Allegedly the following analysis comes from U.S. embassy officials:

Right-wing populists such as Orbán and Netanyahu thrive on posturing against outside antagonists, using external criticism to bolster their bona fides as strongmen who can stand up to the international community.

[…]

Whenever Western countries would publicly pressure Orbán on his policies, he would refashion that pressure into electoral support, leaving his critics with no good options. Stay silent and he would win; speak up and he would also win.

The proposed solution is to move the messaging from outside public pressure to inside, driving wedges in domestic coalition groups to expose inherently extreme groups as oppositional and destructive to coalitions.

In practice, this means strategically targeting policies where Netanyahu is on the wrong side of Israeli public opinion and forcing him to choose between his hard-right partners and the rest of the country.

Publicly being a supporter of what the rest of the country wants to do can put an extremist in relief; sets them on a political island that makes any attempted power grabs and control issues far more easily judged as coming from the island.

Excellent analysis here:

…most Israelis have no desire to mortgage the security of Israel and its indispensable relationship to the United States in favor of some far-flung hilltop settlers in West Bank regions that few Israelis could locate on a map.

That identification of extremists as being apart from the middle is translated into a simple control language: posturing against inside antagonists means hold accountable those who commit extreme acts such as hate-based attacks.

And that is also known as defending representative law and order, using a basic harm principle, which U.S. embassy officials seem to have presented as the kind of domestic coalition that can unseat right-wing populists.

The 2013 Tesla future-leaning hot-take sales pitches — the promise that rapidly throwing AI into cars magically would solve all dangers of driving — have been declared an official flop. As if we couldn’t already tell by 2016 it would make safety worse, given security analysis of the first Autopilot fatalities.

Mounting safety tragedies including loss of lives were apparently all easily avoidable, related to some dumb engineering mistakes that regulators are still chasing down.

Here comes the NHTSA, uncorked from Tesla’s 2016 government corruption schemes. It no longer ignores the fact that millions of dangerous loitering missiles on public roads are prone to sudden fatal failure.

The resulting software update doesn’t get at the underlying design problem, an inability of the Tesla to recognize and avoid crashing into everything.

Notably, vehicle deaths in America have been rising rapidly, attributed to things like the high-risk low-care false overconfidence and constant distraction or just plain negligence of drivers in a Tesla.

Or as researchers wrote earlier this year, data shows Tesla ADAS increased the rate of crashes while promising to be the solution.

Although Level 2 vehicles were claimed to have a 43% lower crash rate than Level 1 vehicles, their improvement was only 10% after controlling for different rates of freeway driving. Direct comparison with general public driving was impossible due to unclear crash severity thresholds in the manufacturer’s reports, but analysis showed that controlling for driver age would increase reported crash rates by 11%.

No surprise then, that the years late and very low-quality Tesla CyberTruck is predicted to climb towards the worst vehicle safety record in history, a looming danger especially to the most vulnerable populations on public roads.

How To Build a Car That Kills People: Cybertruck Edition. The Cybertruck represents a lot of what’s wrong with the U.S. transportation system — even as it purports to address those problems.