In Its New ‘Copy Nothing’ Campaign, Jaguar Copies Bud Light

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-21-at-6.01.30 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-21-at-6.01.30%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]As the Democrats, Bud Light, and a host of other businesses have learned, people are tired of the crazy. But sure, Jaguar, copy nothing, except for failure.

FACT CHECK: No, Elon Musk Did Not Announce A Water-Powered Car Engine

There is no evidence Musk has announced such a creation.

This upcoming Elon Musk product could radically change society as we know it



Now that Donald Trump will return to the White House as the 47th president of the United States, Elon Musk thinks “it’s going to be a bright future.”

And he has several inventions he’s excited to roll out now that Democrats and their plans to control every aspect of society have been thwarted.

One of those inventions is the Tesla Cybercab — a futuristic-looking robotaxi that is fully autonomous. Unlike other Tesla models, the Cybercab has no steering wheel, no pedals, and no charging plug, as it charges inductively. According to Musk, the Cybercab is supposedly safer than regular vehicles and offers the opportunity to “turn parking lots into parks.”

Dave Rubin plays a clip of Musk pitching his Cybercab, as well as other inventions he’s excited about.

“All of these things are possible,” says Dave in reference to Musk’s new ideas, “but they won't be possible if you have an overreaching government that is trying to control everyone.”

To learn more about the Cybercab and other Musk inventions, watch the clip above.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

FACT CHECK: No, This Image Resembling A Cybertruck Does Not Show Fully Restored 1875 Chuckwagon

The image was created with the use of artificial intelligence (AI).

FACT CHECK: Is Elon Musk Developing Pregnancy Robots?

A post shared to Facebook claims that Tesla CEO Elon Musk is developing robots to carry babies throughout pregnancy. Verdict: False There is no evidence that Musk or Tesla is working on this technology. Fact Check: Social media users are claiming that one of Tesla’s newest ventures was a robot designed to carry a developing […]

FACT CHECK: Did Tesla Announce A New Motorhome Project?

A post shared on social media purportedly shows Tesla CEO Elon Musk has announced a new motorhome project. Elon Musk Reveals Tesla 2025 Motorhome for UNDER $17,000 https://t.co/NFJEP1wfbk via @YouTube — Dan Michael Johnston (@the001yesyes) October 15, 2024 Verdict: False The company is working on a Robovan and Robotaxi, no announcement for a motorhome has been made. […]

EU poised to personally punish Elon Musk under 'censorship law' over supposed X violations



The European Union's Digital Services Act is touted as part of a regulatory strategy to "prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation."

In practice, the DSA, regarded by critics as a "censorship law," is shaping up to be a cudgel for vindictive continentals to wield against Elon Musk and his relatively open social media platform, X.

There are now indications that the European Commission is plotting to personally target Musk with monster DSA fines for supposed violations of the regulators' content moderation rules on X.

After months of investigation concerning alleged DSA violations, the European Commission announced on July 11 that X was likely in breach "in areas linked to dark patterns, advertising transparency, and data access for research."

'We look forward to a very public battle.'

The commission complained that:

  • Anyone on X can subscribe to obtain a blue checkmark, which somehow "negatively affects users' ability to make free and informed decisions about the authenticity of the accounts and the content they interact with";
  • X lacks a "searchable and reliable advertisement repository";
  • X "prohibits eligible researchers from independently accessing its public data, such as by scraping."

Thomas Regnier, a spokesman for the commission, indicated there are additional alleged breaches under consideration, noting in a statement obtained by TechCrunch, "There is no precise timeline for [the EU completing all its DSA probes of X], and the Commission continues its investigation on the two remaining suspected breaches, namely illegal content and information manipulation more generally."

Musk indicated that he would challenge the findings, tweeting, "We look forward to a very public battle in court, so that the people of Europe can know the truth."

The commission said that a noncompliance decision finding X in breach of Articles 25, 39, and 40(12) of the DSA could mean fines of up to 6% of a platform's total worldwide revenue, to be decided by Margrethe Vestager, the commission's Danish executive vice president.

