startup. That rarely ever works out well. It should be mentioned that early in the life of Tesla Motors the founder of Fisker actually worked for Tesla and later split off to start Fisker Automative amid lawsuits and controversy. Both Fisker and Tesla took green-energy loans from the government. Fisker borrowed $529M and never paid it back. Tesla borrowed $465M and repaid it in full and ahead of schedule. Fisker started shipping cars to customers in 2011 and got to just south of 2,500 cars before going out of business in 2013. During that time they were plagued with battery problems, reports of car fires and other issues. Tesla has shipped over 40,000 cars so far, admittedly not without their own exciting events along the way. Both Fisker and A123 have been purchased by a Chinese billionaire who hopes to revive the two companies, but given all the compromises above it seems unlikely that it will go well, but alas, there’s no stock to short there.
Tesla and Fisker Similarities?
The Tesla Model S and the Fisker Karma were both built by high tech startups in California but the companies took very different paths to producing green vehicles. Fisker focussed on design with an award-winning exterior but joined it with a mediocre powertrain configuration plagued by supplier and design issues. Tesla focussed on the engineering aspects of the car, using proven technology and making it better while still holding to a clean exterior design. The Fisker Karma is overly complex. It’s also slower and more expensive than the Model S. It has less range than the Model S, even with a gas-powered generator onboard. It is full of compromises like interior space and is not surprisingly no longer produced. It does however have a noise maker and better cup holders.
Summary
As Toyota has proven, hybrid vehicles can be tremendously successful if done right. The challenge is understanding the mission and staying true to that mission. Toyota set out to improve MPG for the masses by using hybrid technology in reaction to rising gas prices. Fisker set out to make a great looking car and only really thought cleanly on aesthetics but made a lot of compromises in execution. Tesla set out to make a true electric vehicle with no compromises and they are accomplishing that mission. Tesla has yet to reach the mass-market level of their aspirations but they are well on their way and already have a true electric vehicle that makes no compromises. For what it’s worth we made the 150 mile round trip to Mystic, CT with 100 miles of range left at the end. While we passed the only Supercharger nearby on the way down and back in Rhode Island, there was no reason to stop and it’s a lot more convenient to charge at home. I’ve made no compromises with my Model S.
-
Elon Musk
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
Elon Musk says X now exposes government censorship, but India’s secrecy laws complicate that promise.
Elon Musk’s promise to make government censorship requests on X “clearly visible” is running into a wall in India, where the law forbids the very disclosure Musk is promising.
On August 15, Musk responded to an update from X’s open-source algorithm team by writing “Any censorship required by governments is now clearly visible.” The claim referred to a change X pushed two days earlier to its public xai-org/x-algorithm repository, which now includes a controversial filter written directly into the code. The filter suppresses posts from 665 accounts flagged by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court from appearing in the For You feed of any viewer located in Brazil, unless the viewer already follows the account. The election tied to the filter is scheduled for October 4.
India’s government wasn’t as impressed, and responded on Monday that “X will have to follow the law of the land,” in response to Musk’s transparency push covered by the Times of India. The problem is structural rather than political. India issues content blocking orders under Section 69A of its IT Act, and Rule 16 of the accompanying 2009 Blocking Rules requires those orders to stay confidential. Publishing an India equivalent of the Brazil filter, naming specific accounts and citing specific government orders, would itself violate Indian law. Government use of Section 69A has grown from roughly 6,000 orders a year between 2018 and 2023 to about 24,300 in 2025, according to a Tech Times report.
The contrast puts Musk’s transparency pledge in an odd spot. It works largely as advertised in Brazil, where electoral law requires disclosure and X can point to specific account IDs and a specific court order in public code. It cannot work the same way in India, where the law requires the opposite. X users in India will keep seeing content disappear from search and their feeds without any public accounting of why, even as X tells the rest of the world that its censorship compliance is now inspectable.
This isn’t the first time X’s fights with a national government have shaped how the platform operates. Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered X to suspend the accounts of sitting lawmakers and journalists in 2024, a standoff that cost X its Brazilian revenue for months and froze Starlink’s local accounts before the investigation into Musk and X was closed in March with no evidence of wrongdoing found. X also sued California over a state law requiring moderation disclosures, arguing the mandate itself violated the First Amendment.
Whether India’s government pursues anything beyond a public statement remains to be seen. For now, the mismatch between what X can legally publish and what different governments legally allow it to publish is the real story behind Musk’s seven word claim.
-
Lifestyle
Tesla’s driverless Cybercab just passed a big test with State Governor
Florida’s governor rode Tesla’s Cybercab at a closed test track and called the experience impressive.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis rode in a Tesla Cybercab on a closed test track this week and came away impressed, posting on X that the vehicle “successfully navigated all hazards — a kid running into the street, a crash with police stopping traffic, a Model S cutting us off, etc.” He called the ride “impressive.”
