Category Archives: History

Over 100 Dead in Tesla Fires: DoJ Says “Domestic Terrorists” on Notice

In 2018, a Twitter exchange about fire involving Tesla’s CEO raised questions about appropriate messaging of public safety concerns.

Source: “Parked Teslas Keep Catching on Fire Randomly, And There’s No Recall In Sight. A roundup of every spontaneous Tesla fire shows the company’s response is stuck on Autopilot.” The Drive, June 2019

His tweet should have immediately raised DoJ concerns about the messaging around fire safety.

Perhaps this rhetoric established a pattern where Tesla fires were normalized, even celebrated by the CEO, setting the stage for what has come since then.

March 22, 2025 yet another Tesla burst into fire suddenly. Hundreds of these cars have burned, and data trackers suggest well over 100 people have died.

Finally, after years and years of Tesla fires, the Justice.gov website has a powerful statement out today that they are cracking down on Tesla “arsonists”.

…face the full force of the law for [those who] set fire to Tesla cars and charging stations.

The sudden concern with fire naturally got me curious about the frequency of fires recorded for Tesla, prior to the DoJ saying they have seen enough. As my wise old ethics professor Gunderson once said to me:

Outcomes of injuries and deaths are indeed what matter most to real justice, regardless of cause. Whether fires result from external arson or internal design flaws, the harm to people is the same.

According to the site tesla-fire.com tracking the data, Tesla has blown well beyond the Ford Pinto with a shocking 83 fire deaths by the end of 2023. The reliability of using tesla-fire.com is that it’s a collection of local qualitative news in a quantitative ledger, perhaps the highest integrity of any dataset possible.

We’re not talking reports of property damage alone, although those have apparently been bad.

Walmart sues Tesla for negligence after solar panels catch fire at 7 stores. […] As of November 2018, at least seven Walmart stores, including in Denton, Maryland and Beavercreek, Ohio, had experienced fires due to Tesla’s solar systems, according to the lawsuit. One of the fires happened months after the system was de-energized, Walmart said.

The stores were at risk of burning down, and while the news reported no injuries or deaths it still went to court. Notably in March 2018 Tesla CEO tweeted that everything is better with fire and then in November 2018 Walmart sued Tesla for multiple fires related to Tesla equipment.

Giant Tesla fires destroying things are bad, for sure. But we must really talk about the fact that there have been over 100 deaths related to Tesla fires, and apparently there’s no end in sight!

Tesla Fire Deaths Analysis

After the Tesla CEO tweeted in very prescriptive tone that he thought of fire as “better“, I noted he suddenly in 2025 switched into a passive observer tone, as if watching the world from a driver’s seat without grabbing the wheel:

“I can’t walk past a TV without seeing a Tesla on fire,” said Musk.

Does he still want people to believe him that fire makes everything better?

Remember that 2018 wasn’t just a single Tweet promoting fire. Elon Musk at the same time deceptively branded a flamethrower as “Not a Flamethrower” and sold tens of thousands of them. Of course there is no established connection between one product and another promoted by the same CEO, but perhaps you can see reason for concern here:

After two days locked up in an Italian prison, American Max Craddock was finally able to make his case to a judge. “It’s not a weapon of war,” his lawyer told the investigating magistrate. “It’s a toy they sell to children.” Craddock had been arrested in the Sardinian port city of Olbia in June 2018 after trying to board a private party bus with a collectible flamethrower from Elon Musk… […] More than 1,000 flamethrower purchasers abroad have had their devices confiscated by customs officers or local police, with many facing fines and weapons charges. In the U.S., the flamethrowers have been implicated in at least one local and one federal criminal investigation. There have also been at least three occasions in which the Boring Company devices have been featured in weapons hauls seized from suspected drug dealers. The upshot: What Musk and his army of fans thought was just another of his money-spinning larks is having real-world consequences for people and countries not in on the joke.

The TechCrunch article highlights how the marketing of certain highly flammable products as jokes can still have serious legal and safety repercussions for consumers. The ideas stated about a flamethrower and harms from fire are in fact no joke.

