‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات Autos. إظهار كافة الرسائل
‏إظهار الرسائل ذات التسميات Autos. إظهار كافة الرسائل

California bans the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035

A charging port on a 2022 Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring plug-in hybrid vehicle during AutoMobility LA ahead of the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles, California, Nov. 18, 2021. Bing Guan | Bloomberg | Getty Images

California, the country's most populous state and the center of U.S. car culture, is banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles starting in 2035, marking a historic step in the state's battle against climate change. The rule, issued by the California Air Resources Board on Thursday, will force automakers to speed up production of cleaner vehicles beginning in 2026 until sales of only zero-emission cars, pickup trucks and SUVs are allowed in the state. The unanimous vote comes after Gov. Gavin Newsom set a target in 2020 to accelerate the shift away from internal combustion engines. The transportation sector represents the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, which has suffered from record-breaking wildfires, droughts and air pollution worsened by climate change. The decision is expected to have sweeping impacts beyond California and will likely pave the way for other states to follow suit. At least 15 states, including New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, have adopted California's vehicle standards on previous clean-car rules. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said the rule is one of the state's most important efforts yet to clean the air and will lead to a 50% reduction in pollution from cars and light trucks by 2040. The policy will not ban people from continuing to drive gas cars or from buying and selling them on the used market after 2035. The rule will also allow automakers to sell up to 20% plug-in hybrids, which have gas engines, by 2035. But the rule does phase out such vehicles over time, requiring 35% of total new vehicle sales to be powered by batteries or hydrogen by 2026 and 68% by 2030. More than 16% of new cars sold in California in 2022 were zero-emissions vehicles, the state said, up from 12.41% in 2021 and 7.78% in 2020. "California is once again leading the way by establishing commonsense standards that will transition to sales of all zero-polluting cars and light-duty trucks in the state," said Kathy Harris, clean vehicles advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Motor vehicles drive on the 101 freeway in Los Angeles, California. Robyn Beck | Getty Images

California, home to congested freeways and the smog-filled skies over Los Angeles, has considerable authority over the country's auto industry. A federal waiver under the Clean Air Act allows the state to adopt stronger fuel economy standards than those of the federal government and it has set the precedent for the rest of the country on how to curb vehicle emissions.  California's ability to control vehicle emissions has spurred innovations like catalytic converters that convert toxic gases and pollutants in exhaust gas into less-toxic pollutants, as well as "check engine" lights. The state established the nation's first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966. The Trump administration in 2019 revoked California's authority to regulate its own air quality, but the Biden administration restored that authority earlier this year. State officials said the rule is critical to meeting the state's goal of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2045, adding that resulting emissions declines would lead to fewer cardiopulmonary deaths and improved health for those suffering from asthma and other illnesses.

However, meeting the timeline will face challenges, including installing enough charging stations across the state and having adequate access to materials needed to make batteries for electric vehicles. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major automakers, said California's mandate would be "extremely challenging" for automakers to meet. "Whether or not these requirements are realistic or achievable is directly linked to external factors like inflation, charging and fuel infrastructure, supply chains, labor, critical mineral availability and pricing, and the ongoing semiconductor shortage," Bozzella said in a statement. "These are complex, intertwined and global issues." The rule comes after President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act earlier this month, which provides funding for electric vehicle tax credits and clean vehicle manufacturing facilities. The Biden administration also issued new nationwide limits on tailpipe emissions last year for new cars and light trucks made through 2026. Environmental groups praised the decision on Thursday, though some argued that the board needed to set even tougher targets to meet the urgency of the climate crisis. Some groups had previous urged the board to impose a rule to achieve 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2030, five years earlier than the actual regulation. "This rule needed to match the urgency of the climate crisis and instead leaves Californians making sputtering progress in the slow lane," Scott Hochberg, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "California needs to act strongly on gas-powered cars instead of ignoring them, and shift to EVs much sooner or watch our climate stability slip away," Hochberg said. Daniel Barad, California senior policy advocate at Sierra Club, said in a statement that the rule is "a major step towards breathable air in California communities, and will be critical for the state to meet its climate goals and emission reduction targets."

"Other states should move swiftly to join California and adopt this life saving rule, which will improve air quality and help slow the climate crisis," Barad said.


