Elon Musk, known for his leadership in several multibillion-dollar companies, continues to capture headlines. While his polarizing views draw attention, his flagship companies—Tesla and SpaceX—are undeniably pioneering advancements in electric vehicles and space exploration. Recent corporate maneuvers indicate that Musk may have an ambitious plan to integrate these ventures.
In a strategic development, Tesla has announced plans to halt production of its Model S and Model X. This shift does not signify an end to vehicle manufacturing; rather, the production facilities are to be reconfigured to advance Tesla’s humanoid robot, Optimus. Concurrently, Tesla is set to invest $2 billion into xAI, another of Musk’s enterprises, which oversees the social media platform X and its controversial chatbot, Grok.
This collective shift suggests Tesla is prioritizing AI-driven initiatives. In a recent report, both Bloomberg and Reuters revealed Musk’s intentions to merge SpaceX with either Tesla or xAI—or potentially both—in light of his plans to take SpaceX public this year.
What is Musk aiming to achieve with this consolidation? “By integrating xAI and SpaceX, he may be seeking to enhance resource efficiency across data, energy, and computing,” explains Marbe Hickok from the University of Michigan. “He also suggested a merger with Tesla to leverage their technologies for distributed computing.”
Projected plans for humanoid robots, with Musk expressing a goal to manufacture 1 million third-generation Optimus robots annually, require substantial computing resources for AI. Interacting with humans and the surrounding environment necessitates sophisticated AI systems capable of managing extensive data.
Nevertheless, the rise of generative AI is already straining energy resources. Musk’s xAI recently faced scrutiny at the Colossus Data Center in Memphis, which came under fire from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for exceeding legal power generation limits. Musk has previously advocated for establishing data centers in space, positing that a rollout could occur within two to three years. However, many experts caution that various technical challenges—including cooling and radiation protection—must be resolved first.
Despite these challenges, launching a data center into orbit presents an opportunity, and SpaceX stands as a leading provider of reliable launches for both private and public sectors. Their extensive experience, particularly with their Starlink satellite internet division, supports this ambition.
“SpaceX is actively deploying a satellite grid in orbit—currently over 9,000 satellites—focused on internet distribution,” states Robert Scoble, a technology analyst at Unaligned. “While xAI works on internet distribution and news, its primary focus is developing innovative AI models that empower our vehicles, humanoid robots, and daily lives,” he says, “the convergence of these endeavors makes strategic sense.”
Ultimately, Musk envisions that the collaboration of SpaceX, Tesla, and xAI could position them at the forefront of the AI landscape, competing against major players like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft. However, all three companies have not publicly commented on these developments, and Musk himself remains silent.
Contrarily, some experts challenge Musk’s strategic direction. “Currently, only Tesla possesses financial capabilities, but its trajectory is concerning for funding future growth,” asserts Edward Niedermayer, author of Ridiculous: The True Story of the Tesla Motor. He suggests these moves are “defensive,” aimed at bolstering the companies for future prospects and attracting broader retail investor interest.
Niedermayer emphasizes the necessity of public investment due to mounting operational costs: “Running out of cash is a significant concern,” he notes. “The expenses associated with training and operating AI models are considerable.” His belief is that by consolidating resources, Musk aims to present an attractive investment opportunity. However, if his vision doesn’t materialize, it could result in significant repercussions.
On Thursday, Tesla shareholders ratified a $1 trillion compensation plan for CEO Elon Musk, potentially granting the world’s wealthiest individual the largest corporate payout in history, contingent on meeting specified targets.
Despite opposition from several notable investors, the compensation framework underscores shareholders’ confidence in Musk’s ability to steer the automaker through an era increasingly influenced by robotics and artificial intelligence.
The results were announced during the company’s annual shareholder meeting in Austin, Texas, where over 75% of attendees voted in favor. Following the announcement, enthusiastic shouts of “Elon” filled the venue.
“Thank you, everyone,” Musk expressed after performing a brief dance alongside the company’s Optimus robot.
Musk emphasized that the Optimus robot, which is yet to achieve mass production, represents both Tesla’s future and humanity’s. He reiterated that it could become the “biggest product ever,” with applications ranging from healthcare to correctional facilities.
“Imagine having a free Optimus that follows you and prevents criminal behavior,” Musk remarked. “We can move away from jail systems. The possibilities are astonishing.”
He previously indicated that he sought a compensation package granting him greater control over the company and “stronger leverage over the robot army” under development.
Musk’s astronomical compensation is comparable to the GDP of entire nations, surpassing that of Ireland, Sweden, and Argentina, and outstrips federal allocations for major government programs.
Critics, including some shareholders, contended that concentrating such power in a single, unpredictable leader overlooks the obstacles facing the company.
“Elon Musk just earned $1 trillion despite setbacks. Sales are declining, safety issues are rising, and his political views may alienate customers. This isn’t true leadership; it’s the world’s priciest participation trophy,” stated the protest group Tesla Takedown.
Should Musk meet the high benchmarks of his salary package, he could become the world’s first trillionaire. This requires Tesla to boost its market capitalization to $8.5 trillion, eightfold its current worth. Additionally, he needs to roll out millions of self-driving cars and humanoid robots, while maintaining substantial revenue over the forthcoming decade.
The compensation goals, which are distributed across 12 tranches, outline a roadmap for Tesla to achieve this monumental market capitalization. If successful, Musk will be eligible to liquidate an additional 12% of his shares after committing to the company for a minimum of seven and a half years. He will also have to help devise a comprehensive succession plan for the firm he has directed for over two decades.
In addition to the shares guaranteed under the 2018 package, the new compensation plan will leave Musk with a 25% ownership stake in Tesla. As of November 5, Tesla’s stock was trading around $450 per share, close to its 52-week high.