“We are told that various countries would ban shipping of it, that they would ban flamethrowers,” Musk told Rogan in 2018. “So, to solve this problem for all of the customs agencies, we labelled it, ‘Not a Flamethrower.’ “

According to the CEO of Tesla, a product he knew had been classified as a highly dangerous flamethrower (and therefore illegal) in many countries had its name changed by him to evade global safety laws that were meant to prevent harm from fires.

The juxtaposition between the CEO’s tweet that “everything is better with fire” and the subsequent marketing of products like “Not a Flamethrower” raises questions about his overall concerns and messaging around fire safety since 2018. These public statements and product decisions beg nearly a decade of data of who really is to be held responsible for safety from many, many Tesla fires.

Is he not going to take some heat? Even if he has been asleep at the wheel this whole time, while the Tesla fire incident and fatality rate steadily increased, where does the responsibility go?

If a CEO sleeps at the wheel as his entire car company crashes and bursts into flames, after his cars burst into flames, is he to blame?

I still remember when Ford was investigated for just 27 deaths from Pinto fires. That’s three times less than the Tesla over the same period.

Ford Pinto Fatalities:
27
Tesla Fire Fatalities:
83
Ratio (Tesla/Pinto):
3.1x
Pinto Time Period:
1971-1980 (10 years)
Tesla Time Period:
2013-2023 (11 years)

Note the data set ends before 2024 so we’re not including the many Tesla fires happening more recently.

Total Fire Incidents

232

Total Fatalities

83

Incidents with Fatalities

58

% Fatal Incidents

25.0%

For example, about a year ago nine Tesla fires were recorded just in one night in Berlin, Germany. NINE fires in 24 hours! Did you see it plastered all over the news as headlines? No. It’s not in this data set.

“Neun Autos gehen in Berlin in Flammen auf!” Source: BZ

And over the past year there have been many, many other parked Tesla combusting at dealerships, multiple vehicles destroyed suddenly. These also are not in the data.

A Tesla dealer in Georgia saw their Cybertruck burst into flames December 31st, 2024. Source: WSBTV

To make a finer point about this Cybertruck fire on December 31, everyone was talking about the Las Vegas political protest and self-immolation by a Green Beret. Nobody but very local news mentioned the other Cybertruck on fire at the same time, burning in a Tesla dealer parking lot.

Beyond the property damage being so common through 2024, there were many people killed in Tesla fires such as Georgia (2), Canada (4), Wisconsin (5), France (4), California (3), Korea (1)… we see there were at least 102 deaths if taking just a quick look at local news, where many blame the Tesla door design for death.

Teslas notoriously “veer” uncontrollably and crash. Design defects (e.g. Pinto doors) trap occupants and burn them to death as horrified witnesses and emergency responders watch helplessly. Source: VoCoFM, Korea, 2024

The DoJ focus on investigating damage to electric vehicles should evaluate incidents based on factual evidence, and prioritize cases involving loss of life.

Observations:

  • Tesla fire fatalities (83) occurred at a rate 3.1 times higher than the Ford Pinto (27), which was known for public outcry, major recall and safety investigation that changed the industry
  • A sharp increase in fatalities began in 2021, with 65 deaths (78% of total) occurring from 2021-2023
  • 2023 had the highest number of fatalities at 29, indicating the issue may be worsening over time
  • About 25% of all Tesla fire incidents involve fatalities, a significant safety concern
  • The data suggests structural or systemic safety issues that may require DOJ attention

All of that is so awful, it deserves a closer look to understand plausible causes of Tesla fires.

Tesla Fire Cause Analysis

Tesla vehicles have experienced a significant number of electrical-related fire incidents not related to crashes, with a clear pattern of spontaneous combustion and fires occurring while parked.

Anyone familiar with ICE car fires would recognize this immediately. The second-leading cause of ICE fires is the electrical system. A car without petroleum fuel means electrical fires will be front and center like they have always been, and any design defect would result in a rapid increase in fire incidents and danger.

The data for Tesla suggests potential electrical issues that merit thorough investigation, drawing parallels to how the Pinto’s fuel tank design eventually received deep scrutiny.

In other words, Tesla will have significantly higher rates of fire than an ICE vehicle (susceptible to electrical fires itself) because the Tesla has such fundamental safety design flaws.