#California #bans #sale #gaspowered #cars https://www.globalcourant.com/california-bans-the-sale-of-new-gas-powered-cars-by-2035/?feed_id=15832&_unique_id=6307f839529fc

YouTube removes video by Tesla investors using kids in FSD Beta test

Tesla Model 3

Source: Tesla

YouTube has removed a pair of videos from its platform which showed Tesla drivers conducting amateur vehicle safety tests using their own children in place of mannequins in the road or the driveway.

The tests were to determine if a slow-moving Tesla equipped with the company's latest driver assistance systems would automatically avoid colliding with pedestrians — in this case children — walking or standing still in the road.

After CNBC reached out, a YouTube spokesperson, Elena Hernandez, wrote in an e-mail Friday night:

"YouTube doesn't allow content showing a minor participating in dangerous activities or encouraging minors to do dangerous activities. Upon review, we determined that the videos raised to us by CNBC violate our harmful and dangerous policies, and as a result we removed the content."

The specific policy that YouTube cited is pertaining to harmful and dangerous content. The company removes videos that encourage dangerous or illegal activities that risk serious physical harm or death when it is aware of them. The spokesperson said, "Specifically, we don't allow content showing or encouraging minors in harmful situations that may lead to injury, including dangerous stunts, dares, or pranks."

Tesla markets its driver assistance systems in the U.S. as a standard package called Autopilot and a premium option called Full Self-Driving (or FSD) that costs $12,000 up front or $199 per month. It also offers some drivers access to an experimental program called Full Self-Driving Beta if they attain a high score on the company's in-vehicle safety tests.

None of these systems make Tesla cars self-driving, nor safe to use without a driver behind the steering wheel, attentive to the road and able to steer, brake, or accelerate on short notice. Tesla's owners manuals caution drivers that the systems do not make their cars autonomous.

Driver: 'I was prepared to take over at any time'

In a video posted on Aug. 14, a Tesla owner and investor in the Elon Musk-led company, Tad Park, drove a Model 3 vehicle at eight miles per hour towards one of his children on a road in the San Francisco Bay Area. No one was hurt in the test.

The video had tens of thousands of views before YouTube, a division of Alphabet's Google, removed it. Alphabet also owns Waymo, the autonomous vehicle technology developer and robotaxi operator.

Park is the CEO of Volt Equity, and portfolio manager of an autonomous driving technology focused ETF called VCAR. "I have experienced the product myself, and believe in my investments," Park told CNBC. "We did extensive safety precautions so that kids were never in danger." 

In a follow-up email, Park wrote, "First we tried on a mannequin, then we tried with a tall basketball player, then finally one kid stood and my other kid crossed the street."

He said the car was never traveling more than eight miles an hour, and explained, "We made sure the car recognized the kid. Even if the system completely failed, I was prepared to take over at any time. I had a sense of when I was going to need to brake if the car was not sufficiently slowing down."

The tests were a success in Park's view, because the car slowed and did not strike any object, pedestrian or his kids. Asked if he would do it again, he said: "I do not think further tests are necessary, but if I did, yes, I would do this test again."

"That being said, I wouldn't recommend people to deliberately try this at home," he added.

Park conducted the tests in part as a rebuttal against a national advertising campaign from software company founder Dan O'Dowd criticizing Tesla's driver assistance features.

The video, now removed, was posted on a YouTube channel named Whole Mars Catalog, which is run by Omar Qazi, a shareholder and major promoter of Tesla on social networks. Tesla CEO Elon Musk frequently interacts with the blog and Qazi on Twitter.

In addition to YouTube, CNBC reached out to the California DMV and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to ask whether such videos are safe or legal.

NHTSA said on Aug. 16, "NHTSA advises the public that it could be highly dangerous for anyone to attempt to test vehicle technologies on their own. No one should risk their life, or the life of anyone else, to test the performance of vehicle technology." 

The agency also noted, "As NHTSA has stated consistently, no vehicle available for purchase today is capable of driving itself. The most advanced vehicle technologies available for purchase today provide driver assistance and require a fully attentive human driver at all times performing the driving task and monitoring the surrounding environment."