Over the next decade, Musk is tasked with delivering 20 million Tesla electric vehicles, securing 10 million active fully self-driving subscriptions, manufacturing 1 million humanoid robots, and deploying 1 million robotaxis for commercial use.
Additionally, Musk must enhance the company’s underlying profits to $400 billion for four consecutive quarters. Tesla’s profit for the third quarter of 2025 stood at $4.2 billion, marking a 9% decline from the previous year.
As of November, Musk’s net worth reached $460 billion, making him the richest person globally. Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
Restoration of Canceled Packages
Shareholders also validated a compensation package for Musk after his 2018 plan was nullified by a Delaware court. The plan, valued at approximately $56 billion, faced challenges from a shareholder who ultimately prevailed. Delaware’s Court of Chancery has twice invalidated Musk’s pay structure.
Following the initial cancellation of his 2018 compensation plan, Musk relocated Tesla’s headquarters from Delaware to Texas. He stated that SpaceX and other corporate headquarters have similarly made the move. In 2024, shareholders once again endorsed the pay package under Texas law.
However, Delaware’s “court of equity” has ruled against one of the largest CEO compensations in modern times yet again. In light of this adverse ruling, Musk expressed dissatisfaction with the state and its activist judge, further fueling an exodus of corporations Delaware lawmakers are attempting to curb through legislation.
“He had a significant platform,” commented Lawrence Hammermesh, a professor emeritus at Widener University Delaware School of Law and a former corporate lawyer. “There seems to be more to this transition than just Musk stirring the pot, but it likely had an impact.”
In assessing whether Musk had excessive influence in securing his 2018 compensation package, Eric Talley, a Columbia Law School professor, noted that the judge found that other “superstar CEOs” like Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos had not received comparable incentive-based contracts.
quick guide
Contact us about this story
show
Quality public interest journalism depends on firsthand accounts from informed sources.
If you wish to confidentially share details regarding this topic, please use the methods below to contact us.
Secure messaging in the Guardian app
The Guardian app offers a feature for submitting story tips. Messages sent via this tool are end-to-end encrypted and concealed within the regular activities of the app, ensuring that observers cannot see that you are communicating with us, let alone the content of your messages.
If you haven’t installed the Guardian app yet, you can download it for iOS or Android. After installation, navigate to the menu and select “Secure Messaging.”
SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, phone, and post
If you can safely utilize the Tor network without surveillance, you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.
Lastly, our guide at theguardian.com/tips explains various secure communication methods and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Are you prepared to share your earnings with strangers and see it plastered all over the web?
For better or worse, it was just you, your employer, and possibly HM Revenue & Customs who knew your salary.
Now, the question looms: “What do you earn?” Influencers armed with cameras and ring lights often stop you in the street to ask. This seemingly mundane question might lead to a series of lighter inquiries later.
They might also delve into other personal financial matters, such as your rent, savings, or biggest financial blunders.
Surprisingly, many people are willing to engage. In just 40 seconds, one interview revealed that an architectural designer earns £38,000 annually. Respondents are often eager to share their future salary expectations and savings, too.
In another clip, a 60-year-old man discusses his biggest financial regret—passing up on an expensive apartment when he was younger.
These clips, viewed 1.3 million times on Instagram, are part of a fast-growing genre that includes street-style interviews delving into personal finance topics like income, job satisfaction, and more.
Inspired by the US Salary Transparent Street, which aims to de-stigmatize salary discussions, this channel has gained over a million followers in four years.
Microphone-wielding creators argue that interviewing British citizens has enhanced financial literacy and wage transparency. Critics suggest it caters to voyeurism, creating content that could easily go viral.
For content creators, the formula is straightforward: pose personal questions, film responses, and share them with audiences eager to learn about others’ earnings, expenditures, and regrets. After all, financial concerns often weigh more heavily on young individuals than social media or environmental crises.
As Gabriel Nussbaum, known as “that money man,” asserts, “My aim is to foster financial education through dialogue.” He runs Unfiltered Money, focusing on public interviews about personal finance.
What may appear as a solo endeavor is, in fact, a well-coordinated team effort. “We have a crew,” Nussbaum explains. “Our mission is to attract participants from diverse ages, backgrounds, and genders.”
Gabriel Nussbaum emphasizes that the main theme is discussing finances with “regular” people. Photo: Harrison Kelly/Money Unfiltered
Since its inception six months ago, the channel boasts an impressive average of 3 million views each month, with daily postings on Instagram and TikTok.
But is it really as simple as shoving a microphone in someone’s face and hoping for the best?
“It’s all about how you frame the questions and the context you provide,” shares Aydan Al-Saad, an entrepreneur and content creator who also queries people about their pay, sharing the videos online.
“I don’t edit everything, but I usually let people know I’m promoting transparency and ensuring everyone feels fairly compensated,” he adds.
So why does it resonate? Much of it stems from the fact that “we don’t have these conversations elsewhere.” Salary discussions, particularly concerning the actual figures, are one of the UK’s greatest taboos, largely due to a reluctance to engage in dialogue about confidentiality, workplace traditions, and money.
A recent survey indicated that British citizens often shy away from discussing their salaries; 87% feel uneasy when asked about their salary.
Currently, individuals like Nussbaum and Saad strive to bridge the gap. “For me, the goal is transparency,” states Saad. “It’s about giving people insight into different careers and potential earnings.”
There’s also a psychological angle beyond mere information sharing: “It’s akin to reality TV, isn’t it? I can secure views by interviewing a billionaire,” explains Venture Room, which features high-net-worth individuals discussing their finances. “But viewers want to connect with real people and hear genuine stories,” he adds.
It’s all very interesting, but what’s it like for those being interviewed to disclose their salary and see their face all over the internet? “No one truly understands what going viral feels like until it happens,” says Saad.
“We’re not here to put anyone in an awkward position,” he continues, adding that interviewees can request the removal of their content. “If we see it, we’ll take it down, no questions asked.”
