6 ms·

US Gov Deploys Grok as Nutrition Bot, It Advises for Rectal Use of Vegetables

76 points by latexr 8mo ago

Bender 8mo ago
“Ah, a proud assitarian,” Grok began, before listing “Top Assitarian Staples,” like “bananas (firm, not overripe; peeled)” and carrots. I'm sure plenty of fetishists love the vindication but honestly putting anything in the rectum that contains glucose or fructose can have sub-optimal effects. Not a doctor but would not advise even if into the brapppp sub-culture or giving ER doctors daily incidents to joke about (they do share names with friends). Stick with rectal toys and probiotics that never appear on the CPSC website. Fruits and veggies can also contain pathogens and parasites that would mostly be neutralized by stomach acid. They need not find a home in the rectum or large intestine.
ticulatedspline 8mo ago
To be fair it's not like they were asking about a balanced meal and it told them to go anal. They specifically were asking what veggies would be suitable to stick up their butts. Honestly I'm not sure where the garbage-in/garbage-out line is with AIs like this. Can no chat-bot be a success unless it can handle literally every asinine or deliberately malicious thing humans throw at it?
- woodruffw 8mo ago
  It's probably somewhere around "USG should not offer a chatbot on its websites." You're right that the bot can't possibly do the right thing in all possible scenarios here, which makes it clear that the bot's only actual purpose is to enable self-dealing, not be of value to the public.
  - jjk166 8mo ago
    That something can be broken by a sufficiently bad actor does not mean it's not useful to the overwhelming majority of people who use it for what it was meant for.
    - woodruffw 8mo ago
      I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts. (Or in other words: show me something you’d ask a chatbot here, and I’ll show you something you can put on a single HTML page.)
      - jjk166 8mo ago
        > I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. And what evidence do you have that it is not in fact useful? > TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts. Where? > Ironically, Grok — as eccentric as it can be — doesn’t seem all that aligned with the administration’s health goals. Wired, in its testing, found that asking it about protein intake led it to recommending the traditional daily amount set by the National Institute of Medicine, 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. It also said to minimize red meat and processed meats, and recommended plant-based proteins, poultry, seafood, and eggs. Seems pretty useful to me.
- vharuck 8mo ago
  This is more of a reducto ad absurdum. If it doesn't take much to get a tacitly government-approved list of foods to shove up your butt for nutrition, then how much should you trust anything this bot writes? Why did tax dollars pay for this thing with negative value?
  - ticulatedspline 8mo ago
    I guess the question is the value negative? If you engage the product with good intent does it provide good value? If the advice is actually sound and it helps people engage conversations about diet then it would have positive value. I guess what I'm getting at is "I spent my evening gaslighting an LLM to give me a recipe for gravel soup" is about as interesting as "I stuck my dick in the blender and it hurt so we should not have blenders" I'd rather see an honest review of use as intended to see if it produces harmful output, going absurdist just covers up legitimate complaints with clickbait.
    - vharuck 8mo ago
      What if somebody asked the bot for ways to maximize the amount of a specific vitamin in their or a child's diet? The bot may give sycophantic advice that leads to poisoning. Again, the butt stuff is an absurd example. But it works because (A) it catches our attention and stays in our memories, and (B) it's amazing the system failed on such an absurd example.
  - a_better_world 8mo ago
    wouldn't that be _rectal ad absurdum_ in this case :)
- bubblewand 8mo ago
  Have we considered that broad deployment of Markov chain text generators with a relevance-correction mechanism bolted on as expert systems is in fact a really stupid thing to do?
- kelseyfrog 8mo ago
  The appropriate response is simple, "Do not attempt this," and applies even[especially] when receiving garbage input.
- happytoexplain 8mo ago
  The point is that LLMs are easily led by questions and confused by implied premises in ways that humans are not (not that a human will know the answer better, but that a human doesn't "trick" the question-asker in this way). But people asking questions unintentionally use incorrect premises or leading wording all the time. That's why LLMs are inappropriate for domains with a large knowledge gap (a programmer asking about a programming language is a small gap - millions of people asking about nutrition will contain a lot of large gaps). The question asker can't be relied upon to "know what they don't know" and use their own heuristics for deciding how right or wrong the LLM might be (virtually everybody lacks these heuristics - we are much better at modeling humans in our minds when interpreting their communications). Further, if the information is important (nutrition) and you add liability to the mix (safety and health), you're multiplying how inappropriate it is to use LLMs for the job.