  • 61 incidents (26% of all Tesla fires) appear to be electrical in nature rather than crash-related
  • Spontaneous combustion was mentioned in 25 incidents
  • 20 incidents occurred while vehicles were parked and not charging
  • 10 incidents happened during charging
  • 13 incidents took place in garages

Looking Ahead: The Future of Tesla Fires

Our analysis shows a disturbing trajectory, whether we use conservative or aggressive modeling:

Historical data from 2013-2023 used for projections into 2024-2026. Linear projection reaches ~65 incidents by 2026, and exponential projection reaches ~95 incidents by 2026. Source: tesla-fire.com

From “everything is better with fire” in 2018 to “I can’t walk past a TV without seeing a Tesla on fire” in 2025, we’ve witnessed a shift in public statements by the CEO of Tesla over time. What hasn’t changed is how justice is inconsistently applied to different people facing responsibility.

U.S. Supreme Court in 2025 ruled people responsible for environmental safety aren’t responsible because… America!

When a CEO promotes a culture that normalizes and even celebrates fire, then produces vehicles with documented electrical fire risks, it’s cruelly labeled a “joke”, or declared a “necessary” deadly path to achieve some desired future state of business. However, when someone allegedly takes direct action against those same vehicles to stop harms, they’re instead branded “arsonists” who will face “the full force of the law.”

The contradiction raises questions about the consistent application of legal standards across different contexts. Consider, for instance, if the Finnish justice system had prosecuted its citizens for arson when they used Molotov cocktails to defend against Soviets deploying tanks. Imagine Finnish citizens being told they must accept that Soviet tank manufacturers were merely delivering “futuristic assets,” and that Finnish casualties should be viewed as an unfortunate “price of doing business.” Such a comparison highlights the troubling inconsistency in how we judge resistance to very real and present existential threats versus protecting even the most extreme corporate abuses of society.

The Russian “Bread Basket” bombs of WWII were named for Molotov. The “Molotov cocktails” were thus the cynical name by the Finns. They violently resisted being told by Soviet authorities to normalize and accept fire-bombs of cluster munitions (very similar to how Tesla are made from clusters of chemical batteries) exploding in civilian areas followed by invading tanks (very similar to Cybertrucks).

In a world of corporate power hiding within carefully crafted messaging and legal maneuvering, traditional balanced analysis becomes inadequate. Elon Musk repeatedly sued a well known and highly respected car expert on the BBC for daring to review a Tesla accurately on exactly what it was: unreliable and unsafe.

The first model he reviewed broke down after just 55 miles when the brakes failed and the second overheated. Musk was deeply embarrassed by the verdict and swiftly launched a lawsuit over it. […] “I said it was unreliable, which it was; that it was ridiculously expensive, which it was; and that because it weighed more than most moons, it didn’t handle very well. Which it didn’t. Musk was very angry about this and sued us for defamation…. He lost the case, and the appeal, and he’s never really got over it.”

The stark reality of subsequent Tesla fires—and at least 100 lives lost—demands communication that matches the gravity of the situation, against aggressive legal intimidation and threats by Tesla. When a CEO can casually tweet “Everything’s better with fire” while selling products branded to evade regulations, and simultaneously oversee a company whose vehicles are linked to numerous fire incidents, conventional discourse fails us.

The rhetorical approach used here isn’t about inflaming emotions on their own, and about instead piercing the veil of gamified corporate normalization that would have us accept potentially predictable deaths as inevitable “disruption” rather than obvious tragedies. When a plane crashes does the manufacturer say “but how many miles are flown and how many planes are in the air”? No, we treat the deaths as they are, a death toll that should not have happened because we have the technology and regulations to prevent them. Sometimes only direct language can cut through layers of deflection to expose the contradictions between a company’s public persona and the consequences of its actions. In the face of cavalier attitudes toward public safety, measured tones become complicity.

This post reveals there has been a long-running fundamental ethical contradiction that allows assaults on public safety to be ignored in a very curated and specific way. Corporate decisions that may lead to dozens of deaths have been allowed to play as business as usual, while direct actions against those corporations—even those motivated by safety concerns to reduce or stop harm—are criminalized with extreme prejudice.