Comments on certain channels are screened to create a secure environment for financial discussions. Nevertheless, some video comments can lead to a broad examination of personal circumstances. For instance, a debate sparked about whether an income of £35,000 annually is adequate for living comfortably in London can be found here: Is £35,000 enough?.
How useful are these videos? “On a theoretical level, it’s beneficial because it’s better to know than to remain ignorant,” asserts Kim Stevenson, a psychologist and financial advisor.
However, as tools for comparison, they may not serve their intended purpose, cautions Vicky Reynal, a psychotherapist and author of *Money in Your Mind: The Psychology Behind Your Financial Habits*. “Comparisons can lead to feelings of inadequacy rather than clarity,” she states.
The key issue lies in how each individual uses the information. “Some people may watch for entertainment or reassurance, but others could spiral into frustration and dissatisfaction, feeling they fall short,” she explains.
Vicky Reynal expresses concern that some viewers may use the content to validate feelings of inadequacy. Photo: Rory Mulvey/The Observer
Nussbaum claims his primary objective is that the videos are beneficial, although he recognizes their potential drawbacks. However, feedback has been “overwhelmingly positive” for content that “broadens perceptions of what’s possible,” he notes.
Third echoes this sentiment. “If even one person gains value from the video, it’s worth sharing,” he says, asserting that these videos may empower viewers to seek pay raises or change careers.
“Imagine hearing that someone your age on this platform earns three times more than you,” says Nussbaum. “It might provoke negative feelings, yet it could also encourage someone to think, ‘I’m underpaid for my role and should explore other opportunities.’” The same video can have two contrasting effects.
Theoretically, these videos should resonate more with Gen Z, who are thought to prioritize pay transparency more than older generations. In reality, however, millennials likely make up the bulk of the audience. Over 40% of Saad’s followers are aged 25-34, with more than 33% in the 35-44 age group.
These statistics reflect the pervasive financial insecurity facing millennials; 56% of those under 40 report considering delaying significant life milestones due to financial stress.
So what’s next for Nussbaum’s channel? “I’m eager to involve more prominent individuals and encourage diverse voices to open up about their financial experiences,” he states. “For instance, I spoke recently with an 18-year-old soccer player who mentioned making £100,000 a year and asked, ‘How do you handle that?’”
While that contrasts sharply with an average tenant’s experience, Nussbaum insists that his channel continues to focus on “discussing everyday life and finances.”
Are the Mancunians becoming more open about their earnings? Kimi Chadda ventured out to find out. Photo: Christopher Farlong/Getty Images
‘Not today, thank you.’
It’s a bright day in Manchester. In bustling areas like Castlefield, Northern Quarter, and Spinningfield, office workers inquire with strangers about finances. The crowds are unpredictable. I approach 30 individuals throughout the day. One man shows interest before exhaling deeply and saying, “Not today, thank you.” Maybe another time?
When I mention media or personal finance, others grow defensive. Most walk away before I can explain my purpose.
Only 2 out of the 30 I approach are willing to share details. One responds with empathy following an encounter with a stand-offish peer. The other declines to provide a surname or identification—contradicting the free-spirited essence of TikTok videos. They disclose incomes between £25,000 and £35,000, acknowledging that while salaries should be discussed more, they also “don’t want to get sued.”
From this experience, I gleaned two insights. First, the simplest approach to turn a comfortable individual into a guarded stranger is to approach them directly, microphone or not. Second, people prefer to engage in lighter topics, such as bus schedules, the weather, and the state of the city center.
So, I didn’t uncover any hard figures, but I left with the lingering thought that perhaps I should have focused on discussions around mortgage rates instead.
3M is expected to pay New Jersey between $400 million and $450 million over the next 25 years. The company is implicated in the contamination of drinking water across the nation with harmful “forever chemicals,” known as PFAS.
The Minnesota-based chemical corporation has produced PFAS for decades at the Chambers Works site in Deepwater, New Jersey, situated along the Delaware River. This facility was previously owned by the competitor DuPont.
Officials have stated that this settlement marks the largest single clean water agreement in New Jersey history. In 2019, New Jersey launched a lawsuit against 3M, DuPont, and other PFAS manufacturers, citing contamination of the drinking water supply from the facility.
PFAS, or polyfluoroalkyl substances, are found in numerous everyday products, such as nonstick cookware, water-repellant clothing, and stain-resistant carpets. Exposure to these chemicals is associated with metabolic disorders, reduced birth rates in women, delayed child development, and higher risks of certain cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
As part of the settlement announced on Tuesday, 3M will allocate between $400 million and $450 million to New Jersey over 25 years, aimed at damages and improving drinking water treatment.
New Jersey noted that DuPont and its spinoff, Kemoul, which operates the facility, are not included in the settlement. The remaining parties are anticipated to take the matter to trial. DuPont chose not to comment.
“Businesses that contaminate our water supply must be held accountable,” stated New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin. “For years, 3M was aware its PFAS chemicals were permanently polluting the New Jersey environment, yet they evaded responsibility. That time is over.”
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chambers Works facility historically produced gunpowder and materials for nuclear purposes, aiding in the development of the atomic bomb. Recently, the site has manufactured a range of chemicals, including PFAS.
New Jersey Environmental Protection Commissioner Sean M. Latourette remarked that the pollution issue extends far beyond drinking water. “PFAS are present throughout New Jersey, even reaching soil in forests distant from landfills,” he noted.
New Jersey is only the second state to settle with 3M regarding PFAS-related drinking water pollution claims, following Minnesota, which saw 3M agree to pay $850 million in 2018 for similar issues affecting natural resources.
In 2023, 3M also reached a nationwide settlement of up to $12.5 billion with public water suppliers to tackle PFAS contamination in drinking water.