The stop was part of a broader event Monday at SunTrax, a 775 acre state owned proving ground in Auburndale that Florida built specifically to test autonomous and connected vehicles before they reach public roads. Standing next to a gold Cybercab, DeSantis described the car in plain terms: “You go in there and you just sit. You have a screen. There’s no steering wheel, no pedals. Clearly these things could be very beneficial.”
We took a ride on a robotaxi on the Suntrax course and it successfully navigated all hazards — a kid running into the street, a crash with police stopping traffic, a Model S cutting us off, etc.
Impressive! https://t.co/FVAkzFLz3r
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) August 11, 2026
DeSantis paired the praise with a caveat that has followed autonomous vehicles since the category existed. “You don’t want to be in an autonomous vehicle and it drives you into a ditch. That would not be good,” he said, framing safety validation as the gate before wider deployment.
SunTrax, the 2.25 mile oval which the state calls the only high speed autonomous vehicle test track in the Southeast, can simulate rain, pedestrian crossings, hills and crowded urban conditions at highway speeds, letting companies push a car past what an early public rollout would risk. Tesla, Waymo and Beep all use the facility, and Florida’s regulatory approach, among the most permissive for autonomous vehicles in the country, doesn’t require a human operator inside a fully autonomous car.
-
Tesla has reason to want the blessing of Florida and states beyond, as the Cybercab entered volume production at Gigafactory Texas this spring and has since self certified as SAE Level 4 under Texas law. Public road testing so far has kept a safety monitor in the passenger seat, and Florida is where Tesla has been expanding its existing Model Y based Robotaxi service instead, adding Miami in July and then Orlando and Tampa two weeks later. A closed track endorsement from a sitting governor doesn’t change any of that, but it does put Tesla’s newest hardware in front of a state that has already shown it will move fast on rules.
Elon Musk
The real reason Elon Musk wants every car connected to space
Elon Musk says all cars will eventually need Starlink to handle massive AI bandwidth demand.
Elon Musk is making the case that satellite internet, not fiber or cellular towers, will end up wired into every car on the road. In a string of posts on X, the SpaceX CEO wrote that all cars will have Starlink in the future and called satellite connectivity the only way to get super high bandwidth to billions of vehicles.
The posts started with Musk endorsing a Cloudflare forecast that traffic generated by autonomous AI agents will soon dwarf traffic generated by humans browsing the internet, a shift he described as not a close call at all. From there he narrowed the argument to infrastructure, writing that the only system that can support the insanely fast bandwidth growth needed by AI is Starlink, before extending the logic to cars specifically.
AI agentic Internet traffic will obviously VASTLY exceed human usage. Not a close call at all.
Cloudflare’s forecast is accurate. https://t.co/VztgrinN5k pic.twitter.com/Wo4FiRKjPU
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 9, 2026
The timing lines up with Tesla’s own hardware decisions. On July 20, Tesla confirmed the Cybercab would ship with a Starlink V5 terminal built into its roof, the first time the company had put satellite hardware in a production vehicle. A day later, Tesla’s head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, explained the connection wasn’t there for safety and that Cybercab’s driving stack runs entirely on onboard cameras and compute, while the satellite link exists for navigation, customer service, and fleet management instead. Musk followed with his own post about the feature, saying riders would be able to watch 4K streaming video during rides.
By July 22, Musk had already said Starlink would extend beyond Cybercab to Tesla’s full lineup. Sunday’s posts push that same logic outward again, this time framed as a requirement across the industry rather than a feature specific to Tesla, and tied directly to the bandwidth AI systems are expected to consume.
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
-
The AI argument has been building on SpaceX’s side for months. The company has an FCC filing pending for a third generation Starlink constellation, and it has separately proposed Starmind, a constellation of up to a million satellites designed to run AI computation directly in orbit rather than just relay data. Musk has said he expects space to become the cheapest place to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Starlink and Starmind serve different jobs inside that vision, one moving data and the other processing it, but Sunday’s posts treat vehicles as one more category of hardware that will eventually need both.
None of this changes anything for Tesla owners today. Cars already on the road keep running on LTE and Wi-Fi, and Tesla hasn’t outlined a retrofit path for existing vehicles. The July 22 commitment applies to future production, not the fleet already delivered. What Musk added on Sunday is the reasoning: satellite connectivity isn’t a Cybercab novelty, it’s a bet that ground based networks won’t keep up with how much data cars, robots, and AI systems are about to generate.
Tesla Semi gets its largest order yet
India tells Elon Musk’s X to “Follow the Law” in latest censorship update