The California DMV told CNBC via email: "As advanced vehicle technologies become more widely available, DMV shares the same concerns as other traffic safety stakeholders about the potential for driver misunderstanding or misuse of these features. DMV has previously indicated to Tesla and continues to emphasize the importance of providing clear and effective communication to customers, buyers and the general public about the capabilities, limitations and intended use of any vehicle technology."

The California DMV recently alleged that Tesla is engaging in deceptive marketing or false advertising where its driver assistance systems are concerned. It is also in the midst of a lengthy safety related review of Tesla's technology including FSD Beta.

Police in the town where Park conducted the test drive did not respond in time for publication. Tesla did not immediately return a request for comment.


Source https://www.globalcourant.com/youtube-removes-video-by-tesla-investors-using-kids-in-fsd-beta-test/?feed_id=13296&_unique_id=630064e11f546

Automakers investing in the South as EVs change the auto industry

Jack Weaver, an 82-year-old retired dairy farmer whose house sits on a Civil War battlefield, lives near General Motors' Spring Hill plant in Tennessee.

Michael Wayland / CNBC

SPRING HILL, Tenn. – Jack Weaver can point to a cannon on a Civil War battlefield from the comfort of a shaded bench in his backyard — a visible marker of his land's rich past. As he speaks about his small town, it's over the loud rumble of cars and trucks at the intersection in front of his farmhouse red home.

The 82-year-old retired dairy farmer has lived in Spring Hill nearly his entire life. He's watched the once-quiet town in middle Tennessee grow into a burgeoning Nashville suburb. The evolution of Spring Hill has come in conjunction with a population boom in the state as well as the introduction of new industries — in particular, auto companies — that have poured billions of dollars in new investments into the state.

"It's good and it's bad," says Weaver, who complains about cars hitting his fence and the traffic General Motors' Spring Hill plant has brought since it opened in 1990. "I'm not against development at all. I'm not. I think a man outta do what he wants with his own land."

Detroit is the city that "put the world on wheels," but it's towns like Spring Hill and others in neighboring states that are attracting the most investments from automakers in recent years, as production priorities shift to a battery-powered future with electric vehicles.

Companies more than ever want to build EVs where they sell them, because the vehicles are far heavier and more cumbersome to ship than traditional models with internal combustion engines. They also want facilities for battery production to be close by to avoid supply chain and logistics problems.

Among the first to invest in southern states was Ford Motor in the 1950s and 1960s in Kentucky, followed by foreign-based, or transplant, automakers starting with Nissan Motor, which established a plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, in 1983. Others such as General Motors, Subaru, Toyota Motor and BMW followed suit through the 1990s. More have followed since then, including recent announcements by Hyundai Motor and Rivian Automotive to build multibillion-dollar plants in Georgia.

As more companies look to the American South, the investments are changing the landscape of towns across the region and of the automotive industry's workforce, supply chain and logistics. Companies first to set up shop in the South earn early advantages over their northern competitors, and future newcomers, according to officials.

Auto executives say they're investing in the South for a combination of reasons: lower energy costs, available workforce and livability among them. Many southern states also come with other benefits, potentially controversial, such as all-in lower pay for workers, millions in tax breaks and a largely non-unionized workforce in many of the Republican-controlled, right-to-work states.

But the shift brings unique challenges, too. As the Motor City moves and expands south, it has to grapple with preservation of historic plantation farms, unearthing of slave burial grounds and pushback from citizens and local politicians who aren't used to the traffic or industries.

Investments shifting

Automakers have announced $45.9 billion of investments in southern states since 2017, according to The Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit think tank based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. That's the first year the South outpaced the Midwest, or Great Lakes region, for announced investments since at least 2010.

Midwest states such as Michigan, Ohio and Indiana saw $39.9 billion in announced investments in that same timeframe.

Most of the money heading south – $34.2 billion, or 74% – has come in since last year from traditional automakers such as GM, Hyundai and Ford Motor as well as EV startup Rivian. Others such as Volkswagen and Nissan continue to invest and expand their operations in the South, largely for new electric vehicles.

"We are basically undergoing the single biggest industrial transformation, I would say, not to understate it, in the history of America," Scott Keogh, CEO at Volkswagen of America, told CNBC in June at the automaker's new battery lab in Chattanooga, Tennessee. "It's happening right now in this area."