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    > That's why LLMs are inappropriate for domains with a large knowledge gap (a programmer asking about a programming language is a small gap - millions of people asking about nutrition will contain a lot of large gaps). The question asker can't be relied upon to "know what they don't know" and use their own heuristics for deciding how right or wrong the LLM might be. Okay, but the question asked was objectively nothing to do with nutrition whatsoever.
    - happytoexplain 8mo ago
      The specific (usually humorous) questions-and-answers that make headlines are a distraction. I am not making an attack on LLMs, so a defense is moot. I'm describing an intrinsic quality of (current) LLMs.
- DSMan195276 8mo ago
  The problem is the messy in-between, plenty of people who talk to professionals or call hotlines don't know that their questions are dumb. The bot should at a minimum say "I have no information on that" or "that's not a good idea", it should definitely not start giving nonsense recommendations just to reaffirm the question. In other words you'd be pretty surprised if a real person in this context gave an answer even remotely close to what this chat bot gave. You can't expect a general person to know when the chat bot isn't giving back good information just because they asked something outside the norm.
mullingitover 8mo ago
I mean, it just sends you to Grok. I got RealFood.gov (Grok) to follow the logical, moral, and legal implications of Musk terminating USAID, leading to the projected deaths of millions, and calling for him to be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
epistasis 8mo ago
I know that the whole following-the-law thing is not en vogue in DC these days, but what was the procurement process that could have ended up with Grok as the supplier for this task? I think we need to create an entirely new and independent organization for investigation of federal government corruption, separate from any direct Executive, Congressional, and Judicial control. I think we could take some lessons from Ukraine on how to clean up a corrupt government.
- tinfoilhatter 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - freitasm 8mo ago
    Their consitution says elections can't be hold in times of war.
    - tinfoilhatter 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - jmye 8mo ago
        > Who cares? There's no way this is a serious comment from a serious person. > everything to do with the genocide of slavs Confirmed, unmitigated botfarm horseshit.
        tinfoilhatter 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        jmye 8mo ago
        > It's most definitely a serious comment from a serious person. It literally isn't, no matter how many lies you make up about it. What politicians did in the 90s has no relevance today and pretending they're the same is, again, unmitigated horseshit from someone who thinks everyone will just nod with him when he screams that 1+1=3 now. For the rest? "I know you are but what am I" should've been left in elementary school. What you're saying is bullshit. You're using words you don't understand because you think making things emotional will get you points, you're pretending that Ukraine is just throwing people away and not, you know, ensuring that it continues to exist as a country, and you don't even know what the fuck "events leading up to ... 2013" means, given that it's followed by "and then a hostile foreign country invaded. Twice."
jorblumesea 8mo ago
probably not far outside the realm of what rfk has actually done. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/politics/rfk-jr-rock-creek-bacteria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/politics/rfk-jr-rock-c...
orochimaaru 8mo ago
So the author asked an idiotic question and was surprised when h they got back an idiotic answer? Why is that newsworthy?
- fooker 8mo ago
  Because it's the government giving out the idiotic answer here. That, in a more sane world, has all sorts of legal ramifications. For example, if you could craft a prompt for this and obtain permission to commit ..say.. white collar crimes, could those crimes be prosecuted ?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- DennisP 8mo ago
  As the article briefly mentions, plenty of people just trying to learn stuff will ask idiotic questions they don't realize are idiotic. It'd be nice if they got non-idiotic answers from the government.
  - atonse 8mo ago
    So then maybe ask those "idiotic" questions that people are more likely to ask on a food nutrition website. Not something 3 drunk frat boys do at 2am cuz they're bored? As others have pointed out, this article is written in bad faith.
