I know people involved at Trenchant and have trouble believing that anybody who worked there was shocked by this threat. Maybe things have changed post-L3Harris but "it" (it's more than one company) was an incredibly paranoid IT shop prior to the acquisition.
I read this article with a healthy amount of scepticism and read two separate stories:
1. This guy was targeted by spyware.
2. This guy was an iOS 0-day exploit developer and is involved with a bit of drama with his previous employer.
Everyone seems eager (including himself) on connecting the two, but why would the ex-employer go after him using illegal methods when they've agreed to a settlement and termination? Unless there's more to the story (which I strongly doubt) it seems to be combined mix of legitimate but misplaced paranoia and lashing out.
Firefighters recently resorted to breaking a Tesla’s window to free a 20-month-old child locked inside after one of the vehicle’s batteries died. The emergency rescue is the second of such incidents reported on this week by Arizona CBS news affiliate KPHO and reiterates the potential dangers of the EV company’s ongoing, under-addressed battery issues in extreme heat.
In July 2023, a 73-year-old man was reportedly forced to kick out a window in his Model Y after becoming trapped. A similar emergency occurred for a mother and her daughter in Illinois a few weeks later after renting a Tesla, while a California driver last month claimed she found herself stuck in her EV while waiting on an over-the-air software update that shut down her car. In the 40 minutes it took to complete the update, outside temperatures rose to 115-degrees Fahrenheit.
And yeah, if you know how, and can go through multiple steps:
The only other workaround to battery issues appears to be a step-by-step solution in the owner’s manual that only opens a dead Tesla’s front hood by ostensibly hotwiring the car using external jumper cables. If this is the case, then people who find themselves locked out of their EV may need to continue relying on EMS—and their axes—until Tesla decides to address the glaring safety hazard.
Right. I was talking about passenger safety. But sure, if you purposefully designed a vehicle that has poor pedestrian visibility and end up getting hit by that same vehicle due to that poor visibility, you shouldn't be surprised.
I agree that car analogies should be taken seriously.
Sure, cars are useful. But aiming to sell as many cars as possible is no more ethical than selling as many yachts as you can, especially if it involves making the living conditions worse for anyone who doesn't own a yacht, for example by bribing politicians, or destroying non-yacht-capable waterways.