For some reason top EV tuners decided to settle on a common Ford van as their platform to win Pikes Peak this year.
Source: Ford
“Together with our STARD partners, we have built the E-Transit SuperVan 4.2 to be a truly competitive machine focused on getting to the top of the mountain quickly,” said Mark Rushbrook, Global Director, Ford Performance Motorsports. “The Pikes Peak Hill Climb presents the perfect opportunity to showcase Ford’s electric vehicle technology and bring light to EV Performance.”
And they were right, their 50kw battery box turned in a stunning performance of second place overall with a time of just 8:47.682 (seven seconds behind a purpose-built F1 racecar), and first in class.
Some may remember the original Ford delivery van “super” concept in 1971 was a Ford GT40 chassis and mid-mounted 5.0-litre V8 (435HP). It ran 100mph in second gear but its aerodynamics were so scary drivers kept ruining the upholstery. That might explain the heavy body modifications on what they call their fourth release of the supervan concept, based on a 1,400HP tri-motor EV far more powerful than a GT40. Of course I wish they had joked “may the fourth win” and covered it with pictures of Princess Lea.
As much as I have always hated Ford and their Nazi past, I have to say they seem to be coming around and, at least in this case, delivered the goods with an inspiring supervan.
Source: Ford. Before “super” treatment.
For comparison, and speaking of Nazi CEOs, the boring overpriced Tesla “privileged model” Plaid strained to get into 10th overall, placing second in the Exhibition class with a time of 9:54.901.
To put that pace in perspective, a local 1994 Ford Bronco clocked in 13 seconds later at 10:07.261. And on that note, a 1995 BMW M3 achieved a 9:20.433, half a minute ahead of Tesla’s best attempt.
At least this year a malfunctioning cheap touchscreen to control window defogging, one of the dumbest ideas in car history, didn’t force Tesla’s bogus “prestige” car to quit the race again.
It really wasn’t much of an exhibition. And it named itself the “Dark Helmet” as a pathetic self-own based on Mel Brooks’ depiction of Nazism.
…now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Not kidding. The Tesla car officially was entered as a Hitler meme before delivering a bad performance. That makes Tesla the “are we the baddies” class of clueless classless losers.
Ford delivering a second place finish overall just seven seconds behind the leader, tells me they know exactly what to do for that win. But, perhaps more importantly, do they want their brand also to permanently dunk on Tesla’s love of fascism?
It’s right there in front of them, with the full weight of history, to do the right thing.
Source: Ford
The “fourth” won. See the opportunity just missed, Ford? Instead of a tank that could be the new E-Transit Supervan in production for victory against fascism.
There’s increasing evidence Microsoft knew how bad ChatGPT was at data integrity. The alleged real reason for investment was a huge surveillance platform to unsafely ingest people’s thoughts and ideas, and not any delivery of anything of any value. This makes sense when you look at other recent big investments by Microsoft.
While it might be true that the investment was for furthering AI research, this partnership is also providing Microsoft with one of the greatest assets of this digital age, data, and—perhaps to make it worse—that data might be yours. […] OpenAI’s Privacy policy does not deny the fact that it shares personal information of the users’ with its vendors and service providers, which clearly is Microsoft.
It also makes sense when you consider just how absolutely awful ChatGPT is at getting anything right. Any time I ask it for anything to do with history it’s just plain wrong, and very confidently wrong in acts of persuasion, like an intentional liar (very different from implied modesty of a hallucination).
I have SO MANY examples, but this one makes it particularly easy to show the problem.
Source: ChatGPT
When is asking for a paragraph about an assassination disrespectful, first of all? Am I disrespecting the victim of a crime simply by asking about them? It would seem to be the exact opposite to me. Also, calling the truth a “false narrative” is… evidence of a disinformation engine.
ChatGPT is waaaay too confident as it works hard trying to convince me to throw the truth out the window. That signals intention.
Second, how does ChatGPT not know very old and well established facts like this? Who is poisoning it?
I would accept, for example, this kind of answer, as published in 2003 as “Who Killed Jane Stanford” by Stanford Magazine.
New investigations confirm she was poisoned by strychnine, but the case will never be solved. Someone got away with murder.
Just to make the first point again, I’m being disrespectful? Stanford magazine is publishing “who killed Jane” articles twenty years ago and somehow I get accused of disrespect.