However, insidersrevealed this week to Bloomberg that the commission may instead calculate fines based on sales from all of Musk's companies, including SpaceX, Neuralink, xAI, and the Boring Company.

The apparent thinking behind this punitive play is that since X is a private company and under Musk's control, the billionaire is ultimately the finable entity. This logic bodes well for those foreign nationals seeking to expropriate the maximum amount of money from the American, given that X was recently valued at only $9.4 billion.

According to the insiders, Tesla Inc.'s sales would be exempt from these fines because the company is publicly traded and Musk is not in total control.

To avoid the Euro fines, X would have to bend over backward to satisfy the regulators.

"The obligations under the DSA are addressed to the provider of the very large online platform or very large online search engine," Regnier told Bloomberg. "This applies irrespective of whether the entity exercising decisive influence over the platform or search engine is a natural or legal person."

'I'm really scared by digital platforms in bad hands.'

In doing so, the EU would be following in the footsteps of the Silva regime in Brazil, which similarly treated Musk-led companies as a single group. Last month, the South American nation confiscated millions of dollars from a Starlink bank account to cover fines imposed on X.

Even if Musk successfully challenges the latest DSA complaints or bends the knee, the Europeans will likely continue trying to extract their pound of flesh.

Evin Incir, a Swedish Social Democrat member of the European Parliament, for instance, recently told Kvartal that the "DSA is an extremely important tool" to combat polarization and so-called "disinformation" on X, which she claims is adversely impacting society.

Incir indicated that the DSA would help tame the "Wild West," which is X under Musk.

European Commission Vice President Věra Jourová told Politico Wednesday that Musk was "not able to recognize good and evil."

"We started to relativize evil, and he's helping it proactively. He's the promoter of evil," said Jourová. "I'm really scared by digital platforms in bad hands."

Musk responded on X, "Věra Jourová is the epitome of banal, bureaucratic evil."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elon Musk wants a robot in every home; here's how to ensure they don't kill us all



It’s been clear for a while that mass robotics are coming — and nothing short of a catastrophe will make them go away. But it took Elon Musk, the man Peter Thiel once called the greatest salesman in the world, to penetrate the collective consciousness with last week’s “We Robot” event, which unveiled the Robovan, the Cybertaxi, and the Optimus bot, instantly familiar to anyone who has spent even a few seconds watching "Star Wars" content with droids in it.

The advent of the mass-market humanoid robot — explicitly designed not just to do what you want but to be what you want, taking on any number of roles filled for all of human history by, you know, humans — has predictably touched off a fresh bout of feverish conflict between acceleration-happy tech optimists and tech pessimists desperate to at least pump the brakes.

And it’s true — Big Tech is dominated by the cult of wokeness, intersectionality, DEI, ESG, perv pride, and so forth, and what makes Big Tech big is its deep and intimate relationship with the federal government, especially the intelligence community, which has also cast its lot with the cult and its rituals.

What is new this time around is the political aspect of the confrontation. As more tech founders and funders have gravitated toward Trump this year — with Musk at the forefront of that trend, too — their newfound confidence in openly criticizing tech people and entities aligned with Biden and Harris has given the debate over tech an explicitly partisan flavor.

And it’s true — Big Tech is dominated by the cult of wokeness, intersectionality, DEI, ESG, perv pride, and so forth, and what makes Big Tech big is its deep and intimate relationship with the federal government, especially the intelligence community, which has also cast its lot with the cult and its rituals. There’s no denying that the woke left dominates the anti-growth, pro-deceleration, pro-regulation wing of technologists and bureaucrats who want to ensure the spiritual authority of their cult is what dictates and controls the vector of tech research, development, and deployment.

Ostensibly, what they want is to prevent the eradication of human life by out-of-control machines. In reality, they are increasingly apt to openly support the reduction of human beings to compliant freaks coercively on-boarded into the social credit regime of the ultimate in micro-management, a planetary woke supercomputer.