3M characterized the agreement as a “crucial step toward mitigating risks and uncertainties” related to historical PFAS contamination. The company indicated that it had begun phasing out the production of two major PFAS substances in 2000 and aims to stop all PFAS production by 2025.
3M clarified that the settlement should not be seen as an admission of guilt and noted that it would incur a pre-tax charge of $285 million in the second quarter.
This week, the EPA was set to announce whether it will uphold the stringent PFAS drinking water standards established by the Biden administration last year.
Chemical companies and utilities have sued the agency over this decision. The Trump administration was due to inform the court on Monday whether it would continue to support these standards but instead requested a 21-day extension to determine its next steps.
On Friday, Google consented to pay Texas $1.4 billion, facing accusations of violating state residents’ privacy related to two lawsuits concerning location tracking, search history, and facial recognition data collection.
Attorney General Ken Paxton, who facilitated the settlement, initiated a lawsuit in 2022 under Texas’ data privacy and deceptive trade practices legislation. Less than a year later, he achieved a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
This settlement marks another legal challenge for the tech giant. In the last two years, Google has faced a series of antitrust cases, revealing its significant control over app stores, search engines, and advertising technology. Recent legal battles have sought to counter the U.S. government’s requests to break up the company.
“Big tech must adhere to the law,” Paxton stated.
Google spokesperson José Castañeda remarked that the company has already revised its product policies. “This resolves numerous longstanding claims, many of which have found resolution elsewhere,” he noted.
Privacy concerns have caused significant friction between tech corporations and regulators in recent years. In the absence of federal privacy regulations, states like Texas and Washington have enacted laws to limit the collection of facial, voice, and other biometric data.
Google and Meta have been among the leading companies challenged under these regulations. Texas law, known as the Capture or Use of Biometric Identifiers, mandates that companies obtain consent before utilizing features like facial and speech recognition technology. Violators can face penalties of up to $25,000 per breach.
The lawsuit under this law centers on the Google Photos app, which facilitates searching for images of specific individuals. Future Google cameras may issue alerts upon recognizing visitors at a door. Moreover, Google Assistant is designed to learn and respond to inquiries from up to six users.
Mr. Paxton filed another lawsuit claiming that Google misled Texans by tracking their personal location data, even when they believed they had disabled the feature. He asserted additional grievances in the lawsuit, alleging that Google’s private browsing settings (known as Incognito Mode) were not genuinely private. These cases were filed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Israeli cybersecurity company NSO Group has been ordered to pay Meta $167 million in damages, concluding a six-year legal dispute after NSO hacked 1,400 WhatsApp accounts belonging to journalists, human rights activists, and government officials.
In December, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that NSO had breached cybersecurity laws by using the well-known Pegasus spyware to target mobile phones configured with WhatsApp across 20 countries. Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, provides an encrypted messaging platform used by over 2 billion individuals.
In March, Meta sought damages from NSO, and last week the court convened to discuss potential penalties. The ruling was made on Tuesday following two days of deliberation.
“Today’s verdict imposing penalties on NSO is a crucial deterrent for the spyware industry against unlawful activities targeting American companies and users globally. This is a threat to the entire industry, and we must all work to safeguard it.”
WhatsApp announced that it would donate the damages to digital rights organizations dedicated to protecting individuals.
“We are excited to share our commitment to providing a variety of services to our users,” stated Gil Rainer, Vice President of Global Communications at NSO Group. “We firmly believe that our technology plays a vital role in preventing serious crimes and terrorism, and is employed responsibly by authorized government agencies.”
WhatsApp initially filed a lawsuit against NSO in 2019, claiming they had accessed WhatsApp servers without authorization. An NSO executive testified about the company’s capability to install Pegasus software on targeted mobile devices without users’ awareness. This executive asserted that Pegasus assists law enforcement and intelligence agencies in combating crime and securing national safety.
Similarly, Apple sued NSO for device hacking in 2021, though it dropped the case in September. Additionally, in 2021, the Commerce Department blacklisted NSO, stating the firm acted “contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.”
Spyware, a type of software that infiltrates mobile phones, laptops, and other devices, is increasingly used to surveil unsuspecting victims. Initial spyware from NSO required targets to click on links or images sent via WhatsApp, which would then be unintentionally downloaded on their devices.
Evidence presented during the trial indicated that the latest version can penetrate phones through sent text messages without any action needed from the recipient. The proceedings also revealed that NSO has developed technology capable of infiltrating other messaging applications.
John Scott-Railton, an external expert whose work highlights how NSO Group’s spyware targets individuals through WhatsApp, remarked that Tuesday’s decision would adversely affect the company.
“NSO’s operations rely on compromising American companies,” stated Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at Citizen Lab, a cybersecurity watchdog affiliated with the University of Toronto. “Dictators can exploit this to track dissidents. This ruling conveys a strong message.”
Amazon has announced a pay increase of nearly 10% for tens of thousands of UK workers, rejecting attempts by the GMB union to gain negotiating rights over pay and working conditions.
The online retailer said the increase will see the minimum wage rise by 9.8%, to between £13.50 and £14.50 an hour depending on location. Staff with more than three years of service will receive a minimum wage of between £13.75 and £14.75 an hour.
The pay increase will apply to thousands of employees from September 29th, including those working in Amazon’s UK fulfilment centres.
Amazon’s UK workers have recently staged a series of strikes. The company is investing £550 million in pay increases for staff from 2022 onwards, adding that staff receive benefits such as subsidised meals and discounts.
A spokesman said: “That’s why we’re proud to announce that we’re increasing the minimum starting salary for all frontline employees to the equivalent of at least £28,000 per annum and continuing to offer industry-leading benefits from day one.”
GMB organiser Rachel Fagan said: “Forced to act by workers striking, Amazon’s management has done too little, too late. Amazon’s reputation has been tarnished by the way it treats its workers and now management is trying to cover up the facts. Unsafe working conditions, low pay and excessive oversight are ruining the lives of Amazon workers every day.”