Scott Keogh of Volkswagen of America at the VW plant in Chattanooga, TN, June 8, 2022.

Michael Wayland | CNBC

Keogh singled out energy capacity and costs as the top priority for the company's investments in Tennessee, including the potential for new assembly and battery facilities that the company is "actively" scouting locations for. He and other executives have also cited incentives, tax support, labor and workforce training as other key elements.

Ford CEO Jim Farley put a similar emphasis on the cost and availability of energy in September, announcing an $11.4 billion investment in new vehicle and battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky.

"We want to work with states who are really excited about doing that training and giving you access to that low energy cost," Farley told the Associated Press then.

Tennessee has among the lowest electricity prices in the country, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The state's average industrial price of electricity per kilowatt-hour was 6.31 cents as of May. Michigan's industrial energy cost was 8.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, and the national average was 8.35 cents.

Mississippi and South Carolina were under 7 cents, while Georgia was 9.05 cents – among the highest in area, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

While those cost differences seem minimal, they add up quickly. Ford's new battery plants will have an annual capacity for 43 megawatt-hours of production. There are 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in a megawatt-hour, meaning tens of thousands of dollars in savings per year.

The expansion south is expected to continue for years to come, according to AlixPartners. The global consulting firm expects investments from automakers and suppliers in southern states such as Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky to total $58 billion for electric vehicles between 2022 and 2026. That's nearly four times the $15 billion that's expected in Midwest states, and $20 billion elsewhere in the country.

"It definitely will change but right now there's a lot more interest and activity happening in the Southern states, particularly with all these automakers making investments on the EV front," said Arun Kumar, a managing director in the automotive and industrial practice at AlixPartners.

Southern hospitality

With billions of dollars on the line and tens of thousands of new jobs, states have offered enormous incentive packages for the companies in the forms of land, tax abatements/incentives and other support such as installation of utilities and roadways.

For example, Tennessee approved an $884 million incentive package for Ford's plans to spend $5.6 billion in the state, as well as in-kind services and a $2 million grant for training services. Ford's investment includes a new electric truck plant and battery facility with supplier South Korea-based SK Innovation.

Bob Rolfe, who oversees The Volunteer State's economic development, said such actions are needed to compete with others. He said to attract Ford last year the state spent years accumulating enough land for an "electric vehicle mega site" ahead of securing the automaker's commitment.

"We tell our team every day to continue to recruit. Is enough, enough?" Lewis said ahead of a trip to Japan for automotive recruitment in June. "The more great companies that call Tennessee home, the softer the landing when we do hit the next wind shear that's going to be developed around the next recession."

Unique issues

But not all agree that the automotive industry should be expanding South into rural areas. Rivian has faced notable pushback since announcing plans last year to build a $5 billion plant about 45 miles east of Atlanta, Georgia.

While hailed by many politicians, including Gov. Brian Kemp, local news outlets report residents of the rural area are concerned with how it will impact their community. Others, including politicians, oppose a $1.5 billion in tax breaks and other incentives that state and local officials have offered Rivian.

Haynes Haven is a historic landmark in Spring Hill, Tennessee that has been maintained by GM since the automaker built an assembly plant near the site in the 1980s.

"[Union Army General] Sherman and his troops destroyed our community. Now this supposedly green company is coming to destroy it again," JoEllen Artz told NBC News in May. Artz is president of the grassroots No2Rivian group, which says it has raised over $250,000 and hired Atlanta lawyers to fight the plant. "We want to keep it just like it is."

Building massive assembly plants in traditionally rural areas can also involve a unique set of challenges.

Decades ago, when GM was building its Spring Hill plant, the company unearthed an unmarked slave graveyard. GM paid for the remains to be moved to a nearby burial site.

"When we invest in properties, we're also investing in communities, their history and culture," GM said in an emailed statement to CNBC. "With any building or renovation project, we expect to encounter the unexpected, and we try to work with community members to find solutions to fit the unique needs of each situation. In many cases, like in Spring Hill, the unexpected finds become intertwined in our own history, as well."

It wasn't the first time GM has operated around such a site. On the property of its Detroit-Hamtramck plant, there's an active Jewish graveyard that the company agreed to build around when it built the plant in the 1980s.

