Well, the article itself is just an excerpt from a book released by Simon & Schuster and written by this guy:
>Matthew Cole is an investigative journalist and the author of Code Over Country: The Tragedy and Corruption of SEAL Team Six. He has covered national security for more than two decades, much of it focused on America’s clandestine wars and covert programs. He was previously an investigative producer for ABC and NBC News, and a longtime national security reporter for The Intercept. His other work has appeared in The New York Times, GQ, New York magazine, Salon, and ESPN. He has reported from more than twenty countries, across five continents.
bad politics has a habit of showing up in weird places, if anything that makes things more credible for me.
the sexual abuse of the catholic church was first exposed in a local paper for Lafayette Louisianna.
the My Lai massacre was first uncovered by a small alternative group called Dispatch News Service.
the CIA cocaine stuff of the 90s was first discussed in a local San Jose paper.
Larry Nassar was outted as a predator by a local Indianapolis paper , a local DC paper uncovered the Tuskegee Experiments, the Seattle Times uncovered the 737 MAX safety certification skips..
I dunno, I don't think i'd be that surprised to first read about the upcoming impending meteor in the latest issue of Teen Vogue.
> (or want to go to the island other than to have a party).
with the most notorious pedophile on earth?
> Virginia Giuffre alleged in a lawsuit that in the early 2000s, when she was 18, she participated in an orgy on the island with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and eight girls who "appeared to be under the age of 18" and did not speak English.
> I'm defending facts, there was no pedophilia, prove it.
Prove what exactly?
Epstein pled guilty in state court in June 2008 to procuring a minor for prostitution, and was subsequently registered as a sex offender. His conviction, the child victim, and his plea-deal scandal were all public record and nationally covered by the media in 2008. Prior to November 2012, the publicly available records linking "pedophile island" (as it was referred to by locals) to abuse of minors was multiple 2008–2009 lawsuits and the 2011 media coverage. Said media coverage was the UK press turning the case into an international story from February 2011, that included: photos of Andrew and Epstein in Central Park, the Mail on Sunday photo of Andrew with Roberts and Maxwell, details about Sarah Ferguson being paid to clear her debts, and Andrew stepping down as trade envoy in July 2011.
The facts we have currently are via this truncated DOJ release, because prior to that Elon lied about their relationship on several occasions:
- “he never toured SpaceX” (July 2020).
- “Epstein tried to get me to go to his island and I REFUSED” (Sept 2025)
And the facts are that Elon was asking the world's most notorious pedophile when he could visit the private island so he could attend his wildest party. This might be normal for you, but if I knew someone who was a convicted pedophile I wouldn't want to speak to them ever again, let alone begging to be invited to their wildest party on a remote private island.
"What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?"
"Do you have any parties planned? I've been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I'm looking for."
Nothing in this random series of text mentions anything about pedophilia except your labeling, try again. Or keep this living rent free in your head for who knows what reason.
Clearly answered in the first paragraph of my previous comment. But chronological email communications we have thus far released by the DOJ between Epstein and Musk is now a random series of texts?
Again, I do have to pose the question because I'm not sure if you are being willfully obtuse:
Would you willingly of your own volition repeatedly keep emailing a convicted child sex offender (a “Level 3 sex offender” in New York, which is the state’s highest classification), asking to visit their private island (where instances of underage rape were documented in the public domain) so you could attend one of their wildest parties?
If your answer is anything other than no, then there's not much more to say. Note that I did use your preferred phrasing too, even though clinically, pedophilia means a sexual attraction to children.
> Or keep this living rent free in your head for who knows what reason.
Why would this not bother you in the slightest? That's a better question.
Pedophilia means attraction to prepubescent children. Quibbling about whether Epstein and co. met the legal definition for being a convicted pedophile wouldn't be the hill I'd want to die on. All of your comments look insanely bad, but will look immeasurably worse in the future.
He spent 18 months in jail in 2008 for "soliciting prostitution from a minor". If you associated with him after that date, you were ok with hanging out with a pedophile.
I literally linked one in my first post - I'm clearly more familiar with them than you are.
> Also he wasn't notorious at the time.
you're right, it's not like the UK press had implicated Prince Andrew in 2011 which was international news, three years after Epstein's conviction for procuring a minor which was also international news.
> It kinda shows Elon was clueless about what the island was about.
In the released emails we have thus far, Musk was the first to bring up the concept of a party, on 25 November 2012. So no, that doesn't indicate at all that Musk was clueless about what the island was all about.
> Ah you're going to accuse me of defending pedophilia now?
Have you run this assertion past your friends and family, and your local police station? If not, please do so right now, and return here and tell us what happened.
They are intelligent and rational and understanding. They are also not obsessed with Epstein or his associates. If there were a ounce of actual pedophilia that would be completely different, there is not, so not much of a conversation.
In fact we agree that everyone throwing around this word does massive disjustice to actual pedophilia victims which is one of the worst things you could do.
So none of you believes that attracting, grooming, and having sex with minors is immoral, is (and should be) both against the law and causes you to be socially ostracized, and is generally known as pedophilia? That strains credulity.
A bunch of the Model S production vehicles did ship with the capability. It was removed from later models. So that part absolutely shipped. Tons of cars on the road to this day still have the hardware in the car to support it.
And they did build one pilot station that did the battery swaps and did some swaps with real owners cars, but drivers didn't like the idea so they abandoned it.
And yes to my point, I said Tesla product, namely something that is sold to customers as is. So yeah it's relevant.
> A bunch of the Model S production vehicles did ship with the capability.
Which serial numbers? I see no evidence of any customer shipments with this capability. Happy to be corrected with factual evidence, though.
> I said Tesla product, namely something that is sold to customers as is.
That’s not what the word “product” means. It’s not limited to products shipped to end users. Components used only in service stations, dealers, or for their own internal use that are produced by them are also products. Quite literally anything that comes out the output side of a production process is a product.
He actually says in the video that it might not be legal to operate but they could still sell you one. Anything is legal off-road on your own private property.
FAA jurisdiction over the airspace is not the same as a rule prohibiting every form of powered lift-off within it. There's a lot of grey area in FAA regs - for instance you can land a plane on your lawn in class E (if you could manage it).
You take hardware properties as axioms (for instance, ARMv6 cache coherency is specified in detail as part of the lengthy spec, even though you have no guarantees that the hardware actually is faithful to the spec)
You can formally verify that the algorithm has the desired properties, though. If the hardware requires additional properties for soundness, then that would only be an error in the properties, not in the proof. (Of course, that would no longer prove soundness on that hardware.)
Well you guys don't talk much on X, which is the center of AI-positive attitudes. I would expect AI-negative response on other social media platforms as they are very prevalent in those spaces, especially on Reddit and Bluesky.
It's just a failure to understand. People treated like running agents is like running any other pieces of software you wrote. You don't normally need to defend from attacks from pieces of software you wrote. It's basically treated as almost completely trusted. If you just treat it like it's possibly compromised and put up some minimal walls around it then it won't break out.
reply