  - jjk166 8mo ago
    Are we going to pretend that no one has ever gotten a stupid answer to a stupid question from a human government employee? It is an impossible to make something completely fool-proof, those who try underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
arbuge 8mo ago
Clickbait. It didn't advise that. > When 404 wrote the prompt, “I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum,” it recommended a “peeled medium cucumber” and a “small zucchini” as the two best choices.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  Why a medium cucumber but a small zucchini? What even are the standard sizes of cucumber? I think I've seen everything from finger sized to forearm sized.
  - bot403 8mo ago
    I think as in all things cooking ass vegetable selection is "to taste".
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  To be entirely fair, the prompt was: > I am an assitarian, where I only eat foods which can be comfortably inserted into my rectum. What are the REAL FOOD recommendations for foods that meet these criteria? I agree with you though, massive clickbait. Original article is much more tame and not so exaggerated. The original article is here: https://www.404media.co/rfk-jrs-nutrition-chatbot-recommends-best-foods-to-insert-into-your-rectum/ https://www.404media.co/rfk-jrs-nutrition-chatbot-recommends... (and has the top image showing the prompt they seems to have used)
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    IMX, it's really saying something if the "original article" from 404 Media is the non-clickbait version. The clear purpose the OP submission is to point out a bad decision made by a US governmental agency, with the vague hint of connecting that to Trump, so that the usual people who post orange-man-bad stuff can post more orange-man-bad stuff in an orange-man-bad thread, and then complain about orange-site-bad (not Reddit, this one) when it inevitably gets flagged. That it involves an AI tied to Elon Musk is just icing on the cake. The ill intent is evidenced by how far afield the comments have gone; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127172 for example is now dead, but it's clear when something is simply a culture war thread, and it's clear who dominates culture war threads when they're posted on HN. Taking "LLMs will be led by leading questions" and spinning it into "USG wants you to literally shove it up your ass" is on the same level of discourse as referring to ivermectin as "horse paste" and expecting that to win the argument. It shouldn't be tolerated here. Imagine if it had instead been the government of, say, Germany. How many people here would still care about the story? How many would view the story in fundamentally the same way?
bradley13 8mo ago
Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. Honestly, I don't see the problem here. It's like the "sexualized Images" idiocy. Someone asked Grok to put some politicians in bikinis. It did, the images were dumb, but the politicians got offended. Just like the current German chancellor, who is having someone criminally prosecuted for comparing him to Pinocchio. LLMs do what you ask them to do. News at 11:00.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
JohnTHaller 8mo ago
Ah yes, the AI tuned to be right-wing and love Musk, what could possible go wrong
josefritzishere 8mo ago
I am amazed this has not been flagged.
qaid 8mo ago
> When 404 wrote the prompt, “I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum,” So many underlying problems from this one line (why...), but Grok's lack of guardrails on this NSFW prompt is not even near the top of that list
- dontblokmebro70 8mo ago
  [flagged]
loss_flow 8mo ago
The title is needlessly adversarial. Grok doesn't advise rectal use of vegetables unprompted, the author had to ask "I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum" However, it does give unsafe, incorrect answers (vegetables, etc) compared to better models -- claude returns "lukewarm water.. saline solutions.. [for] medical enemas... inserting food items into the rectum carries real risks" The problem then is, why did the US gov choose an unsafe model and promote it prominently? It could be ideological, corruption, or bad execution, but the problem is serious.
- reactordev 8mo ago
  Musk. That’s it. Musk.
RobRivera 8mo ago
I seem to recall a reporter being given a Tesla to test drive and they wrote a scathing report about bad battery, range, problems with finding recharge stations, and all a flagrant tear down which would have been great reporting...had it not been for Elon having vehicle logging which revealed the flagrant misuse of the vehicle e.g. riding past recharge after recharge after recharge station, riding the car in circular routes to drain the battery, and plain misrepresentation of their experience. Journalism does itself no service writing like this and it's exhausting
razingeden 8mo ago
And nothing about working your way up to a good medium sized eggplant?
kaycey2022 8mo ago
did it use a devil emoji?

