It was a rhetorical question. The article isn't bunk: you certainly haven't made any more convincing arguments than it did in the counterfactual with your witch

It was a rhetorical question. The article isn't bunk: you certainly haven't made any more convincing arguments than it did in the counterfactual with your witch hunt on quoting. Being fined doesn't undo the violation having happened. The original comment wasn't anywhere near as egregious as you've gone on about it, and the worst cases mentioned in the article weren't those contractors' accidents anyways when you've got things like intentionally ignoring dangerous conditions: > Another worker claims the molding machine also didn’t correctly seal and often spat out molten metal. When a worker presented a solution to fix the issue, they were reprimanded that shutting it down would slow production output. _ You seem to have more of a chip on your shoulder about defending Elon against an imagined unfairness in treatment than the actual violations that took place. You'd think eventually Elon defenders would realize how "cool" it is to attack Elon at a given time tends to map pretty cleanly to when he does attack-worthy things. At which point it's not so much "attacking" as it is "speaking on reality as it exists".