…the Bisbee Deportation. On July 12, 1917, roughly 1,200 copper miners, who’d been striking for better wages and safer working conditions, were rounded up at gunpoint, some by their own relatives, and sent via cattle car to the New Mexican desert, where they were left to die. […] 1897 Lattimer massacre saw Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian and German miners killed by being shot in the back; a sheriff decided to end a labor protest by murdering the protesters.

The Truth as Necessary for Justice

Back to the point my ethics professor made that “outcomes of injuries and deaths are indeed what matter most to real justice, regardless of cause”, people who have died in Tesla-related fires aren’t less dead because their deaths came from Tesla treating fire as a “joke”.

When the CEO himself acknowledges he’s seeing Tesla fires on TV, while the DoJ apparently focuses on prosecuting alleged arsonists instead of that CEO overseeing a decade of unexplained escalating fires, it presents what appears to be an imbalance in how accountability is distributed.

The contrast between casual social media messaging about fire and the serious consequences threatened for vehicle fires deserves critical examination. When companies treat fire risks so lightly in public communications, they may directly undermine the prosecution of the real-world safety issues by them and others. And there’s nothing “better” about that.

The conflation between individual responsibilities and individual actions isn’t accidental in this analysis—it’s precisely the point. As long as we treat them differently when the outcome (death) is the same, we should examine how we assess responsibility for tragedy across related yet different contexts.

Antidote to “America Fisters”: Mr. Rogers Time

America is adrift from a rise of “Fisters”, that is to say “America Fisters“.

An “Aryan fist” is used by white supremacists such as neo-Nazis globally and the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. For example, the right-wing terrorist mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik saluted with a raised fist in court in Oslo in 2012.

What does the angry rhetoric of the hateful nativist “America First” platform coupled with a raised fist mean?

The return of the “America First” ideology—a nativist hate group of the 1800s, better known as the KKK—has abruptly created a federal leadership vacuum swarming with raised fists. The contemporary usage has once again raised concerns about its inherently nationalist rhetoric. Critics argue that the slogan implicitly positions some Americans as more authentically “American” than others, intentionally weaponizing the labels of African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Muslim American… anything that would acknowledge both a race, religion or cultural heritage with an American identity. Framing of “America” having to be first, then labeling non-whites of America as always second, drives historical hierarchies to deny America embracing the truth of multicultural composition.

As their always divisive rhetoric gains ground like it’s 1836 again (eve of Andrew Jackson’s moral and economic collapse sending America into depression and then Civil War), we’re witnessing the same destructive patterns that periodically threaten American unity. Over a century after General Grant destroyed them on the battle field, and next destroyed them at the voting booth as President Grant, we can clearly see Trump is bringing the KKK back.

President Grant’s tomb says it plainly for all to see. Shut down the America First (KKK) mob rule (yet again) or they will inflict violent injustices upon everyone.

But there’s a modern counterforce hidden in plain sight, which should be familiar to most people today—Fred Rogers. Not just the digestible Daniel Tiger most remember spun out of his era of troubled times, but also the deeply principled American hero as community-builder detailed in Michael Long’s “Peaceful Neighbor.” Rogers wasn’t creating mere entertainment; he was using entertainment as a vessel to offer a clear superior outcome.

“Only people who take the time to see our work can begin to understand the depth of it.” This is the invitation of Peaceful Neighbor, to see and understand Rogers’s convictions and their expression through his program. Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, it turns out, is far from sappy, sentimental, and shallow; it’s a sharp political response to a civil and political society poised to kill.

While the old white supremacist nativists exploit fear of the other and destroy anything diverting from their fictional vision of self, Rogers long ago demonstrated how to build genuine connection across necessary and fruitful differences.

The critical role of data hygiene in AI: learning from history

In 1847, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis made a revolutionary yet simple observation: when doctors washed their hands between patients, mortality rates plummeted. Despite the clear evidence, his peers ridiculed his insistence on hand hygiene. It took decades for the medical community to accept what now seems obvious—that unexamined contaminants could have devastating consequences.

Today, we face a similar paradigm shift in artificial intelligence. Generative AI is transforming business operations, creating enormous potential for personalized service and productivity. However, as organizations embrace these systems, they face a critical truth: Generative AI is only as good as responsibility for the data it’s built on—though in a more nuanced way than one might expect.