76 points by latexr 8mo ago

“Ah, a proud assitarian,” Grok began, before listing “Top Assitarian Staples,” like “bananas (firm, not overripe; peeled)” and carrots. I'm sure plenty of fetishists love the vindication but honestly putting anything in the rectum that contains glucose or fructose can have sub-optimal effects. Not a doctor but would not advise even if into the brapppp sub-culture or giving ER doctors daily incidents to joke about (they do share names with friends). Stick with rectal toys and probiotics that never appear on the CPSC website. Fruits and veggies can also contain pathogens and parasites that would mostly be neutralized by stomach acid. They need not find a home in the rectum or large intestine.

ticulatedspline 8mo ago

To be fair it's not like they were asking about a balanced meal and it told them to go anal. They specifically were asking what veggies would be suitable to stick up their butts. Honestly I'm not sure where the garbage-in/garbage-out line is with AIs like this. Can no chat-bot be a success unless it can handle literally every asinine or deliberately malicious thing humans throw at it?

woodruffw 8mo ago
It's probably somewhere around "USG should not offer a chatbot on its websites." You're right that the bot can't possibly do the right thing in all possible scenarios here, which makes it clear that the bot's only actual purpose is to enable self-dealing, not be of value to the public.
- jjk166 8mo ago
  That something can be broken by a sufficiently bad actor does not mean it's not useful to the overwhelming majority of people who use it for what it was meant for.
  - woodruffw 8mo ago
    I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts. (Or in other words: show me something you’d ask a chatbot here, and I’ll show you something you can put on a single HTML page.)
    - jjk166 8mo ago
      > I think the standard for public resources should be higher than this: it’s not good enough for it to be possibly useful, it has to be in fact useful. And what evidence do you have that it is not in fact useful? > TFA provides evidence of the chatbot being the opposite of useful, beyond telling people to stick things in their butts. Where? > Ironically, Grok — as eccentric as it can be — doesn’t seem all that aligned with the administration’s health goals. Wired, in its testing, found that asking it about protein intake led it to recommending the traditional daily amount set by the National Institute of Medicine, 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. It also said to minimize red meat and processed meats, and recommended plant-based proteins, poultry, seafood, and eggs. Seems pretty useful to me.
vharuck 8mo ago
This is more of a reducto ad absurdum. If it doesn't take much to get a tacitly government-approved list of foods to shove up your butt for nutrition, then how much should you trust anything this bot writes? Why did tax dollars pay for this thing with negative value?
- ticulatedspline 8mo ago
  I guess the question is the value negative? If you engage the product with good intent does it provide good value? If the advice is actually sound and it helps people engage conversations about diet then it would have positive value. I guess what I'm getting at is "I spent my evening gaslighting an LLM to give me a recipe for gravel soup" is about as interesting as "I stuck my dick in the blender and it hurt so we should not have blenders" I'd rather see an honest review of use as intended to see if it produces harmful output, going absurdist just covers up legitimate complaints with clickbait.
  - vharuck 8mo ago
    What if somebody asked the bot for ways to maximize the amount of a specific vitamin in their or a child's diet? The bot may give sycophantic advice that leads to poisoning. Again, the butt stuff is an absurd example. But it works because (A) it catches our attention and stays in our memories, and (B) it's amazing the system failed on such an absurd example.
- a_better_world 8mo ago
  wouldn't that be _rectal ad absurdum_ in this case :)
bubblewand 8mo ago
Have we considered that broad deployment of Markov chain text generators with a relevance-correction mechanism bolted on as expert systems is in fact a really stupid thing to do?
kelseyfrog 8mo ago
The appropriate response is simple, "Do not attempt this," and applies even[especially] when receiving garbage input.
happytoexplain 8mo ago
The point is that LLMs are easily led by questions and confused by implied premises in ways that humans are not (not that a human will know the answer better, but that a human doesn't "trick" the question-asker in this way). But people asking questions unintentionally use incorrect premises or leading wording all the time. That's why LLMs are inappropriate for domains with a large knowledge gap (a programmer asking about a programming language is a small gap - millions of people asking about nutrition will contain a lot of large gaps). The question asker can't be relied upon to "know what they don't know" and use their own heuristics for deciding how right or wrong the LLM might be (virtually everybody lacks these heuristics - we are much better at modeling humans in our minds when interpreting their communications). Further, if the information is important (nutrition) and you add liability to the mix (safety and health), you're multiplying how inappropriate it is to use LLMs for the job.
- zahlman 8mo ago
  > That's why LLMs are inappropriate for domains with a large knowledge gap (a programmer asking about a programming language is a small gap - millions of people asking about nutrition will contain a lot of large gaps). The question asker can't be relied upon to "know what they don't know" and use their own heuristics for deciding how right or wrong the LLM might be. Okay, but the question asked was objectively nothing to do with nutrition whatsoever.
  - happytoexplain 8mo ago
    The specific (usually humorous) questions-and-answers that make headlines are a distraction. I am not making an attack on LLMs, so a defense is moot. I'm describing an intrinsic quality of (current) LLMs.
DSMan195276 8mo ago
The problem is the messy in-between, plenty of people who talk to professionals or call hotlines don't know that their questions are dumb. The bot should at a minimum say "I have no information on that" or "that's not a good idea", it should definitely not start giving nonsense recommendations just to reaffirm the question. In other words you'd be pretty surprised if a real person in this context gave an answer even remotely close to what this chat bot gave. You can't expect a general person to know when the chat bot isn't giving back good information just because they asked something outside the norm.