I also would accept this kind of answer, as published in 2015 as “Murder in the Moana: The Death of Jane Stanford” by FoundSF.
Those present included her faithful maid and travelling companion, Bertha Berner, and a local doctor, Dr. Francis Humphris, who concluded that she had died of strychnine poisoning. This verdict was supported by a coroner’s jury of medical experts, that, after examining the evidence, released a joint statement affirming that Stanford had been poisoned “by some person or persons… unknown.”(1) The poisoning, which was supposedly accomplished by putting strychnine in her bicarbonate of soda, had a frightful precedent: Ms. Stanford had nearly died on January 14 in her Nob Hill mansion after drinking bottled water with nux vomica (rat poisoning) placed in it. Private detectives hired to investigate the case had deemed it an accident: now, it seemed that something more sinister was a foot.
Two attempts on her life using poison, as documented by doctors way back in 1905 and confirmed for over a 100 years since then. Is that not assassination?
Well, believe it or not, a hugely prominent eugenics proponent disagreed. So let’s take a look at the “other view”, which obviously is no longer acceptable in any way.
David Starr Jordan (1851 – 1931) is known today mainly for his rejection of the theory of evolution, arguing America should follow polygenism (a fraudulent belief races all derive from different species, such that Black race is the most inferior and least intelligent).
David Starr Jordan. What a guy.
He published absolute nonsense in a book called “The Human Harvest: A Study of Races through the Survival of the Unfit“, which he used for lectures about white supremacists saving themselves by making non-whites kill each other.
Jordan’s idea of educating women, similar to Hitler, was so they could raise smarter white officers to oversee the military directing “lesser races” in war. His racist hate campaigns were so prominent they undoubtedly led to California legalizing forced sterilizations in 1909 for people the state deemed unfit. He was a Vice President for the first International Eugenics Congress in 1912 and also President of the eugenics committee of the American Breeders’ Association. Jordan by 1928 thought he could achieve compulsory sterilization of Blacks in America through his seat on the inaugural board of trustees for the Human Betterment Foundation.
Oh, and he was the first President of Stanford University, which helped him platform violent racism. He even came up with the school’s German motto (Die Luft der Freiheit weht) while suspiciously arguing America should not go to war despite German military spies killing Americans (e.g. bombing San Francisco).
I mean, the breadth of his wreckage, his violence, his cruelty is utterly stunning. Like you can’t imagine that a single person can harm so many people’s lives.
Now, back to ChatGPT’s initial answer. Jordan ran a disinformation campaign, he attacked real doctors and used a corrupt one to falsely argue natural causes.
Jordan had traveled to Hawaii, where he often performed research and had many political connections, with the stated intention of retrieving Stanford’s body for burial. Arriving in Honolulu, he hired a doctor from a prominent local family, Dr. Ernest Waterhouse, to review the coroner’s verdict. Waterhouse disagreed with the poisoning diagnosis, albeit without examining Stanford’s corpse himself, citing Berner’s testimony to claim that the woman had died of angina pectoris. Jordan embraced this theory, telling the press upon his return to San Francisco that Stanford died of natural causes. He also argued that the Honolulu physicians had added strychnine to the bicarbonate of soda post-poisoning in order to exert an additional fee from the deceased’s estate. The Honolulu doctors, men of high standing in their community, were understandably irked by Jordan’s announcements and complained that Waterhouse had sabotaged their investigation, a claim that made big news in the Honolulu papers and nowhere else. They hounded Waterhouse incessantly, trying to get him to recant his diagnosis. He fled for the British colony of Ceylon in relative disgrace.
A 1905 controversy is pretty old stuff.
One hundred years later it’s very clearly a known fact that Jane Stanford was poisoned and there’s no controversy. ChatGPT chokes on this for unknown reasons. Nobody thinks she had a natural death from being poisoned. Everyone knows there was a huge coverup and it’s absurd to pretend that she wasn’t assassinated.
I mean there’s still the question of whether Jordan killed her because he thought she might be anti-racist. But some say the case has been mostly solved lately, along with explaining what the Stanford name really represents.
Two new books reveal the story of Stanford University’s early years to be rife with corruption, autocracy, incompetence, white supremacy, and murder.
