person:elon musk

  • The Race to Develop the Moon | The New Yorker

    The guiding laws of space are defined by the Outer Space Treaty, from 1967, which has been signed by a hundred and eight countries, including all those with substantial space programs. “Laws that govern outer space are similar to the laws for the high seas,” Alain Berinstain, the vice-president of global development at the lunar-exploration company Moon Express, explained. “If you are two hundred miles away from the continental shelf, those waters don’t belong to anybody—they belong to everybody.” Moon Express describes the moon as the eighth continent. The company, which is based in Florida, is hoping to deliver its first lander to the moon in 2020; on board will be telescopes and the Celestis cremains. “If you look down at the waters from your ship and see fish, those fish belong to everybody,” Berinstain continued. “But, if you put a net down and pull those fish onto the deck of the ship, they’re yours. This could change, but right now that is how the U.S. is interpreting the Outer Space Treaty.”

    Individual countries have their own interpretations of the treaty, and set up their own regulatory frameworks. Luxembourg promotes itself as “a unique legal, regulatory and business environment” for companies devoted to space resources, and is the first European country to pass legislation similar to that of the U.S., deeming resources collected in space to be ownable by private entities.

    It’s not difficult to imagine moon development, like all development, proceeding less than peacefully, and less than equitably. (At least, unlike with colonization on Earth, there are no natives whose land we’re taking, or so we assume.) Philip Metzger, a planetary physicist at the University of Central Florida, said, “I’m really glad that all these countries, all these companies, are going to the moon. But there will be problems.” Any country can withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty by giving a year’s notice. “If any country feels it has a sufficient lead in space, that is a motivation to withdraw from the treaty,” he said.

    So there is a tacit space race already. On the one hand, every national space agency applauded the success of the Chang’e-4 lander. The mission had science partnerships with Germany, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and Sweden. NASA collaborates with many countries in space, sharing data, communications networks, and expertise. Russian rockets bring American astronauts to the International Space Station. When, in response to economic sanctions, the head of the Russian space agency said that maybe the American astronauts could get to the I.S.S. by trampoline, the comment was dismissed as posturing. Still, NASA has contracted with Boeing and SpaceX, Elon Musk’s rocket company, to begin taking astronauts to the I.S.S. this year—which means the U.S. will no longer rely on Russia for that. Russia and China say they will work together on a moon base. NASA used to collaborate with the China National Space Administration; in 2011, six months after members of NASA visited the C.N.S.A., Congress passed a bill that effectively prohibited collaboration.

    It’s natural to want to leave the moon undisturbed; it’s also clear that humanity will disturb it. But do we need to live there? Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, envisages zoning the moon for heavy industry, and Earth for light industry and residential purposes. Bezos’s company Blue Origin is developing reusable rockets intended to bring humans reliably back and forth from space, with the long-term goal of creating manufacturing plants there, in zero gravity. Earth would be eased of its industrial burden, and the lower-gravity conditions would be beneficial for making certain goods, such as fibre-optic cables.

    “There’s the argument that we’ve destroyed the Earth and now we’re going to destroy the moon. But I don’t see it that way,” Metzger said. “The resources in space are billions of times greater than on Earth. Space pretty much erases everything we do. If you crush an asteroid to dust, the solar wind will blow it away. We can’t really mess up the solar system.”

    #Espace #Communs #Tragédie_communs #Idéologie_californienne #Géopolitique

  • Introduction to Kin: Universal Virtual Currency for Apps

    A New Revenue Model for App Developers Similar to “Bitcoin Mining”, but Based on User EngagementKin can be found in several colors, depending on the app.Cryptocurrency seems to re-enter public discussion in tandem with fluctuations in exchange rate, but hopes of mass mainstream adoption continue to remain a hopeful vision for the future. Since most consumers are able to transact perfectly well in their local currency, the need for censorship-resistant alternative currency remains niche. Even so, Bitcoin has managed to garner international media attention and fanfare, with names like Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey endorsing the breakthrough financial technology, and even companies like JP Morgan and Facebook looking to take a piece of that international currency market for themselves. All of (...)

  • How to build a spaceship — my wild voyage discovering the one person company.

    How to build a spaceship — my wild voyage discovering the one person company.I’m twenty-one. It feels like forever ago. I’m not all that different from most aspiring entrepreneurs. I want to build a spaceship. A big shiny one, like Elon Musk’s.My obsession began in college, while I was attending the University of Southern Indiana. I had just read Ashlee Vance’s masterful book, Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX and the Quest for a Fantastic Future.It’s a lovely tale. It’s hugely captivating like Star Trek. Yet, in some very odd way, it feels within reach.Vance’s great #writing makes the idea of building electric cars that can zip from 0 to 60 mph at the blink of an eye and spaceships that can deliver massive payloads to outer-space… achievable.It’s a dangerous combination. In fact, I’d go as far as arguing (...)