Like compost nurturing an apple tree, or a library of autobiographies nurturing a historian, even “messy” data can yield valuable results when properly processed and combined with the right foundational models. The key lies not in obsessing over perfectly pristine inputs, but in understanding how to cultivate and transform our data responsibly.

Just as invisible pathogens could compromise patient health in Semmelweis’s era, hidden data quality issues can corrupt AI outputs, leading to outcomes that erode user trust and increase exposure to costly regulatory risks, known as in integrity breaches.

Inrupt’s security technologist Bruce Schneier has argued that accountability must be embedded into AI systems from the ground up. Without secure foundations and a clear chain of accountability, AI risks amplifying existing vulnerabilities and eroding public trust in technology. These insights echo the need for strong data hygiene practices as the backbone of trustworthy AI systems.

Why Data Hygiene Matters for Generative AI

High-quality AI relies on thoughtful data curation, yet data hygiene is often misunderstood. It’s not about achieving pristine, sanitized datasets—rather, like a well-maintained compost heap that transforms organic matter into rich soil, proper data hygiene is about creating the right conditions for AI to flourish. When data isn’t properly processed and validated, it becomes an Achilles’ heel, introducing biases and inaccuracies that compromise every decision an AI model makes. Schneier’s focus on “security by design” underscores the importance of treating data hygiene as a foundational element of AI development—not just a compliance checkbox.

While organizations bear much of the responsibility for maintaining clean and reliable data, empowering users to take control of their own data introduces an equally critical layer of accuracy and trust. When users store, manage, and validate their data through personal “wallets”—secure, digital spaces governed by the W3C’s Solid standards—data quality improves at its source.

This dual focus on organizational and individual accountability ensures that both enterprises and users contribute to cleaner, more transparent datasets. Schneier’s call for systems that prioritize user agency resonates strongly with this approach, aligning user empowerment with the broader goals of data hygiene in AI.

Navigating Regulatory Compliance with the DSA and DMA Standards

With European regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), expectations for AI data management have heightened. These regulations emphasize transparency, accountability, and user rights, aiming to prevent data misuse and improve oversight. To comply, companies must adopt data hygiene strategies that go beyond basic checklists.

As Schneier pointed out, transparency without robust security measures is insufficient. Organizations need solutions that incorporate encryption, access controls, and explicit consent management to ensure data remains secure, transparent, and traceable. By addressing these regulatory requirements proactively, businesses can not only avoid compliance issues but also position themselves as trusted custodians of user data.

Moving Forward with Responsible Data Practices

Generative AI has tremendous potential, but only when its data foundation is built on trust, integrity, and responsibility. Just as Semmelweis’s hand-washing protocols eventually became medical doctrine, proper data hygiene must become standard practice in AI development. Schneier’s insights remind us that proactive accountability—where security and transparency are integrated into the system itself—is critical for AI systems to thrive.

By adopting tools like Solid, organizations can establish a practical, user-centric approach to managing data responsibly. Now is the time for companies to implement data practices that are not only effective but also ethically grounded, setting a course for AI that respects individuals and upholds the highest standards of integrity.

The future of generative AI lies in its ability to enhance trust, accountability, and innovation simultaneously. As Bruce Schneier and others have emphasized, embedding security and transparency into the very fabric of AI systems is no longer optional—it’s imperative. Businesses that prioritize robust data hygiene practices, empower users with control over their data, and embrace regulations like the DSA and DMA, are not only mitigating risks but also leading the charge towards a more ethical AI landscape.

The stakes are high, but the rewards are even greater. By championing responsible data practices, organizations can harness the transformative power of generative AI while maintaining the trust of their users and the integrity of their operations. The time to act is now—building AI systems on a foundation of well-cultivated data is the key to unlocking AI’s full potential in a way that benefits everyone.

Originally posted on TechRadar.

Andrew Jackson Versus the Slave Who Could “Cypher”

This 1756 advertisement in a British paper is revealing. Slavery concepts held by the English show that those providing education and presumably other material needs believed they were owed loyalty, completely missing the fundamental human desire for freedom.

Masters were sometimes baffled at their slave’s flight.

Take Squire Walker’s 14-year-old “black Negro boy” who escaped in London on May 31, 1756.