At the same time, the unfortunate reality is that the woke left managed to get its act together way before anyone else in organizing an attempt at aligning tech with spiritual authority. One might have thought even one generation ago that America’s many millions of healthy Christians, with their thick community ties and robust commercial activities, would have united around ensuring that technology did not develop and dominate American life in ways that directly, consistently undercut the authority of church life — by manufacturing experiences and dreams that promised paradise on Earth in exchange for complete spiritual submission to the technologization of all things, from the planet down to the molecules in your body.

Alas, America’s Christians did not do this, and so the cult of the woke left — increasingly a formal religion with well-developed liturgical language, ritual performance, and rites of sacrifice — rushed into the spiritual vacuum.

The result of this lamentable series of events is that the political right wing in America found itself increasingly out of control and desperate for a path back, perhaps at whatever cost. Because of their loss of political power, the people most spiritually inclined to resist swapping out their ancient faith for a heretical cult of merging with machines began to accept it instead, increasingly believing that their only hope of destroying the established woke theocracy was a revolutionary cyborg theocracy.

The plausible reasons for making that devil’s bargain are clear enough. But so, of course, are the objections. As one columnist put it: “I cannot understand why conservatives venerate a man who is destroying the way of life they want to preserve. This AI/robots stuff will take your jobs, your freedom, your humanity.”

To repeat, however, the key to understanding is quite simple: As technology developed in ways that made central to human experience the urgency of the ultimate questions about our identity and purpose — questions that demand theological answers and close, personal spiritual guidance — the political conservatism of the 21st century, unmoored from any institutionalized spiritual authority, became very easy for the revolutionary left to defeat, because the left so swiftly abandoned its formerly materialist and secular foundations in favor of militant post-Christian woke spiritualism.

And so we find ourselves caught in a political realignment where Christian spiritual authority over the otherwise free development of technology in America is almost entirely absent from the debate — a debate taking place at an unprecedented inflection point for the United States, one where the nature of our form of government and indeed the nature of our very being is at stake. Not good!

Seeing Elon Musk and his allies navigate this landscape has been interesting. Despite the criticism they have attracted, on the whole, the maneuvers have been in the right direction, even though the breakneck pace of the tech and how its fans market it effectively encourages the country to dump Christ the God-man in favor of the god-simulating Borg collective. However, the main problem is not with machines or their power but rather with people and their own. It would be just so embarrassingly easy for any technologist empowered in this way to simply betray the desperate conservatives huddled at his feet begging him for manna, offering a simulation of the conservative lifestyle — “based Disneyland” — in exchange for the rest of the world ... and, of course, their souls.

Some might see in various prominent tech figures the first stirrings of an Antichrist personality with the ambitions to match. I am much more inclined to focus our attention on the harder case of the technologist with the very best intentions being reshaped by the virtual and digital world he has created into a person who believes he has no alternative but to smash the church of Christ and the sacred human form so that the new and “improved” god of the Borg, and the neo-church to match, can take “us” to the next level of super-galactic consciousness.

What can prevent that dismaying scenario? One Christian technologist, riffing off of the marketing of Optimus for those seeking an emotional support relationship, recently posted the makings of an answer. “Teacher, babysitter and friend?! Can we use them as soldiers? This is one of the key patterns of the [cyborg] theocracy,” he observed. “They take weapons and use them to hijack human spiritual relationships. The solution is obvious.”

If you’ve made it this far, it should be obvious. Those who hope to lose the woke theocracy without losing their humanity, too, in body and soul, can trust neither political conservatism nor post-political technocracy. For structural salvation in the digital age, there is only one institution in real life capable of re-establishing spiritual authority without imposing a theocracy — inspiring us, not coercing us, to ensure our tech is developed and used in ways that preserve our way of life, form of government, and sacred human being. The time has come for Americans of all stripes to rediscover what church is all about: providing an inimitable foundation of rock, not of sand.

The hidden risks of self-driving cars: Is your freedom at stake?



For years, people have dreamed about self-driving cars, imagining a futuristic world where autonomous vehicles whisk us around without a human behind the wheel. For many, this future always seems too far away to take seriously. What millions of Americans fail to realize, however, is that this future likely isn’t far off. In fact, the era of self-driving vehicles has already begun.

