A design defect (Autopilot) is suspected after a Tesla abruptly veered off an overpass at high speed — hitting metal safety gates so hard they were wrapped around the car — and then became engulfed in flames on impact.

A Tesla crashed through the metal fencing on the Riverside Drive overpass and onto the center divider of the 134 Freeway below in the Griffith Park area late Sunday, March 3, 2024, bursting into flames and burning for an extended period of time. Two men were injured. … A section of the overpass fencing remains stuck to the front of the vehicle’s shell.

Photos from the scene make it fairly obvious that the southbound Tesla totally ignored an important curve to the right on Riverside Drive, and instead drove at full speed straight ahead across the northbound lane over a curb through a metal gate and off the overpass onto the lanes below.

Google Maps Street View:

Over and over again we see the absence of common sense, mixed with a lack of engineering talent, generating news of the Cybertruck failing at basic road safety (let alone survival).

In case this video isn’t clear, here’s a photo to show how the low quality cheap car suspension was trivially destroyed by an owner losing control and mounting a common obstacle, as I’ve warned about here before.

Related news:

1) Owners are angry at Elon Musk because his claims about a “buff” truck were deceptive. They discovered he meant they would have to spend many hours every day scrubbing their Cybertruck to stop the spread of ugly rust spots from any and all exposure to water.

2) “Cybertruck can’t tug [because the wheels will fall off]…. It seems we may have been duped by Tesla and Elon Musk”

The stupid, it burns.

They call the gang leader “Barbeque” and he has announced plans to destroy the country to prevent the Prime Minister from staying in power.

Haiti has declared a three-day state of emergency and a night-time curfew after armed gangs stormed the country’s two biggest jails, allowing more than 3,000 dangerous criminals, including murderers and kidnappers, to escape back on to the streets of the poor and violence-racked Caribbean nation.

The finance minister, Patrick Boisvert – who is in charge while the embattled prime minister, Ariel Henry, is abroad trying to salvage support for a UN-backed security force to stabilise Haiti – said police would use “all legal means at their disposal” to recapture the prisoners and enforce the curfew.

The banks, schools, hospitals, Internet lines, and airport all have come under escalating attack by militant gangs opposed to the Prime Minister. Critical infrastructure is under siege.

Now even prisons have been destroyed, adding thousands of violent criminals to the chaos.

Notably the few people who remained in prison after it was broken included the group of mercenaries who stand accused of assassinating Haiti’s president in 2021.

That’s actually an important detail.

Recall that Barbeque was fired from the Police for corruption related to gang violence. It turned out he had been heavily sponsored by the Haitian president to murder political opposition until… assassination of that president. Violent (murderous) anti-gang work actually was Barbeque just being a paid gang-building leader (classic dirty cop stuff, complicating a decade of analysis of who has been fighting for what).

Barbecue presented the gang alliance as a way to restore peace across Port-au-Prince. Instead, the coalition has expanded its territorial control and provided politicians a way to stamp out opposition.

Not to over simplify here but it seems Barbeque is deploying excessive violence and stoking crime to protest anti-corruption of new government leadership.

Mussolini would be proud.

Wrecking his own country suits Barbeque’s fascist strategy as he intends unlimited violence to intimidate and force every citizen into paying his gang protection money. He doesn’t want a safe country, he wants an unsafe country and a government so corrupt it pays his gangs to use extra-judicial killings to prevent political stability.

Legal experts on data processing and transparency rights are increasingly in the news to call out Facebook as a criminal business model (gathering other people’s data and using it without real consent)

Today’s GDPR complaints from BEUC argue that Meta’s pay-or-consent model breaches data protection principles of the law, including the principles of purpose limitation, data minimisation, fair processing and transparency, with said processing enabling the company to “infer private details about the consumer.”

The group also claim Meta has no valid legal basis under the GDPR for its data processing for advertising because it relies on consent. It also claims Meta cannot “account for the lawfulness of its processing for content personalisation” because the social media giant doesn’t make it clear that its purpose is necessary for the relevant contract or that the “profiling” is consistent with the principle of data minimisation. Lastly, the Euro groups are claiming in their complaints that the model is inherently unfair because of a “lack of transparency, unexpected processing, [the] use of its dominant position to force consent, and switching of legal bases in ways which frustrate the exercise of data subject rights.”

My, how time flies.

On the 18th of August, 2011 ULD presented a technical and legal analysis of the use of fanpages and social plug-ins. We stated that fanpages and social plug-ins implement long-persisting cookies not only on the devices of Facebook members, but also of non-members. Some of those cookies are used to provide data for an analytics tool called Insights that give fanpage and website owners feedback on users and their behaviour. As we couldn’t see any legal justification for those cookies and the processing of personal traffic data in the US, we had to denounce the operating of those fanpages and social plug-ins by controllers in Schleswig-Holstein as illegal. There is no valid informed consent of the user, there is even no possibility to opt out.

Certainly, more than a decade of arguments about consent and human rights aren’t going to resonate with a CEO who has boldly declared, “I don’t care if people like me,” when imposing his own wishes on others, even when it blatantly disregards the law.

The beginnings of Facebook involve a controversial incident at Harvard, where Mark Zuckerberg used “Facemash” in 2003 to attack women who refused to date him. Zuckerberg fell under scrutiny after women of color reported consent violations — clear and severe privacy breaches, gathering unauthorized photos of women to solicit abuse of them if they refused his demands. Despite a brief investigation of breach of security, violating copyrights, and violating individual privacy, Harvard dumped the charges to instead become an early investor in a platform for misogynist attacks and political destabilization.

…FaceMash website began with a love-scorned Zuckerberg in 2003, who began to drink and write in his blog about an idea to hack university servers and download photos of students without permission… The Kirkland [dorm] facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendous facebook pics,” he wrote that night. “I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.”

This is all a good reminder that on this blog in 2011 I called out very concerning Russian influence and interference in Facebook, yet the CEO even five years later in the hot seat still tried to claim ignorance of what was never a secret.

…private company ruled by a man funded by Russians without any transparency that most likely hopes to profit from your loss (of privacy)

Makes you wonder what might have happened if regulators had done the right thing and shut down Facebook back then. Of course it is a criminal business model in 2024. We know so much more about harms due to hindsight, because it has always been a criminal business model.