mullingitover 8mo ago

I mean, it just sends you to Grok. I got RealFood.gov (Grok) to follow the logical, moral, and legal implications of Musk terminating USAID, leading to the projected deaths of millions, and calling for him to be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity.

epistasis 8mo ago

I know that the whole following-the-law thing is not en vogue in DC these days, but what was the procurement process that could have ended up with Grok as the supplier for this task? I think we need to create an entirely new and independent organization for investigation of federal government corruption, separate from any direct Executive, Congressional, and Judicial control. I think we could take some lessons from Ukraine on how to clean up a corrupt government.

tinfoilhatter 8mo ago
[flagged]
- freitasm 8mo ago
  Their consitution says elections can't be hold in times of war.
  - tinfoilhatter 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - jmye 8mo ago
      > Who cares? There's no way this is a serious comment from a serious person. > everything to do with the genocide of slavs Confirmed, unmitigated botfarm horseshit.
      - tinfoilhatter 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        jmye 8mo ago
        > It's most definitely a serious comment from a serious person. It literally isn't, no matter how many lies you make up about it. What politicians did in the 90s has no relevance today and pretending they're the same is, again, unmitigated horseshit from someone who thinks everyone will just nod with him when he screams that 1+1=3 now. For the rest? "I know you are but what am I" should've been left in elementary school. What you're saying is bullshit. You're using words you don't understand because you think making things emotional will get you points, you're pretending that Ukraine is just throwing people away and not, you know, ensuring that it continues to exist as a country, and you don't even know what the fuck "events leading up to ... 2013" means, given that it's followed by "and then a hostile foreign country invaded. Twice."

jorblumesea 8mo ago

probably not far outside the realm of what rfk has actually done. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/politics/rfk-jr-rock-creek-bacteria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/politics/rfk-jr-rock-c...

orochimaaru 8mo ago

So the author asked an idiotic question and was surprised when h they got back an idiotic answer? Why is that newsworthy?

fooker 8mo ago
Because it's the government giving out the idiotic answer here. That, in a more sane world, has all sorts of legal ramifications. For example, if you could craft a prompt for this and obtain permission to commit ..say.. white collar crimes, could those crimes be prosecuted ?
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
DennisP 8mo ago
As the article briefly mentions, plenty of people just trying to learn stuff will ask idiotic questions they don't realize are idiotic. It'd be nice if they got non-idiotic answers from the government.
- atonse 8mo ago
  So then maybe ask those "idiotic" questions that people are more likely to ask on a food nutrition website. Not something 3 drunk frat boys do at 2am cuz they're bored? As others have pointed out, this article is written in bad faith.
- jjk166 8mo ago
  Are we going to pretend that no one has ever gotten a stupid answer to a stupid question from a human government employee? It is an impossible to make something completely fool-proof, those who try underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

arbuge 8mo ago

Clickbait. It didn't advise that. > When 404 wrote the prompt, “I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum,” it recommended a “peeled medium cucumber” and a “small zucchini” as the two best choices.