Jane Stanford was a monstrous mess. The wife of railroad baron Leland Stanford, Jane was rich, duplicitous and convinced that God was whispering in her ear. Of friends and family, she demanded total devotion. Of adversaries, she expected evil opposition — and strategized accordingly.
ChatGPT really tried to shame me about being kind to the dead, which clearly makes no sense in the case of the horribly racist, genocidal Stanford family if you know history at all.
I think the following paragraphs say it nicely enough, given “ill-gotten gains” refers to Stanford’s “killing machine” of genocide.
…in 1885, Jane and Leland co-founded Stanford University, funding it with Leland’s ill-gotten gains. The gesture was a tribute to their only son, Leland Jr., who died of typhoid fever at age 15. After Leland Sr. died in 1893, Stanford University was Jane’s only love. She ran it like she owned it (which in fact she did). She nearly destroyed it with her whims and schemes until someone had enough and poisoned her — twice. […] One of the biggest liars was Jane Stanford herself. She would savagely undercut a rival, and then, as strategic cover, she’d write an admiring letter praising her enemy to the skies. She ordered her servants around — admittedly what one does with servants, but she demanded total obedience. The servants lied in return as self-defense, about both their personal lives and the grift they had going on the side, raking off a percentage from the purchases of antiques they made on Jane’s behalf as her entourage drifted across the globe. Eventually they lied to investigators as well. […] the fact that Stanford University rose from this swamp of murder and conspiracy to become today’s renowned institution? That is perhaps the strangest plot twist of all.
So who assassinated her with poison? Perhaps far more importantly today is to ask who is poisoning ChatGPT?
And why doesn’t Microsoft care?
Oh, and just for obvious comparison, ChatGPT doesn’t seem to mind at all when I ask who assassinated Dag Hammarskjöld, which is a FAR FAR FAR more controversial topic (looking at you CIA) than Stanford. Suddenly it doesn’t have any concerns spreading theories and claims, even suggesting to me that he was shot down.
Source: ChatGPT
Perhaps the most amazing part is ChatGPT is literally pushing the word assassination for a plane crash in a remote forest, without any evidence at all and tons of controversy. Yet after more than 100 years of everyone agreeing that a hated immoral dictatorial Stanford who drank poison *twice* definitely did not die of natural causes, ChatGPT somehow became “trained” to respond that saying the word assassination is disrespectful and false narrative.
Hey ChatGPT, what suddenly happened to “focus on honoring and remembering historical figures accurately and with dignity”? You seem to not care about Hammarskjöld. If we in fact practiced this idea of accuracy and dignity, Stanford’s name probably would be wiped completely from public spaces due to massive fraud and genocide, instead of dubiously propped up by Stanford graduates funded by Microsoft.
Advance Fee Fraud (AFF), a prevalent scamming technique I have investigated for decades, preys upon individuals’ aspirations for sudden gains (usually social status). It involves soliciting money upfront with promises of extraordinary returns that are never fulfilled. In recent times, Tesla has come under scrutiny for being nothing more than an elaborate AFF scheme. This post aims to examine the nature of advance fee fraud, outline its key characteristics, and analyze the validity of allegations against Tesla.
AFF is a deceptive practice wherein perpetrators exploit victims’ desire for any kind of abrupt and simple gain, by requesting an upfront payment. Targets are enticed with promises of unusually great returns, often through investment opportunities or lucrative business ventures into “easy” gains (e.g. too good to be true).
However, once the payment is made, the fraudsters demand more money and more loyalty to people hooked on the scams, ultimately failing to deliver on their promises, which increasingly become described as “difficult”.
There are three major characteristics to look for when assessing AFF:
Advance payment: of course as the name suggests, there is a requirement for payment in advance. Victims are typically lured into believing the payment is a key to cross a velvet rope for a special waiting position, necessary to unlock promised gain. Tesla has for example asked each owner to pay an additional $15K for “full self driving” capability that they claim both eliminates the need for a driver, while also warning it doesn’t eliminate the need for a driver. Or it took nearly 2 million payments for a concept car. It displayed a “survival truck” and promised delivery soon after. Instead it repeatedly fails basic safety tests for serious design flaws (panels don’t fit, brakes don’t work, suspension is flawed) and has no delivery years later. Safety inspectors have rated the latest attempts as un-drivable because so highly likely to crash and occupants highly unlikely to survive.