It is imperative that we acknowledge this reality and start asking crucial questions, including: Will self-driving cars enhance society, and will they threaten any of our liberties?

In the not-so-distant future, you could find yourself unable to summon a car because your intended destination is a controversial political rally, or perhaps you will be denied because of posts you make on social media.

When it comes to technological revolutions, we have been down this road before. In retrospect, new technologies often seem as though they were inevitable and appeared overnight. In reality, the mass adoption of technologies we rely on today took time to reach their current state of ubiquity.

One could argue that the age of cell phones began in the 1980s when large, clunky, and expensive models became available to the general public. As the technology advanced, society saw a rapid adoption through the late 1990s into the early 2000s. Now, we can barely imagine a world without cell phones.

Similar timelines occurred for the development of the internet, social media, and myriad other technologies. One day, people will think of self-driving cars in a similar way.

Contrary to popular belief, tremendous progress has been made in recent years in the development of self-driving technology. Tesla’s autopilot features are already in use on public roadways. Waymo’s self-driving taxis are now operational in several cities. Companies like Cruise and Uber are racing to join the autonomous vehicle revolution.

What once seemed like a distant vision is quickly becoming part of our present. The groundwork has been laid, and while most people may not yet be ready to rely on autonomous vehicles for their daily commutes, we are undeniably at the dawn of a new age of transportation.

The question is not whether self-driving cars will become part of our daily lives but how they will transform the way we move, interact, and live. Perhaps most importantly, who will control that transformation?

In the future, you’ll own nothing

For more than a century, owning a car has been a symbol of independence and mobility. Today, most people own their own vehicles, allowing them to hop behind the wheel and travel anywhere they wish. While you might think a transition to self-driving cars would not alter this relationship, it is likely that the future of autonomous vehicles won’t look like the world we’ve become accustomed to. Instead, we’re likely to see fleets of self-driving cars controlled by a few massive corporations, offering transportation as a service instead of as a tangible product. For many families, self-driving cars will be far too expensive to own. Renting will be the only way to take advantage of this new technology.

Uber and Google’s Waymo have already begun to position themselves as leaders in this new transportation paradigm. Rather than selling cars to individuals, these corporations envision a system where people no longer own vehicles but summon autonomous cars on demand, much like using a ride-sharing app.

Google’s Waymo is currently leading the way in this regard. With more than 20 million miles driven, Waymo boasts of having self-driving taxis serving customers in several major U.S. cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. In August 2024, Waymo announced it surpassed 100,000 paid trips per week, a significant milestone for the company.

The largest ride-sharing company in the world, Uber, is getting into the self-driving game too. Just a few weeks ago, Waymo and Uber announced a partnership that would make autonomous cars available on the Uber app for customers in Austin, Texas, and Atlanta, Georgia, in 2025. This announcement comes only months after a similar agreement was struck between Uber and General Motors’ Cruise company.

Google, Uber, and General Motors are not the only ones pushing society toward this transportation model, either. Amazon, another one of the largest technology companies in the world, has a project called Zoox, which also imagines a world where self-driving cars are offered as a service rather than a product.

Following Uber's playbook, this new transportation system will be touted as safe, efficient, and, most of all, convenient. You won’t need to worry about parking or maintaining your car. You won’t need to buy insurance or new tires. You will simply order a ride through an app on your phone — whenever you want, wherever you want.

Potential harms

However, despite the remarkable benefits offered by self-driving technology and centralized ownership of transportation, the proliferation of self-driving vehicles poses many potential threats to freedom as well.

For example, in a world where most people rely on corporate-controlled fleets, mobility can be controlled by the businesses that own and operate the vehicles, not individuals. When it comes to transportation, Americans could soon find themselves at the mercy of a few powerful tech companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber. If they own a large percentage of the vehicles in an area, they, not the citizens, will have the power to determine how, when, and where people can travel.

This is where things get really troubling. Imagine these fleets of self-driving cars being run like today’s social media platforms. Social media companies have immense control over the flow of information, deciding what content gets seen and what gets suppressed. What if the same principle were applied to transportation?

