Forbes has the big money quote:
“We struggle to think of anything analogous in the history of the automotive industry, in which a brand has lost so much value so quickly,” wrote the JPMorgan analysts. […] Shares of Tesla are still down 38% year-to-date, the second-worst loss of any company listed on the S&P 500…
Quite a feat for Elon Musk, given that he is…
…a man who may well be the most prolific liar in the history of American business…
See if you can follow the logic, as reported by Lupa.cz.
The reasons for preferring the paid option over the free certificate are essentially two. Let’s Encrypt issues DV certificates with validity limited to only three months. Before the original expires, it’s necessary to deploy a new certificate, which means having a functional ACME client with automation elements set up so that, if possible, the system takes care of this obligation in time by itself. In contrast, commercial certificates are usually issued for at least one year. The IT department thus only needs to remember that once a year, the certificate needs to be replaced.
“In some environments, the implementation of automation through available ACME clients for Let’s Encrypt may not yet be fine-tuned for sufficient reliability, or may not be available at all,” adds the head of the Czech certification authority Alpiro, Antonín Kozan. And he adds a second reason why domain verification is often insufficient for clients.
“Many of our customers realize that in connection with SSL certificates, not only the encryption of communication itself is important, but also the added value in the form of higher credibility with an SSL certificate issued against rigorous verification of the organization. This is crucial for a wide range of organizations from financial or state institutions, established companies, online stores, and other entities that place high emphasis on the higher credibility of SSL certificates with OV or EV,” he concludes.
Sorry, that doesn’t check out for me. Haha, get it? Czech out? It’s the little bits of humor in these troubled times… anyway, ahem, seriously this doesn’t check out. If there’s one place in the world I expect people to use simple, reliable systems for tracking things, it’s Prague. Let me explain why.
First, for a 90 day rotation question the easy technology answer is a proxy or reverse proxy with automated renewal handling. Think of it like a piece of paper you put on your table that keeps track of things so you don’t have to. There are many tools that do this, so I’m hopefully not surprising anyone:
All of these deal with Let’s Encrypt renewals even in legacy systems that can’t handle ACME. The proxy safely terminates traffic and safely front-ends systems that remain unaware of certificate management.
Second, with regard to a “need for higher trust” in OV/EV certificates, I’m not sure where they’re getting that from:
This might all just be a case of doing things the “local” way. Like when I sit in a Prague cellar drinking twelve beers and … remember when I mentioned a piece of paper? The Czechs are known for their “čárky” marks, where the easy thing is the right thing to do apparently.
| Measure | Čárky | Let’s Encrypt |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Track beer consumption | Deliver website certificates |
| Philosophy | Simple, transparent, accessible | Simple, transparent, accessible |
| Status | Traditional | Standard |
| Alternative | Paid vendor (disruptive) | Paid vendor (unusual) |
| Cost | None | None |
| Complexity | Minimal (pencil, paper) | Minimal (automated scripts) |
| Renewal | Every beer (server) | Every 90 days (automated) |
| Resistance From | POS vendors | Certificate vendors |
| Effectiveness | High value low cost | High value low cost |
So maybe there’s some kind of financial angle to certification authorities pushing paid products into lined pockets, rather than technical or security concerns? Who really loses what? Who stands opposed to using the standard high value low cost solution?
Properly automated DV certificates from Let’s Encrypt provide the same level of encryption security without the manual renewal overhead and cost. There’s more to this story, that’s all I’m saying. Czech it out.
“President” Musk has deployed his loyal White House occupant Donald Trump to announce today a shocking new initiative: Tesla deaths, apparently already worse than domestic terrorism, are to be officially increased.
I wish I were kidding. Tesla products causing an alarmingly high-rate of deaths are to be deployed more widely as a matter of some kind of federal priority? We’re hearing a Trump initiative that will kill more Americans, and damage more property, as near as I can tell.
What could possibly be behind this cruel misdirection from the White House, where Trump seems increasingly comfortable serving as an oligarch’s spokesperson instead of an American president? Does anyone remember the style and history of their campaign messaging going back to 2016?
The results from this original tryst (2016-2020) have been very clear, given how Tesla “Autopilot” was deregulated enough to go on and kill more people than even domestic terrorist vehicle attacks:
Let’s go now to the Trump stage of 2025 to hear the exact latest clown-around performance.
Donald Trump said he will label violence against Tesla dealerships domestic terrorism as he appeared with Elon Musk, the Tesla CEO, to show support amid recent anti-Tesla protests and the slump in the company’s stock price. Several Tesla vehicles were parked in the driveway of the White House for the US president to pick from, accompanied by Musk and his young son.
The irony is impossible to miss: Trump is ready to label protests against potentially dangerous Tesla vehicles as “domestic terrorism” while standing next to the very man whose products the data suggests might be the bigger threat. But who’s really calling the shots in this bizarre press conference?