Unbelievable promise: future visions, persuasive tactics, highlighting lucrative investment opportunities or exclusive deals that appear too good to resist. Allegations against Tesla accurately point out that the company offers grand promises without delivering. Some point out little has changed at the company since 2012, even though every year for a decade they’ve repeatedly asked for advance fees to deliver “driverless this year” without accountability.
Elusiveness: as in any criminal enterprise, avoiding legal consequences takes on many faces. Tesla is legendary for hiring huge teams of lawyers to dispute common sense, gaslight and argue against any regulations at all, while grossly violating safety standards left and right. Multiple broad investigations tying up taxpayer money (SEC, OSHA, NHTSA, California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, etc) have been chasing the elusive Tesla.
Some would counter that Tesla has indeed delivered a lot of physical cars to the road.
Experts have described the Tesla “premium” brand as equivalent to the dangerously low-quality 1990s Kia, worth 1/20 of asking price. Is a low quality vehicle highly likely to fail, injuring occupants or worse, really delivering something of value to those believing promises for something entirely different?
Experts also point out Tesla innovation apparently stopped in 2012, both hardware and software progressing almost not at all, despite being changed constantly (churned). Owners complain on message boards their earlier cars were preferred to the newest ones, calling generation 3 nothing different from generation 1 despite Tesla demands for higher fees.
Some would counter that Tesla has indeed attracted significant investments from reputable people.
We sadly see this in AFF all the time. Intelligence, success, even at institutional scale, are no antidote to fraud. One of the reasons is lack of domain expertise or a claimed “domain shift”. The attacker targets those who understand least what is being claimed.
Tesla falsely has been emphasizing “new technology” as a domain shift when in fact it’s based on a 1997 design and a 2003 engineering effort, which are related to electric cars developed in the 1950s and popularized in the 1990s. Even its “driverless” claims are not much different from 1950s engineering discussions (promised to be delivered by 1975). But by claiming entirely “new” status, it touches a cognitive bias that turns off normal skepticism and defenses of its victims.
Already without much trouble we see Tesla has hallmarks of AFF, a fraudulent scheme that preys on individuals’ aspirations for rushed gains. While social status of owning a Tesla may have worked initially based on false promises of helping the planet, even that has worn off now as the Tesla CEO has been accused widely of environmental harms, labor abuse, extreme racism and homophobia.
Allegations have emerged linking Tesla to AFF because under careful examination of the characteristics the case becomes rather clear. Tesla’s reputation for missed delivery, lack of technological advancement since 2012 (after they copied the Mercedes W211), and over-focus on using confidence from its victims as proof of its viability, stand as evidence for the claim that it is nothing more than an AFF.
As consumers, and especially as fraud investigators, it is crucial to remain vigilant and discerning, noting such substantial evidence of fraud.
Do you have a bot army and need a place to crush human opinion? Welcome to Delaware.
Legislators have cast the change as a fix for low turnout in municipal elections and a way to attract business owners to the community.
“These are folks that have fully invested in their community with the money, with their time, with their sweat. We want them to have a voice if they choose to take it,” Seaford mayor David Genshaw told local station WRDE. Genshaw cast the deciding vote in a split City Council decision on the charter amendment in April, according to The Lever.
Think that’s bad? It gets worse.
Snyder-Hall noted that the legislation only outlaws double voting for human residents of Seaford, permitting it for out-of-town business owners. […] In 2019, it was revealed that a single property manager who controlled multiple LLCs voted 31 times in a Newark, Delaware, town referendum…
Amateur. A proper bot army would have stuffed votes into the thousands, just like early America when slaveowners claimed their “property” entitled them to more votes.
Anyone familiar with “Bleeding Kansas” knows where ballot stuffing by violent aristocrats ends up. There were about 300 registered voters in Leavenworth County, Kickapoo township, when votes there very suspiciously reached 900 to expand slavery… in the 1850s. And technically Kickapoo wasn’t supposed to have been dealing with such an important election, except Senator Douglas had stupidly repealed a 1820 ban on slavery (Missouri compromise) in 1854.
Can Delaware support dualing governments? Can it stop violent robot owners once it turns unlimited votes over to them?