In July, GMB narrowly lost a statutory vote at an Amazon warehouse outside Coventry that led to the union’s formal recognition. In a hotly contested vote, 50.5% of workers rejected recognition of the union.
Workers in Coventry have staged a series of strikes over the past 18 months demanding a £15 an hour minimum wage and the right to negotiate directly with management, and last November they were joined on the picket lines by trade unionists from Europe and the US who have been raising similar issues in their home countries.
Amazon, which has a global policy of refusing to work with labor unions, preferring to deal directly with employees, is the retail-to-cloud services group founded by Jeff Bezos in his garage in 1994 and now worth nearly $2 trillion.
Some workers at the Coventry warehouse have accused Amazon of using union-busting tactics, such as displaying QR codes which, when scanned, would send an email to GMB’s membership department to cancel employees’ membership.
The Labour government has promised to make it easier for trade unions to gain recognition as part of a package of measures aimed at increasing the bargaining power of British workers.
“Academics are often accused of ‘obsessing over the details,'” David Taylor told Feedback magazine. “This year my team and I have managed to do just that. We have built a machine that can literally split a single hair from end to end. This is the first time that anyone has been able to split a hair in a lab in a controlled environment and quantify the phenomenon. Were you planning any exciting beauty treatments like coloring or curling your hair? You’ll have to wait and see if this will cause split ends.”
This is based on research done in the 1980s by Y. K. Kamath and H.-D. Weigman, who sought to take a closer look at what happens when a hair splits.
in Journal of Applied Polymer Science “Fractographic analysis of human hairKamath and Weigman calmed their excitement and stated, “Electron microscopic evidence suggests that fracture propagation occurs via secondary cracks generated as a result of stress concentrations that build up around the primary crack.”
Water from the wreckage
Brazilian researchers have been searching outside the cemetery for the remains of people buried there. Their main question is whether the decaying bodies are sending a foul stench into the area’s deep groundwater. Elias Saba and his colleagues have summed it all up in a book with a macabre, geeky title: “The Deadly Sinisters: The Secrets of the Dead.”Assessing the impact of cemeteries on groundwater using multivariate analysis” “.
The team collected data from three “monitoring wells” dug at the cemetery and compared it with data from the local sewer company about water in nearby household cisterns. Multivariate analysis provided both good and not-so-good news.
The researchers explain that the soil, both inside and outside the cemetery, absorbs most of the problematic waste from the bodies, “preventing surface contaminants from reaching the aquifer.” That’s a good thing. But the problem is that water samples taken in areas outside the cemetery do not meet Brazil’s drinking water standards.
Grandma drinking alcohol
Ancestral water resources are not a new issue. Perhaps the most attention on this issue came in 2008. Journal of Environmental Health.
Reader Russ Hodge responded to the feedback with:Drinking Grandma: The Problem with Embalming” ,” by attorney Jeremiah Chiapelli and Ted Chiapelli, a health sciences professor at Western Carolina University in North Carolina.
The Chiappellis explain: “Modern embalming involves replacing organic blood with a variety of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, particularly formaldehyde. The embalmed body is then buried underground, but even when placed in a coffin, bodily fluids inevitably leak into groundwater. The reasons embalming was first undertaken, and the rationale for the continued practice, do not justify the potential public health and environmental risks posed by embalming.”
The Chiappellis also talk about research done by others about why so many people in the U.S. choose embalming: “In states that require funeral directors to be embalming technicians or have embalming facilities, cremation rates have decreased due to funeral director solicitation.”
settlement
Nothing livens up the social atmosphere at a strange pub like axe throwing, but the sport can pose dangers for some of those who approach it in a obliging, professional manner.
According to researchers Kusha Dabar, Arthur Jeng, and Suzanne Donovan, one such risk factor is blastomycosis, a fungal disease that “manifests as a pulmonary disease” but can also affect the skin, bones, and genitourinary tract.
The patient “worked at an axe-throwing factory after moving to Los Angeles,” and “his work involved cutting wood for customers.”
Dabber, Jenn and Donovan claim that the disease is “not routinely diagnosed” in Southern California. They say: Blastomyces The fungus was present in the wood before entering the patient’s body.
Telltale Title
Below are two titles recently added to our collection of feedback, “The Title Says All You Need to Know.”
If you’ve come across similarly impressive examples, please submit them along with citation details to Telltale titles, c/o Feedback.
Marc Abrahams is the founder of the Ig Nobel Prize ceremony and co-founder of the journal Annals of Improbable Research. He previously worked on unusual uses of computers. His website is Impossible.
Do you have a story for feedback?
You can submit articles for Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and past Feedback can be found on our website.
When the Minneapolis City Council announced agreements with Uber and Lyft last month to increase wages and enhance working conditions for drivers, who emerged as the winner?
On May 20, the city council revealed a compromise with ride-hailing companies: Uber and Lyft would adhere to an inflation-linked minimum wage aligning with Minnesota’s $15 hourly minimum wage post expenses. Although some lawmakers touted this as a 20% pay surge for drivers, the agreed rate was lower, surpassing nearly all proposals from the previous two years amidst a contentious battle involving Uber, Lyft, drivers, and lawmakers.
Key elements of the deal include the allowance for drivers to contest firings due to opaque algorithms, funding for a non-profit driver center for driver rights education, and a raised insurance coverage requirement to $1 million for ride-hailing drivers to address post-trip medical expenses and lost wages following an assault or accident.
However, since the deal remains a vital component of digital ride-hailing services, Uber and Lyft can sustain operations and potentially reverse the compromise in the future.
Over the course of two years, ride-hailing driver groups engaged in protests, advocacy efforts, and negotiations with Uber as the companies threatened capital strikes and announced withdrawal from the state multiple times due to the bill, causing political strife for both entities.
