I’m not a Musk fan at all but some of these are misleading or just downright wrong.

Tesla is only the most recalled brand if you categorize “recalls” to include software updates. If Tesla can fix an issue via an OTA update, it shouldn’t be considered a recall but it is in the source being used.

Teslas do have build issues but they’re not overwhelmingly more present than other cars. They’re only showing that way because Tesla only has 4 models of car and the build issues carry over from year to year. That’s not the case for other cars where, like with a Jetta, the body is redesigned but the name stays the same.

The door lock thing is also misleading because the case would be the same for any other car where the driver locked the doors. Either way, the fire department is breaking a window. They don’t have magic keys to open every car door out there. The fire department could pull on the handle all day long and it wouldn’t matter. The driver locked the doors and could have opened them but didn’t (and there’s even a special manual override for them along with a Fire Department quick access switch at the front of the car).

Edit: People are downvoting objectively true information.

https://www.autoblog.com/2022/12/29/most-recalls-by-car-manufacturer-2022/

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/smartselect_20191224-132903_adobe-acrobat-jpg.492495/

THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL USING REDDIT?!

Although nothing you’ve said is inaccurate or incorrect, I feel like you’re leaving out a big part of the equation - time. A Suburban can’t travel the same number of miles anywhere near as fast as a plane or jet and that, in most cases, is the number one reason someone chooses a flight over a drive, even if it uses less fuel and is more eco-friendly.

It’s really not, though. Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use. While commercial flights make up 70% of that slice, they also have an exponential effect vs. the alternative. Even if there are more flights, unless they are less than half-full, using commercial airlines is more sustainable and also safer than the other alternatives because the effect is multiplicative.

Imagine everyone was taking private jets. If you forced everyone to fly in pairs, you would literally halve the amount of CO2. Force them to fly in 4’s, and it’s a further halving of that first half (equal to 1/4 the amount of CO2 now). Extend that further and further until you have a flight with 647 passengers (the “average” amount for commercial flight globally) and look how much CO2 you’ve prevented from entering the atmosphere. Even if someone is touring 6 or more times per year, as long as they’re flying a commercial flight, it’s better for CO2 production than a car or individual transport.

It’s far more effective to direct efforts to something outside of that 5% (or especially a subsection of that 5%) like manufacturing or industrial CO2 pollution.

5.3% is commercial airlines. 5.3% includes all air travel including commercial and commercial makes up 70% of that 5%. If you’re going to argue against something, get it straight what you’re actually arguing about.

Also, you’re insane if you think that commercial aviation and transport don’t contribute to the economy. How do you think your cell phone that you’re using to type this nonsense got to you?

By that logic, all countries in the world besides China and the USA could stop reducing emissions because they only cause sub 10% shares of the total.

No, because China and the USA are both affected by the emissions regardless of which one of them are responsible for them. In that case, the one we’re actually faced with, it makes more sense to tackle the emissions that are highest first and that have the lowest barriers. You pick the problems with the largest return on investment in time and resources. Airplanes are not that. Banning commercial flights for people is a fantasy and banning private jets, although something I agree with for other reasons, is not enough to make a dent.

There isn’t a whole lot “outside that 5%”.

Yes, there is. Cars, on average, have not lowered their emissions at anywhere near the same rate as airplanes have over the last 20 years and that’s including new electric cars. Until electric cars overtake gas-powered vehicles, which is currently projected to happen in 2031, there is enough within this sector alone that is more than 5% of the problem and that doesn’t require an absolute fantasy for a solution. And that doesn’t even touch manufacturing and industrial emissions which account for an even bigger slice because of the energy they use.

You’re right… it all has to become 0 anyways but we don’t have unlimited time or unlimited resources. Efforts need to be prioritized to put the ways that are realistic and meaningful at the top and unrealistic ways that solve 5% of the problem at the bottom.

What’s the point of this statement? Both groups of things can be true. The economy of the US, as a whole, can be booming while simultaneously having those other things be true too. The economy isn’t a measure of how individuals are doing. It’s a measure of how well the bullshit of capitalism is working. Seems to be working as intended…

It chose to explain what I explained by making the exact opposite point? You’re not making any sense. Either that stuff is related to the economy or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways.

That’s like saying “Don’t tell me the Lions are doing well when tickets to their games cost $15/seat”. The Lions can be doing well and the seats can be cheap right now. One is not necessarily reflective of the other.

It’s a fantastic game that improved on the first games in nearly every way. They’ll hit it and easily surpass it, especially as more people get their PS5’s.

I’m seeing so much FUD and misinformation being spread about this that I wonder what’s the motivation behind the stories reporting this. These are as close to the facts as I can state from what I’ve read about the situation:

1. 23andMe was not hacked or breached.
2. Another site (as of yet undisclosed) was breached and a database of usernames, passwords/hashes, last known login location, personal info, and recent IP addresses was accessed and downloaded by an attacker.
3. The attacker took the database dump to the dark web and attempted to sell the leaked info.
4. Another attacker purchased the data and began testing the logins on 23andMe using a botnet that used the username/passwords retrieved and used the last known location to use nodes that were close to those locations.
5. All compromised accounts did not have MFA enabled.
6. Data that was available to compromised accounts such as data sharing that was opted-into was available to the people that compromised them as well.
7. No data that wasn’t opted into was shared.
8. 23andMe now requires MFA on all accounts (started once they were notified of a potential issue).

I agree with 23andMe. I don’t see how it’s their fault that users reused their passwords from other sites and didn’t turn on Multi-Factor Authentication. In my opinion, they should have forced MFA for people but not doing so doesn’t suddenly make them culpable for users’ poor security practices.