There was reportedly another cemetery moved in Smyrna, Tennessee – located about 28 miles northeast of Spring Hill – when Nissan's plant and railroads were built there in the early 1980s.

GM maintained and updated a historic plantation in Spring Hill, Tenn. called Rippavilla as part of a deal for land to build an assembly plant in the city in the 1980s.

Michael Wayland / CNBC

Since GM's Spring Hill Assembly plant was built, the company also has maintained two historic plantations as part of land deals struck during the construction. It still maintains one called Haynes Haven, whose historic horse stables were turned into a welcome center and used for other events. The surrounding area is currently being used for employee parking during construction of the company's new $2.3 billion battery plant, next to the original plant.

The other site, called Rippavilla, sits across the street from the plant and was donated by the company to the city in 2016. It is now being run by a nonprofit organization, The Battle of Franklin Trust, committed to Civil War preservation and education.

"The last people that owned Rippavilla were pretty insistent that they wanted it to be a historic site. They did not want to happen to what happened to Haynes Haven, which Haven is owned by GM and able to use however they see fit," said Eric Jacobson, CEO of the organization.

Jacobson credits GM with saving and maintaining the site in the form of $100,000 a year up until 2016, when a 10-year deal to maintain the property ended. GM said it continues to support the site.

Battling the union

Ford's more than $11.4 billion investment to build new U.S. facilities in Tennessee and Kentucky is expected to create nearly 11,000 jobs to produce electric vehicles and batteries.

Both GM and Ford officials have said the decision of whether to unionize at their U.S. battery plants, which are joint ventures, will be left to the workers.

While the labor cost gap has narrowed between the Detroit automakers and other non-unionized automotive plants, organized labor costs are higher for the companies.

At the end of a current four-year contract between the Detroit automakers and UAW in 2023, the Center for Automotive Research estimates average hourly labor costs per worker will be $71 for GM; $69 for Ford; and $66 for Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler.

"There's quite a bit of anti-union attitude that prevails in the international carmakers," said James Rubenstein, a professor emeritus at the University of Miami Ohio, who specializes in the automotive industry. "It's a little bit easier to do that down South, to keep the union out."

Correction: A graphic in an earlier version of this article misrepresented industrial energy costs from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. They should have been in cents, not dollars.


Source https://www.globalcourant.com/automakers-investing-in-the-south-as-evs-change-the-auto-industry/?feed_id=10860&_unique_id=62f9394fa159c

Elon Musk sells 7.92 million Tesla shares worth $6.88 billion

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - MAY 02: Elon Musk attends The 2022 Met Gala Celebrating "In America: An Anthology of Fashion" at The Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 02, 2022 in New York City. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue)

Dimitrios Kambouris | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Tesla CEO Elon Musk sold 7.92 million shares of Tesla worth around $6.88 billion, according to a series of financial filings published Tuesday night.

His transactions occurred between Aug. 5 and 9, the SEC filings revealed, following Tesla's 2022 annual shareholder meeting on Aug. 4 in Austin, Texas.

Earlier this year, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said on social media that he had "no further TSLA sales planned" after April 28.

That week, SEC filings revealed Musk had been selling a block of shares in his electric car maker worth about about $8.4 billion.

The centi-billionaire is in the midst of a contentious legal battle with Twitter, the social networking giant he agreed to acquire in April for about $44 billion or $54.20 per share.

Read more about electric vehicles from CNBC Pro

Amid an overall market decline, Twitter's share price and the price of Tesla shares dropped. Musk said he was terminating the deal and accused Twitter of failing to give him all the information he needed to go ahead with the acquisition.

He also accused Twitter of understating the number of bots, spam and fake accounts on its platform.

By July 8, Musk told Twitter he was terminating the deal.

Twitter has sued to ensure the Musk deal goes through for the promised price, which would represent a windfall for many of its shareholders.

Tesla shares were trading nearly flat after hours on the news. Shares in Tesla closed at $850, down just over 2% for the day on Tuesday, before the CEO's insider sales were made public through SEC filings.