By resorting to capital strikes, these companies narrow the scope of our political discourse while bolstering their own influence. The digital ride-hailing model perpetuates worsened working conditions for drivers through misclassification and algorithmic control, and the Minneapolis deal fails to address data transparency, constituting a significant setback according to expert Veena Duvall from the University of California, Irvine.
While the deal provides instant benefits for drivers by averting Uber and Lyft’s potential exit from the state, it falls short of addressing fundamental structural challenges within the on-demand labor model.
The on-demand labor model relies on maintaining an asymmetric power balance between companies, passengers, drivers, and cities, sidestepping issues of misclassification, data extraction, and algorithmic control.
Uber and Lyft exhibit adeptness in reducing arguments to superficial levels, deterring meaningful change and reform within the industry. Despite the evident need for intervention to improve drivers’ conditions, the omnipresent influence and evasion of billions in taxes by such companies underscore the challenge of enacting lasting reform.
Ultimately, the digital ride-hailing model remains fundamentally flawed, necessitating a comprehensive reevaluation of its impact on urban transport, working conditions, and financial practices, urging a departure from the prevailing exploitative dynamics in favor of sustainable alternatives.
Uber and Lyft have announced the suspension of their operations in the Minneapolis area in protest of a newly passed minimum wage ordinance by the City Council.
The ordinance, set to take effect on May 1, establishes a minimum wage of $1.40 per mile and 0.51 cents per minute for rideshare drivers, with a minimum wage of $5 per ride. Despite the mayor’s veto being overridden by the City Council, Uber and Lyft have threatened to leave the area in response.
If the companies proceed with their plans to halt operations on May 1, Minneapolis will stand as the only city in the U.S. without Uber or Lyft services.
Advocates for the bill highlight the low wages and high costs faced by rideshare drivers. They assert that wages have decreased, leading to support for the ordinance.
Eid Ali, a veteran rideshare driver and president of the Minnesota Uber Lyft Drivers Association, has been terminated. Uber and Lyft argue that the minimum wage is unsustainable for maintaining affordable fares for riders.
Ali expressed his disbelief in the actions of the multi-billion-dollar companies, emphasizing the need for fair compensation and a living wage for all workers.
Should Uber and Lyft exit the market, Ali believes that other entities are prepared to step in. He believes their fight is not solely about the minimum wage but also about its implications on the broader market.
Farhan Bader, another rideshare driver, highlighted the undervaluation of drivers’ roles in society and argued for fair compensation amid declining pay and increased working hours.
Efforts are underway by Minnesota lawmakers to introduce a bill preempting Minneapolis regulations to retain Uber and Lyft in the area.
Uber’s senior director of communications, Josh Gold, expressed disappointment in the City Council’s decision and emphasized the need for collaboration to ensure drivers receive fair wages while keeping rideshare affordable.
A Lyft spokesperson also voiced support for state-level preemption and raised concerns about the impact of the minimum wage ordinance on drivers’ income and the accessibility of ridesharing services.
Uber and Lyft’s clash with regulators over wages and working conditions reflects a broader trend seen in the industry both in the U.S. and globally.
TIt comes as pharmaceutical group AstraZeneca last month cemented chief executive Pascal Soriot’s place as the highest-paid FTSE 100 company leader by increasing his pay by £17m, up from £15.3m a year earlier. It was a shocking moment. This award brings the total amount earned since joining in 2012 to £137 million.
This angered corporate governance experts, but Mr. Soriot’s generous compensation was only a fraction of what he would take home at some of America’s largest companies. Sundar Pichai of Google’s parent company Alphabet is the highest-paid boss on the U.S.-based S&P 500 index, with a paycheck of $226 million in 2022.
This gap is being used to fuel concerns about London’s ability to attract and retain global talent and to strengthen demands in boardrooms to increase executive pay to compete with Wall Street-level salaries. There is.
There is growing concern in the city following a series of defections in recent years. Top executives went across the Atlantic to rival companies, and London-listed companies moved to U.S. stock exchanges. With more money and less shareholder oversight, companies have more control over compensation systems.
“Anecdotally, this competitiveness issue has been a topic of discussion for many years,” says Andrew, who speaks on behalf of pension fund managers and other large shareholders as head of industry body the Investment Association.・Ninian said. “But in reality, we are hearing more and more cases where companies are having a hard time finding the right talent and competing for talent.”
For example, medical device maker Smith & Nephew lost chief executive Namal Nawana in 18 months after a 2019 scandal over demands for high pay commensurate with his U.S. peers. The company reportedly considered moving to the US, where it would be easier to increase his £6m package, but scrapped the plan and Mr Nawana resigned.
The technology industry is one of the most valuable sectors globally, heavily relying on the unpaid efforts of a small number of enthusiasts.
This reliance is both a boon and a bane for open-source software projects, which are freely available for public use. Some of these projects efficiently solve simple problems, saving unnecessary repetition of work. Others tackle complex tasks that push boundaries.
This dependency is not a secret. In August 2020, webcomic xkcd highlighted this issue by portraying modern digital infrastructure as a delicate tower depending on a project maintained by a random person in Nebraska since 2003.
Moreover, a satirical tweet by Druthers Haver humorously emphasized the importance of unsung heroes like Ronald, who maintains critical technical tools like the UNIX tool called “Rank.”
The most crucial figures in technology are a mix of well-known personalities like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, as well as lesser-known individuals like Ronald, the caretaker of “Rank,” a vital tool that manages calculations for machines worldwide.
These anecdotes reflect reality. A software developer faced a crisis in 2016 when his left-pad code, included in numerous programs, unintentionally caused widespread failures due to a simple name dispute.
Similarly, OpenSSL, a widely used encryption tool, had a severe bug unnoticed for years, compromising online security. The story repeated with Log4j seven years later.