Imagine if the White House proudly displayed VBIEDs (Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices) in the driveway while American troops were being killed by the same weapons in combat zones.
This isn’t just dangerous political theater, it’s moral abdication. When Tesla vehicles are claiming more American lives than domestic terrorism according to statistics, why is our government criminalizing those who raise concerns rather than addressing the clear and present Tesla death danger?
The Trump jelly platform seems disturbingly clear: American lives are apparently worth less than protecting Musk’s fake wealth from his fake stock price.
Furthermore, when I hear Trump talk about a worry that people freely throw “Molotov cocktails” at the authoritarian Tesla brand, a certain history fact comes immediately to mind.
The “Molotov” label comes from Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who had brazenly claimed that bombs exploding in Finnish civilian neighborhoods in 1939 were “humanitarian food deliveries.” The Finns, in their cold and bitter irony, named improvised bottles of fuel lit on fire as “Molotov cocktails”, because they said it was just a “drink” to go with the explosive authoritarian “bread baskets.”
Fast forward to today and Trump fills the driveway with machines implicated in hundreds of American deaths saying they deserve special government protection as if Molotov’s bread baskets, while those who protest them with cocktails are “domestic terrorists.” See what I mean about history?
Orwell would recognize Trump’s corrupt use of language immediately. Hopefully it also should be recognized by anyone still able to read 1984 (e.g. Trump’s Secretary of Defense Hegseth has literally ordered Orwell’s books urgently axed from military libraries and reading lists).
I’d say the cruel White House performance of domestic terrorism doublespeak has tell-tale smells of Russia’s Putin influence, but the security community surely by now knows the awful “Musk” of such autocratic theater.
As has been the case for years with Tesla, in a nod to clear regression into defects known from 1970s-era door designs that don’t open in a fiery crash, the recent Piedmont Cybertruck tragedy is investigated best and explained clearly by local journalism.
The Highway Patrol’s investigation into a November Cybertruck crash in Piedmont where three college kids died is finding two very Tesla problems: the vehicle immediately caught fire, and its doors would not open.
…the Bay Area News Group has been going through the testimony of the CHP investigation. And the deaths appear to be more the result of the vehicle fire… troublingly, that testimony also showed the Cybertruck’s doors could not be opened in the aftermath of the crash, preventing Riordan from pulling the other three victims from the flaming wreckage.
Roirdan said that when he approached the burning vehicle, and tried to open the doors, they would not open. He said he “pulled for a few seconds, but nothing budged at all.” He also said “I then tried the button on the windshield of [survivor Jordan Miller’s] door, then [victim Krysta Tsukahara’s] door.”
He said he then pounded the windows with his fists, which did not work, and then struck the windows with a thick tree branch around a dozen times until he was able to crack and dislodge a passenger-side window. That was how he was able to pull Jordan Miller out of the vehicle.
But when he attempted to pull Tsukahara from that same window, Riordan testified, “I grabbed her arm to try and pull her towards me, but she retreated because of the fire.”
“Two very Tesla problems” is exactly right.
There’s no other negligence like we see in an obviously flawed and regressive Tesla design. And we know this because past lessons and litigation were supposed to permanently change the car industry in a way that nobody would attempt such deadly “efficiency” again.
Here’s typical Ford Pinto analysis, which for decades exposed deadly management design decisions. Note “doors jam shut” right at the top of the image. 
The fact that Tesla can do this known wrong thing intentionally, can ignore industry standards and instead kill so many people with fire due to management decisions (as if the Ford Pinto lessons never happened), is truly shocking.
The uniquely Tesla fire deaths are being reported all the time in local news, and yet… somehow the court systems around the world aren’t able to prevent the very clearly preventable deaths.
Although the fire brigade arrived quickly and extinguished the fire within 10 minutes, the male driver in his 30s inside the car was already buried in the flames. Korean media reported that the driver seemed to have tried to open the door several times, but failed for unknown reasons.
Immediate response. Witnesses on scene helping. Fire doused in 10 minutes. And then… for “unknown reasons” Tesla “failed” repeatedly. Many people are dead because of this sequence repeating. The bottom line seems obvious, as a question of whether any other brand of car would have meant these people survived, or maybe not even crashed at all.
German courts called out negligent homicide by a Tesla driver, and yet called the car a “death trap” design while not holding Tesla itself accountable?
In the dock, the awful shadow of a car manufacturer loomed large. The expert’s verdict was damning: Tesla’s automatic door unlocking system failed in the crash. The result? The rear doors were incapable of being opened either from inside or out in the crucial moments after the crash. Laura and Noel, both aged 18, were alive yet tragically were trapped and burned to death as first responders could only watch in horror.
The awful shadow of a car manufacturer loomed large. Expert verdict was damning. That’s the German press for you. So dramatic. Still not enough to get a Tesla CEO convicted.
There are dozens of cases with similar tragedy. We still don’t see the kind of necessary attention the Ford Pinto generated even though it had far fewer deaths over a much longer period.
