8 ms·
I don’t understand what the story here is supposed to be. Did you catch the parts about Tesla harassing Tripp in a whole bunch of outlandish and basically thug
by drugme 8y ago
I don’t understand what the story here is supposed to be.
Did you catch the parts about Tesla harassing Tripp in a whole bunch of outlandish and basically thuggish ways in response -- ranging from a bogus $167m lawsuit up to apparently lying to the local police about him planning a mass shooting?
That's what the story was about.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y agoThe article certainly makes those claims. But Bloomberg doesn’t seem to have any evidence of those things, beyond Tripp’s raw assertion that his friends didn’t make the call and he didn’t do what the lawsuit says. With no corroboration, why should we believe him over Tesla at this point?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- drugme 8y agoWith no corroboration, why should we believe him over Tesla at this point? Occam's Razor (and Tesla/Musks's record of erratic and vindictive behavior in other contexts) should provide ample basis for making that call.
- memling 8y ago> Occam's Razor This seems like an objectively bad idea to me. I'm not a Tesla or Musk fan, and it seems plausible he could try to destroy a whistleblower. Even so, "innocent until proven guilty" is the better standard. Occam's Razor is greatly influenced by our priors.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AndrewBissell 8y agoWe're not on a jury deciding whether to convict Elon Musk of a crime. We're trying to determine what likely happened and who is likely telling the truth, and possibly what implications that should have for our judgment of Elon Musk's character or broader questions around Tesla as a company.
- gdulli 8y ago> Even so, "innocent until proven guilty" is the better standard You're confusing this with the legal system. Normal people outside that don't have access to formal investigative powers and resources. Their only course is to use their best judgment based on what they do know. Where greater penalties like fines and jail are involved, a corresponding greater standard of proof is required.
- lazyasciiart 8y agoYou should definitely not use Occam’s Razor to convict someone in court, true. You should probably use something besides “has a court already convicted this person” in your personal life though.
- drugme 8y agoOccam's Razor isn't about determining criminal liability.
- AndrewBissell 8y ago> Why should we believe him over Tesla at this point? "Funding secured." Also, your assertion that there is no corroboration is wrong, the new whistleblower Sean Gouthro is corroborating Tripp's claims. This behavior is also well in line with Elon Musk's established pattern of paranoid behavior in surveiling employees.
- SpicyLemonZest 8y agoAgain, that's certainly the narrative the article presents. But Gouthro did not (as far as is included in the article) corroborate that the accusations in the lawsuit are false or that the shooting threat was fake. He does corroborate the story that Tesla sent PIs to tail Tripp - because Gouthro himself sent those PIs, in response to the shooting threat that Gouthro himself saw.
- AndrewBissell 8y agoYou are also incorrect that Tripp's original info release did not establish or indicate wrongdoing. Tesla claimed industry-leading levels of scrap expense in their financial filings. They are almost certainly capitalizing scrap as R&D expense.
- drusepth 8y agoWhat makes you think they're capitalizing scrap as R&D expenses? Just because they have a lot of it?
- loceng 8y agoFunding in Elon's mind could have been secured - perhaps not to what SEC's requirements of what that meant however; if I had $100B to invest in taking Tesla private, I'd certainly give it to Musk - Saudi Arabia is throwing around huge amounts as well, which I believe was his believed source of funding.
- u10 8y agoWhat Elon believes the requirements are and what the legal requirements are two different things. Not to mention that Tesla failed to file an 8k form in a timely manner, and when it was finally filed it clearly showed that funding had not been 'secured' under any reasonable definition.
- elliekelly 8y agoThe police report from the "mass shooting" event included two officers accounts of comments from Tesla employees that seem to indicate Tesla had some way of intercepting Tripp's communications. I'll try to find the document on scribd again. Edit: The police report[1] starting on page 4. I think it's also noteworthy that the person whose comments seemed to indicate Tesla was tracking Tripp's phone was Gourthro who has just filed a whistleblower tip (supposedly) corroborating Tripp's allegations. [1] https://www.secwhistleblowerattorney.net/tesla-related-police-reports/ https://www.secwhistleblowerattorney.net/tesla-related-polic...
- jondubois 8y agoRich people are evil, Musk is rich, therefore Musk is evil. That's all the evidence we need. Lock him up ;p On a serious note though, it does annoy me that rich people these days always seem to have an excuse for everything and they have access to the best lawyers to come up with the all the right bullshit and PR needed to protect themselves. I bet there are a lot of wealthy criminals getting away with things simply because of the way the legal system works. If Musk did this, then he should get some jail time because it's not acceptable. Given the power imbalance, the viciousness of this act is on par with assault.
- zwerdlds 8y agoBecause musk/tesla have a... questionable record with truth and safety, and all these guys claims were about said transparency/safety? Why do you trust musk/tesla over tripp?
- drusepth 8y agoOne obvious answer is that Musk/Tesla have way more to lose than a random employee by lying. Any random person can lie about anything with pretty minimal downsides, even if they're caught red-handed in that lie. A company and its CEO have way more to lose in getting caught in a lie, which puts a slight preference towards believing them in uncorroborated he-said-she-saids like this. Also: "innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase that seems to be eroding away, which is a terrible, terrible thing. The real move here is not to believe either party until you have irrefutable evidence; there is likely some amount of wrongdoing on both sides but none of us are in a position to make judgement calls without that information.
- legohead 8y agoAccording to the article, the call about the mass shooting came only hours after his email exchange with Musk.
- drusepth 8y agoThis is, by definition, circumstantial "evidence" at best. It infers a connection between two events that have no direct evidence connecting them.
- FireBeyond 8y agoAnd then Tesla "declined" to make the call receiver witness available. And asked the Sheriff to put out a press conference anyway and say the threat was credible. And then put out their own press release when the Sheriff declined because it wasn't. At some point, the progression of circumstances reduces the possibility of alternatives.
- drugme 8y agoNo -- according to the article, while a call did take place -- the "mass shooting" aspect of it was most made up by the Tesla people.
- mhermher 8y agoSo you do understand what the story is supposed to be? What did you mean then? Confusing comment.