While distributing free software offers many benefits, sustaining its development poses challenges. Various models like paid support and corporate funding have been attempted, with mixed success.
Recently, projects like tea.xyz attempted to reward open-source contributors with crypto tokens but inadvertently attracted spam and low-quality contributions, illustrating the need for better solutions.
The Curious Case of $100
Apple receives its first fine from the EU. Photo: Donisle/Alamy
Apple recently faced a significant fine from the EU, underscoring the regulatory scrutiny on tech giants abusing their market dominance.
The substantial fine indicated the EU’s commitment to curbing anticompetitive behaviors that harm consumers, particularly in the online services sector.
Apple’s hidden rules negatively impacted consumers, leading to higher costs and limited choices in music streaming services.
This incident sheds light on the complex relationships between tech companies, regulators, and consumers, emphasizing the need for fair competition and consumer protection.
Google today announced that it will pay $700 million in a Play Store settlement reached in September, including $630 million to U.S. consumers and $70 to a fund to be used by U.S. states.
In September, the company reached a tentative settlement in a class action lawsuit originally brought by U.S. states and consumers in 2021. However, the search giant released details of the settlement today.highlighted complaints Google has a monopoly on app distribution on Android Via the Play Store.
In November 2022, Google began piloting a user-choice billing program in the United States, allowing developers to use alternative payment methods for in-app purchases. The company announced today that it will expand its domestic program as part of the settlement. Google says developers will be able to display different costs for in-app purchases based on the billing method a customer chooses.
The company too Said He said the sideloading process will be streamlined, without providing any details about the new process. However, the company emphasized that it plans to change its messaging regarding sideloading.
“While we maintain that it is important to our safety efforts to inform users that sideloading on mobile can carry unique risks, as part of the settlement we will further strengthen the process of sideloading.” We’re simplifying and updating our language to inform users about the potential risks of downloading.”For the first time, apps are available directly from the web,” said Wilson White, vice president of government affairs and public policy at Google. I am.
This development comes as Google lost an antitrust battle with Epic. Google plans to appeal the ruling, reiterating in a blog post today that it “disallows the choice and competition our platform enables,” but the case is “not over yet.”
The trial revealed Google’s dealings with the following companies: spotifythere are no fees for in-app purchases on the Play Store.
Apple agreed to pay $25 million settle a class action lawsuit Family Sharing lets you and up to five family members share access to purchased apps, music, movies, TV shows, and books. The lawsuit, first filed in 2019, alleges that “Apple falsely represented that app subscriptions could be shared using the Family Sharing feature.”
In the complaint, Apple denies making any misleading misrepresentations and “denies all allegations of wrongdoing.” “Apple has concluded that continuing to defend this litigation would be burdensome and costly,” the settlement agreement states. Apple enters into this Agreement without any admission of negligence, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind. ”
The tech giant did not respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.
Court documents in the lawsuit allege that Apple promoted Family Sharing as an option for apps that didn’t support it.
“The vast majority of Apple Apps, which are increasingly subscription-based, cannot be shared with designated family members,” the court documents say. “Available only to individual users who have downloaded the app and set up a subscription. However, all or nearly all of these apps will have a statement on their landing page that says they support Family Sharing until January 30, 2019. It was included.”
The complaint alleges that Apple knew the subscription-based app didn’t support Family Sharing, but ran ads for Family Sharing anyway. The court documents go on to say, “Millions of consumers downloaded subscription-based apps believing they could be used for Family Sharing, only to find out after payment was made that they were not so much available.” Says.
U.S. residents who signed up for a Family Sharing group with at least one other person and purchased an app subscription from the App Store between June 21, 2015 and January 30, 2019. May be subject to payment. Eligible class members will receive an email this week.
Each member of the class who files a claim is eligible to receive $30, which varies depending on the number of people who file a claim. However, the payments will not exceed $50 per class member, and $10 million of the settlement proceeds will go toward attorney fees.
Eligible class members must submit claims by March 1, 2024. His final approval hearing is scheduled for April 2, 2024.
The Station is a weekly newsletter dedicated to all things transportation. Just sign up here and click on “The Station” to have our newsletter delivered to your inbox every weekend. Subscribe for free. Welcome to The Station. It is the central hub for all past, present, and future means of moving people and goods from point A to point B. Hello everyone! I’m back from Chevrolet Blazer EV Press drive. Sometimes I have an idea. However, you’ll have to wait until later this week to read about it. There is one important news item that former TC contributor turned InsideEVs editor Patrick George collected during his press days that he would like to point out to you. Remember how GM I messed up my Chevy Volt and Volt EUV and after a few months I was like, “Never mind!” Are you going to bring it back to the new Ultium platform? Good. Well, we now know when it’s coming back. It will be EUV only. The small original Bolt EV is over and done with. I wonder how this will ultimately affect GM’s subsidiary Cruise, which uses a self-driving version of the Bolt. That is, if cruises resume operations in 2024. Let me share some more important items. I’m a regular at stocks podcast With TC+ Editor Alex Wilhelm and Senior Reporter Mary Ann Azevedo. You can listen to the latest episode here. And finally, we’re excited to share this: We’ve adopted Sean O’Kane As a senior reporter covering all aspects of transportation. Mr. O’Kane comes from Bloomberg via The Verge, and I can’t say enough about his investigative and storytelling abilities. He will share his email next week once he officially starts work. Please welcome him! Want to contact us with a tip, comment, or complaint? Email Kirsten at kirsten.korosec@techcrunch.com or Rebecca at rebecca.techcrunch@gmail.com. Send your notes to tips@techcrunch.com. If you wish to remain anonymous, Click here to contact us; this includes SecureDrop (instructions here) and various encrypted messaging apps. This week’s sale Automakers love to talk about software-defined vehicles. But that doesn’t mean automakers eager to bring sophisticated digital platforms to their vehicles have actually realized this software-defined future. One startup is taking advantage of that demand. cubic telecomhas developed a networking system that makes it easy to connect vehicles (and other devices) to mobile networks, and has received €473 million ($513 million) from . Softbank Corp.. The deal sees SoftBank Corp. (not Vision Fund or SoftBank Group) take a 51% stake in the Dublin-based startup, valued at 927 million euros ($1 billion). Become strong. As editor Ingrid Lunden writes, this effectively makes Cubic Telecom a consolidated subsidiary of SoftBank. Barry Napier will remain CEO and become a member of the Board of Directors. Daichi Nozaki, SoftBank’s senior vice president of global business, and two other SoftBank-appointed people (names yet to be determined) will join the board, with the remaining three seats held by CARIAD (Volkswagen Group) and others. It will be occupied by Cubic Telecom’s existing investors, including Qualcomm. Another interesting note: Cubic Telecom participated in TechCrunch’s first Startup Battlefield in 2007. Other sales that caught our attention this week… AM battery, a lithium-ion dry electrode technology startup, has raised $30 million in a Series B round led by Toyota Ventures. Other new investors include Porsche Ventures, Asahi Kasei, RA Capital Management – Planetary Health, Wilson Sonsini, and Industry Ventures. Existing investors Anzu Partners, TDK Ventures, Creative Ventures, Doral Energy-Tech Ventures, Foothill Ventures, and Zeon Ventures also participated. generac power systems Made a minority investment in Wallbox, an EV charging and energy management company. The undisclosed minority investment includes an additional seat on Wallbox’s board of directors and a global commercial agreement to deliver next-generation energy management systems to Generac’s residential and commercial customers. Foreteryx, which builds verification and verification solutions for testing driver assistance and autonomous vehicle systems, has raised $42 million and closed its Series C for $85 million. The entire round was led by Israel’s VC 83North, with Singapore’s Temasek and Isuzu joined by Woven Capital (Toyota’s venture fund), Nvidia, Artofin, and previous backers MoreTech, Nationwide, Volvo Group VC, Jump Capital, Next Gear Invested with Ventures and OurCrowd. The first close of this Series C was in May of this year for $43 million. stuartis a Paris-based last-mile delivery platform founded in 2015 and acquired by Munich-based private equity holding company Mutares. Terms were not disclosed. Notable reads and other trivia self-driving car of Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, American Chamber of Commerce, Alliance for Automotive Innovation sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, imploring the Department of Transportation to: Supports AV development Otherwise, we risk losing our competitiveness against China. cruise The company faces fines and sanctions for failing to disclose details of an Oct. 2 incident, specifically an incident in which one of its vehicles dragged a pedestrian 20 feet, according to a California Public Utilities Commission ruling. It is said that there is a possibility of facing. The agency ordered Cruz to appear at a Feb. 6 hearing to defend himself against the charges against him. Ganesh Venkataramananwho led Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer project for the past five years. I left the company. For those unfamiliar, the Dojo supercomputer is considered a key technology supporting self-driving car efforts. kodiak robotics introduced a self-driving car that resulted from a $50 million, two-year contract signed by the U.S. Department of Defense, and more specifically the U.S. Army. If you thought it was a semi-truck, you were wrong. No, it’s a Ford F-150 pickup truck that the startup has outfitted with its own software and sensor stack. The Department of Defense uses this vehicle to test autonomous surveillance and reconnaissance missions in off-road terrain, diverse operating conditions, and GPS-challenged environments. torque robotics and uber freight We are building strategic partnerships. Under the agreement, Torc will use data from Uber Freight’s logistics network to help refine autonomous freight network design and expansion strategies. This includes learning which lanes are best for deployment and how to prioritize lane deployment and various operational design areas. Use self-driving trucks to balance supply and demand across your supply chain. There was a time when there were developers of self-driving trucks. TuSimple Not to mention investments and partnerships, it attracted a lot of attention. Those days are over, at least in the United States. The publicly traded company plans to lay off most of its U.S. employees and sell its U.S. assets as it exits the country for Asia. Approximately 150 people, or 75% of the U.S. workforce, will be laid off. The remaining 50 employees will help TuSimple scale down its U.S. operations, including asset sales, and support the company’s transition to the Asia-Pacific region. electric car, charging, battery scoutis a spin-off company of the VW Group aimed at selling EVs for North America, and is currently developing pickup trucks and SUVs.some New details revealed Ahead of its scheduled debut in Q3 2024. Stellantis Partnering with battery replacement startup enough to test the technology in a Fiat 500e city car. The companies will launch the first phase in Madrid, where 100 vehicles from Stellantis’ Free2move car-sharing service will be retrofitted to accept Ampoule’s modular batteries. TC reporter Tim de Chant thinks battery swapping could work well in vehicles, but are consumers ready for the technology? Speaking of that, fiat 500e, the compact EV will be in North American showrooms in the first quarter of 2024, starting with a production red model in collaboration with the AIDS prevention organization co-founded by U2’s Bono. TC reporter Hari Weber calls the Fiat 500e the anti-Cybertruck. Will Americans buy it? Another Stellantis item. The automaker will temporarily reduce one shift at its Detroit assembly plant, which produces Jeep sport utility vehicles, due to California emissions regulations. What kind of relationship is there?Stellantis sent a petition It opposes the California Framework Agreement signed in 2019 with four automakers (BMW, Ford, Honda, and Volkswagen). Stellantis says framework companies can use gross EV sales to comply with state emissions regulations, while other OEMs can only use sales generated in states that comply with CARB regulations. claims. As a result, Stellantis, which includes the Jeep brand, has an excess inventory of plug-in hybrids in California. Therefore, production will be reduced. Tesla’s The lowest-priced vehicles, rear-wheel-drive Model 3s, will no longer receive the full $7,500 federal tax credit starting next year. Tesla isn’t the only company…
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