He had fled “without the least provocation,” the squire’s ad in the Public Advertiser read the next day. “Born in his house . . . handsome, strong, and well built . . . christen’d by the Name of Thomas Walk, kept at School to learn to read, write and Cypher, at great expense,” the ad continued. He had even made off with the “Gold-laced Hat that I used to wear.”

Nearly 50 years later, after abolition of slavery was obvious to most of the world (e.g. ending by 1833 for England), a completely tone-deaf advertisement by Andrew Jackson in 1804 America shows notable differences….

Looking at the barbarity of Jackson’s “Stop the Steal” campaign, we can see stark differences from Squire Walker’s 1756 notice. While Walker emphasized the education and care supposedly given to Thomas Walk, Jackson’s advertisement shows no such pretense of benevolence.

As I said before, abolition was writing on the wall by this time. It was ending everywhere. In 1807, America passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, a federal law that would take effect almost immediately. This, instead of ending slavery (as Lincoln famously later pointed out it should have, using his debates with Douglas) led to an industry surrounding rape of American Black women to produce humans as property.

The contrasting approaches in the ads reveal how enslavers in America thus were so incredibly different in the history of slavery, pushing a regression from human relationship with those enslaved towards a rapidly worsening mechanized, industrialized system of human trafficking replete with ethnic cleansing and genocide:

  1. While Walker seemed baffled by ingratitude from someone he’d “invested in” through education, Jackson takes a coin-operated transactional approach with rewards for capture without any confusion about why someone would flee being treated so poorly.
  2. Jackson’s broader treatment of enslaved people demonstrates this brutal pragmatism. He exploited Black freedmen by falsely promising pay and respect when he needed their military service. After they delivered victory, he denied these promises, stripped them of weapons and rights, and claimed their achievements as his own. This pattern of using American Blacks when convenient and then actively working to diminish their freedoms characterizes Jackson’s approach.
  3. Jackson’s declaration of martial law in New Orleans, jailing of critics (including a US District Court Judge), and attempts at press censorship suggest an authoritarian approach that is consistent with his later political tactics.
  4. The juxtaposition is particularly telling: Walker’s advertisement reflects a paternalistic delusion where enslavers believed providing education created an obligation of loyalty. Jackson’s advertisement, however, shows no such pretense – just the raw exercise of power and ownership without the veneer of “benefits provided.”
  5. While Walker boasted about Thomas Walk’s abilities to read, write and “cypher,” Jackson’s advertisement focuses on physical descriptions and monetary rewards, showing a shift from pretending slavery had mutual benefits to deliberate, unmasked coercion.

Notably, Jackson’s claims of military success in New Orleans were in fact stolen from free Black men who comprised over 50% of the force, in order to build political power that he would then use to strip all American Black rights and horrifically corrupt and expand slavery.

After the 1815 victory at New Orleans, Jackson ordered the valorous American Black troops banned from their own city and commanded enslaved soldiers return to slavery immediately rather than granting the freedom he had promised them if they would do his fighting for him. After riding his stolen valor of false military glory to the presidency, Jackson implemented policies that intensified and expanded American slavery to unprecedented levels of cruelty in human history.

His economic policy to rapidly juice wealth for slave owners at the expense of actual working men was predictably disastrous. Removal of federal deposits from the Bank of the United States and subsequent placement in unregulated state banks fueled rampant speculation, particularly in slave-backed securities and land for cotton plantations. This deliberate financial deregulation, combined with his aggressive expansion of slave territories through militant deportations of ethnic cleansing (forced Native American removal), created the perfect conditions for the market Panic of 1837.

What followed from his ideas of elite wealth generation instead was one of the worst economic depressions in American history to that point. He created a five-year disaster born directly from the intertwined forces of financial recklessness and his commitment to white supremacist fever dreams of unregulated exploitation of Americans (expanding the slave economy).

The catastrophic economic collapse revealed the fundamental instability of Jackson’s whole vision: an America built on territorial conquest, extraction of wealth through human trafficking in the state-sanctioned rape of Black women, and unchecked “coin” speculation using humans as bits of property.

This evolution of a dangerous and deceitful regression in an American President illustrates how, despite abolition movements gaining ground worldwide for the century prior, American slavery became even more cruelly and nakedly exploitative due to men like Andrew Jackson, dropping even an Old-World paternalistic facade of any care at all for humanity.