Source https://www.globalcourant.com/elon-musk-sells-7-92-million-tesla-shares-worth-6-88-billion/?feed_id=8893&_unique_id=62f3282811812

Elon Musk challenges Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal to a debate on bots

Centi-billionaire Elon Musk provoked Twitter and challenged the company's CEO Parag Agrawal to a "public debate" about fake accounts and spam in the midst of a contentious legal battle over a $44 billion acquisition.

Musk filed a bid with the Securities and Exchange to acquire Twitter back in April this year. After the companies agreed to move ahead with a take-private deal, Musk said he was terminating his acquisition, and accused Twitter of presenting false numbers, including in its SEC filings, pertaining to the amount of monetizable daily active users, and the number of spam and bot accounts on the social network.

Twitter then sued Musk in a Delaware chancery court to ensure the deal would go through as promised, and Musk filed counterclaims and a countersuit there on July 29.

In a series of tweets that Musk began posting just before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Aug. 6, Musk interacted with a fan who had summarized his accusations about Twitter including that it was stonewalling him and giving him, "outdated data," and "a fake data set" when he asked the company for details about how it tabulates mDAU, and estimates for spam and bot accounts.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote, "Good summary of the problem. If Twitter simply provides their method of sampling 100 accounts and how they're confirmed to be real, the deal should proceed on original terms. However, if it turns out that their SEC filings are materially false, then it should not."

By just after 9 a.m. Saturday morning, Musk started a Twitter poll asking his followers to vote on whether "[l]ess than 5% of Twitter daily users are fake/spam." Respondents to the informal poll could choose one of Musk's provided answers which read either "Yes" followed by three robot emoji, or "Lmaooo no." (The slang abbreviation "lmao" stands for "laughing my a-- off.)

Musk also wrote Saturday morning: "I hereby challenge @paraga to a public debate about the Twitter bot percentage. Let him prove to the public that Twitter has <5% fake or spam daily users!"

A source close to the company says a debate is not going to happen outside of a pending trial.

Attorneys for Musk did not respond to requests to comment on Saturday, and an attorney for Twitter declined to comment on Musk's Saturday tweets.

Twitter's attorneys have argued in court filings that Musk gave the company just twenty-four hours to accept his offer before he would present it directly to Twitter shareholders, and waived due diligence including a chance to seek more information on false or spam accounts.

They wrote in court filings, "Musk's repeated mischaracterizations of the merger agreement cannot change its plain words."

At an annual shareholder meeting for Tesla on Aug. 4, Musk was asked to speak about Twitter during a question-and-answer session that followed a proxy vote.

He said, drawing laughter from the audience in attendance, "I obviously have to be a little careful what I say about Twitter because there's this lawsuit and stuff." He confirmed that the only two publicly traded securities he owns are Tesla and Twitter.

And then he spoke as if he still wants to become the owner of the social networking company, a stark contrast to arguments made by Musk via his attorneys in legal filings in Delaware in which Musk argues he should not have to go through with the deal.

At the Tesla 2022 shareholders' meeting, Musk said: "I think in the case of Twitter since I use it a lot, shoot myself in the foot a lot, you know, dig my grave, etc. I think it's — I do understand the product quite well, so I think I've got a good sense of where to point the engineering team at Twitter to make it radically better."

He added that Twitter would "help accelerate" a "pretty grand vision" he had to build a business he'd been thinking about since his earliest years as a tech entrepreneur, X.com or X Corporation.

"Obviously that could be started from scratch," he said, "but I think Twitter would help accelerate that by three to five years. So it's kind of like something I've thought would be quite useful for a long time. I know what to do. Don't have to have Twitter for that but, like I said, it's probably at least a three-year accelerant and I think it's something that will be very useful to the world."

Musk didn't go into any further details at that meeting. However, he reportedly said during a town hall meeting with Twitter employees in June this year that he wanted to grow Twitter's user base to a billion people and saw Twitter as a platform that could evolve into an app like China's WeChat, a "super app," that incorporates everything from messaging, video and social media, to mobile and point-of-sales payments, with a robust app ecosystem.

Unless they reach a settlement first, Twitter and Musk are headed for a five-day trial in Delaware that starts on Oct. 17. The judge ruling on the case is Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick.


Source https://www.globalcourant.com/elon-musk-challenges-twitter-ceo-parag-agrawal-to-a-debate-on-bots/?feed_id=7577&_unique_id=62ef05186a540