In a world where a few corporations control most of the vehicles on the road, it’s not far-fetched to imagine these companies exerting similar control over where you can go and how you get there.

What happens if a corporation decides to restrict access to certain areas? What if certain groups are denied access to transportation based on their political beliefs, in the same way social media platforms ban or restrict users? And what happens when these companies start collecting and monetizing data about our every move — just as they do with our online activity? What if all vehicle travel is limited to battle climate change or some other alleged environmental crisis?

In the not-so-distant future, you could find yourself unable to summon a car because your intended destination is a controversial political rally, or perhaps you will be denied because of posts you make on social media. Ride-sharing apps have already taken actions like these in the past.

Corporations could also use advanced algorithms to dictate which neighborhoods deserve better service or which routes should be ignored entirely.

The debates over self-driving cars should not merely be about convenience or safety. Perhaps our biggest concern should be liberty. If we’re not careful, we could be handing over control of our basic mobility to massive corporations with a long track record of bias and questionable judgment.

The era of self-driving cars is not some distant piece of science fiction. It’s here now, and it’s time to start taking it seriously.

Is Volvo's new, American-made EX90 a Tesla killer?



Tesla's ludicrous mode — which takes you from 0 to 60 in as little as 2.5 seconds — isn't for everyone. Some of would happily dispense with a short-term boost in torque to have a comfortable, silent ride.

Until Elon Musk offers some kind of "leisure mode," there's always the new, American-made 2025 Volvo EX90, a fully electric premium 7-seat SUV.

You could hear a pin drop in the EX90's ultra-quiet cabin — just the serenity you need to lower stress levels and calm the beast inside. Unlike most of its battery-electric competitors, during acceleration, it does not pipe in a soundtrack that mimics an internal-combustion engine.

The EX90's commitment to safety might also ease some tension when you're behind the wheel. Volvo's new multi-camera driver-monitoring system includes a suite of lidar, radar, eight cameras, and 12 ultrasonic sensors that collaborate to enforce Volvo's "zero crash" intent for all Volvos.

A new computer-actuated dual-chamber air suspension helps the EX90 feel refined, flat, and planted. The computer allows for instantaneous reactions to road imperfections. The hydro-bushings in the front and rear axle enhance longitudinal damping, counteracting suspension-crashing sensations and creating a smooth ride.

A trick torque-vectoring system, new to Volvo, recognizably enhances agility in low-speed or low-traction situations and aids in takeoff performance. As for the suspension and the steering, you can choose soft or firm settings.

Exclusive Scandinavian modern design details add to the premium experience of an intelligent car. Inspired by the Swedish living room, the EX90 cabin showcases a modern, luxurious, and uncluttered interior design with high-quality Nordico or Wool Blend upholstery options.

The backlit bent wood veneers are Alvar Aalto-esque, clutter is vanquished, and storage is multifarious, with bins and cubbies, including a frunk, a handbag shelf beneath the center console, and a sub-compartment beneath the rear cargo floor.

A 14.5-inch screen in the middle controls virtually everything, including simple functions like adjusting the side mirrors and HVAC and opening the glovebox and trunk. The amazing Bowers & Wilkins/Abbey Road Studios premium audio system is most impressive and really stands out.

Volvo says it doesn't intend the EX90 to replace the existing gas-powered XC90; it will continue to produce the latter as long as there's demand. Both 2025 versions of the car will be manufactured in the Swedish automaker's state-of-the-art Ridgeville, South Carolina, plant.

The twin motor trim will run you $79,995 while the twin motor performance comes in at $84,995. American buyers qualify for the $7500 EV tax credit. Our test car was fully loaded and came in at $93,345.

Pros :

  • Elegant interior styling
  • Google-based technology features
  • Strong acceleration
  • Amazing audio system

Cons:

  • The EX90 is not a driver's car.
  • No real leather option — it would increase the luxury
  • Glove box opening separate / manual
  • Rear-view camera

To see the EX90 in action — and to get a better sense of how it stacks up to competitors like the Tesla Model X and the KIA EV9, check out my test-drive video below:

- YouTube youtu.be