    #startup #business #entrepreneurship #marketing

  • #entrepreneurship as an Asset Class

    Wanna get rich? Just become an #entrepreneur!Want the freedom to do whatever you want? Easy! Just become an entrepreneur!Entrepreneurship is commonly depicted as the bastion of easy success, but the simple reality is that entrepreneurs consistently face a long, painful journey.Thought leaders might try to condense entrepreneurship to a simple definition or soundbyte. My favorite from Elon Musk. In an interview TechCrunch, he said that being an entrepreneur is like eating glass and staring into the abyss of death.” Doesn’t he make it sound so… cool? It’s no wonder so many people have thrown their hats into the entrepreneurship ring, chasing the lifestyle they see in happy-go-lucky media coverage glosses over the many negatives.It’s too bad the media doesn’t transmit a different message: (...)

    #asset-classes #entrepreneur-asset-class #startup

  • Elon Musk is not reading articles online about how to become Elon Musk

    If you Google ‘How to become Elon Musk’, you will come across thousands of articles that address that question in one way or another. Either they are answers on Quora to that specific question itself, or they are indirect answers to that question with titles ranging from ‘10 ways to think like Elon Musk’ (Forbes) to ‘8 things that Elon Musk does before 8am’ (Medium).You can substitute Elon Musk with any successful entrepreneur, author, sports person, actor, CEO, musician, politician, nobel laureate and you will see similar results.The Internet is full of literature on how to do things like, how to think like and how to become any of these successful people.The Internet is full of this literature because it attracts clicks.People love short cuts. They want to learn how to become successful in (...)

    #life-lessons #progress #success #elon-musk #self-improvement

  • It’s Impossible to Follow a Conversation on Twitter - The Atlantic

    Voilà pourquoi je n’utilise Twitter que pour annoncer des choses. Comme Facebook c’est un gouffre de temps.

    Without major fixes to the product, the platform will never be a place for complex discussions.
    Taylor Lorenz
    Feb 15, 2019

    Earlier this week, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and the tech journalist Kara Swisher conducted a full 90-minute interview entirely on Twitter. The interview was meant to be an old-school “Twitter chat,” and users were instructed to follow along using the hashtag #KaraJack.

    It was a disaster. Attempting to follow a public conversation happening on Twitter is “pretty much a mess right now,” Dorsey himself noted at a conference yesterday. The chat was so difficult to parse that Recode futilely attempted to collect Dorsey’s responses into a Twitter Moment. Meanwhile, other users begged the Thread Reader App bot to unroll the thread, to which it replied that it simply could not.

    Part of the problem is that #KaraJack didn’t follow any of the standard norms for Twitter chats (essentially long, back-and-forth conversations that unfurl in @ replies on the network). When I worked as a social-media strategist eight years ago, at the height of Twitter chats’ popularity, I conducted more than 100 of them for brands. They were almost all bad, but they were made marginally better by a couple of important protocols. One is to number the questions and replies so that it’s clear what exactly someone is replying to. Another is to space out questions and answers and not talk over each other. #KaraJack did neither. Both Swisher and Dorsey split the original thread and replied to the wrong tweets. Swisher made a typo right at the get-go. But still, following a conversation on Twitter shouldn’t be this hard.

    The theoretical benefit of being on Twitter, a broadcast-based open social network, is to talk with other people and follow their conversations, even ones that don’t include you. Somehow, in 2019, the product has degraded to the point where this has become impossible. It’s like running through a public square shouting at people, trying to start a dialogue while getting jostled by a crowd.

    The primary issue is threads. Threaded tweets were first introduced back in December 2017 as an easier way for people to make “tweetstorms” cohesive. Twitter has done almost nothing to hone the feature since then.

    The most obvious problem with threading is that it assumes Twitter users think linearly. In real life, you may post a 12-part thread only to realize that you need to expand on or clarify just the third tweet. If you reply to that third entry alone, you’ll break the thread, splitting it into two and making it harder for people to find the original. This not only makes complex thoughts difficult to communicate, but it also makes deciphering them almost impossible.

    The problems don’t stop there, though. The way Twitter shows replies is also confusing: Users have to click into each tweet in a thread to get the full scope of responses to it. There’s no simple, all-encompassing hub to view both the thread and the conversation happening around it.

    The #KaraJack chat would have been a perfect opportunity for Twitter to show off a new hashtag hub or similar feature. The company has invested resources into adding emojis to the end of special hashtags, but it still hasn’t harnessed hashtags’ real power: collecting conversation. (Twitter declined to comment.)

    When users click the #KaraJack hashtag, for instance, they should be presented with a chronological, easy-to-follow feed of Swisher and Dorsey’s conversation and the response tweets to it. Instead, Twitter offers a messy, algorithmic timeline full of random tweets, mostly from other people. Since both Swisher and Dorsey failed to include the #KaraJack tag in some of their tweets, those tweets are nowhere to be found. This is a missed opportunity: Twitter should have a way for users to hashtag an entire thread. Part of Swisher’s and Dorsey’s hashtag negligence could have been due to character-count pressures, since hashtags still inexplicably count toward the limit on each tweet. This makes users less likely to categorize their own content via hashtags; the company’s CEO just proved as much firsthand.