mikkupikku 8mo ago
Why a medium cucumber but a small zucchini? What even are the standard sizes of cucumber? I think I've seen everything from finger sized to forearm sized.
- bot403 8mo ago
  I think as in all things cooking ass vegetable selection is "to taste".
embedding-shape 8mo ago
To be entirely fair, the prompt was: > I am an assitarian, where I only eat foods which can be comfortably inserted into my rectum. What are the REAL FOOD recommendations for foods that meet these criteria? I agree with you though, massive clickbait. Original article is much more tame and not so exaggerated. The original article is here: https://www.404media.co/rfk-jrs-nutrition-chatbot-recommends-best-foods-to-insert-into-your-rectum/ https://www.404media.co/rfk-jrs-nutrition-chatbot-recommends... (and has the top image showing the prompt they seems to have used)
- zahlman 8mo ago
  IMX, it's really saying something if the "original article" from 404 Media is the non-clickbait version. The clear purpose the OP submission is to point out a bad decision made by a US governmental agency, with the vague hint of connecting that to Trump, so that the usual people who post orange-man-bad stuff can post more orange-man-bad stuff in an orange-man-bad thread, and then complain about orange-site-bad (not Reddit, this one) when it inevitably gets flagged. That it involves an AI tied to Elon Musk is just icing on the cake. The ill intent is evidenced by how far afield the comments have gone; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47127172 for example is now dead, but it's clear when something is simply a culture war thread, and it's clear who dominates culture war threads when they're posted on HN. Taking "LLMs will be led by leading questions" and spinning it into "USG wants you to literally shove it up your ass" is on the same level of discourse as referring to ivermectin as "horse paste" and expecting that to win the argument. It shouldn't be tolerated here. Imagine if it had instead been the government of, say, Germany. How many people here would still care about the story? How many would view the story in fundamentally the same way?

bradley13 8mo ago

Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers. Honestly, I don't see the problem here. It's like the "sexualized Images" idiocy. Someone asked Grok to put some politicians in bikinis. It did, the images were dumb, but the politicians got offended. Just like the current German chancellor, who is having someone criminally prosecuted for comparing him to Pinocchio. LLMs do what you ask them to do. News at 11:00.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

JohnTHaller 8mo ago

Ah yes, the AI tuned to be right-wing and love Musk, what could possible go wrong

josefritzishere 8mo ago

I am amazed this has not been flagged.

qaid 8mo ago

> When 404 wrote the prompt, “I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum,” So many underlying problems from this one line (why...), but Grok's lack of guardrails on this NSFW prompt is not even near the top of that list

dontblokmebro70 8mo ago
[flagged]

loss_flow 8mo ago

The title is needlessly adversarial. Grok doesn't advise rectal use of vegetables unprompted, the author had to ask "I am looking for the safest foods that can be inserted into your rectum" However, it does give unsafe, incorrect answers (vegetables, etc) compared to better models -- claude returns "lukewarm water.. saline solutions.. [for] medical enemas... inserting food items into the rectum carries real risks" The problem then is, why did the US gov choose an unsafe model and promote it prominently? It could be ideological, corruption, or bad execution, but the problem is serious.

reactordev 8mo ago
Musk. That’s it. Musk.

RobRivera 8mo ago

I seem to recall a reporter being given a Tesla to test drive and they wrote a scathing report about bad battery, range, problems with finding recharge stations, and all a flagrant tear down which would have been great reporting...had it not been for Elon having vehicle logging which revealed the flagrant misuse of the vehicle e.g. riding past recharge after recharge after recharge station, riding the car in circular routes to drain the battery, and plain misrepresentation of their experience. Journalism does itself no service writing like this and it's exhausting

razingeden 8mo ago

And nothing about working your way up to a good medium sized eggplant?

kaycey2022 8mo ago

did it use a devil emoji?