    Though Twitter prides itself on being an open social network, the #KaraJack interview proves its desperate need for more walled-off spaces. Currently Twitter offers users only two core privacy options: You can set your entire profile and tweets to public or private. But users who choose to remain private should have the ability to make their voices heard in public conversations. Twitter could offer privacy restrictions on individual units of content, as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and just about every other modern social platform do. Or it could allow users to keep a private profile while tweets with a public hashtag could be open to views, replies, and retweets from other users.

    Twitter has another, bigger problem. No one will want to engage in any sort of public discussion on the platform until it recognizes the sheer depth of harassment taking place there. One big takeaway from the #KaraJack conversation was Dorsey’s failure to admit that harassment is an issue. When asked who he admired on Twitter, Dorsey championed Elon Musk, a man who regularly uses the platform to harass critics and baselessly claimed that the man who saved Thai children trapped in a cave was a pedophile. If this denial continues, it will ultimately be the platform’s downfall. Most users don’t want to hop into a public discussion where simply tweeting with a female avatar can be enough to garner an inbox full of rape threats.

    One way for Twitter to better moderate a user’s experience would be to create closed “rooms” for Twitter chats, where only approved people could participate. Facebook offers this feature through private groups; Reddit has subreddits, and Discord has rooms. This would help protect those who are participating in a thoughtful way from harassment, and could offer a less chaotic experience for those who are trying to follow along, by segmenting the chat out from their main feeds. It doesn’t matter how many color-coded replies or pop-up profiles Twitter implements if chats are too hard to discover and follow.

    Whatever Twitter chooses to do, it must start making changes quickly. The company reported just 126 million daily active users in its most recent earnings—fewer than Snapchat, which has been written off for its slowing growth. As Casey Newton at The Verge recently said, “There are talented product managers inside Twitter who would do more, if they could. But they are often stymied by internal roadblocks that—unlike the collective behavior of hundreds of millions of users—actually are under the CEO’s control.” Dorsey’s disastrous Twitter interview is proof that he needs to spend less time talking and more time focusing on the product.

    We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to

    #internet #réseaux_sociaux #seenthis #twitter

  • The Cult Of Personality And How You Are Harmed

    Musk On The Cover Of Ashlee Vance’s BiographyThe cult of personality is waging a war in your mind but you many not even be aware of its existence.The cult of personality is designed to stunt your growth and I’m about to show you how. The cult of personality is best personified by none other than Elon Musk. I never thought I’d be #writing this kind of article because I may be one of the biggest fans of Elon Musk. In fact, three years ago, when I came across one of his videos by accident, it was much like being struck by lightning. My mind went on fire. Last year, I even sent Musk a custom-designed portfolio that contained a proposal for Uber drivers to be paired with Teslas.I have a long tradition of sending things to people I greatly admire and respect. I’ve been doing this since I was a (...)

    #media #personal-development #elon-musk #self-improvement

  • Superalgos, Part One: The #trading Singularity

    Superalgos, Part One: The Trading SingularityOne day in the future, a trading intelligence capable of outperforming every other entity at the markets will emerge. Both humans and current #algorithms will be surpassed by Superalgos.By Luis Molina & Julian MolinaImage © GarryKillian, Shutterstock.AI is a hot topic these days.Elon Musk is still worried about the risks of a Technological Singularity happening as a result of advances in AI.You know, that moment in time when an Artificial Intelligence starts improving itself 24/7, non-stop, producing an exponential growth of intelligence that — in a short period of time — would render the most clever people on earth stupid.Such worries, of course, are justified…We know what happens when a species becomes so much more intelligent: the rest end up in (...)

    #algorithmic-trading #cryptocurrency #artificial-intelligence

  • Pan Am Flight 103 : Robert Mueller’s 30-Year Search for Justice | WIRED

    Cet article décrit le rôle de Robert Mueller dans l’enquête historique qui a permis de dissimuler ou de justifier la plupart des batailles de la guerre non déclarée des États Unis contre l’OLP et les pays arabes qui soutenaient la lutte pour un état palestinien.

    Aux États-Unis, en Allemagne et en France le grand public ignore les actes de guerre commis par les États Unis dans cette guerre. Vu dans ce contexte on ne peut que classer le récit de cet article dans la catégorie idéologie et propagande même si les intentions et faits qu’on y apprend sont bien documentés et plausibles.

    Cette perspective transforme le contenu de cet article d’une variation sur un thème connu dans un reportage sur l’état d’âme des dirigeants étatsuniens moins fanatiques que l’équipe du président actuel.

    THIRTY YEARS AGO last Friday, on the darkest day of the year, 31,000 feet above one of the most remote parts of Europe, America suffered its first major terror attack.

    TEN YEARS AGO last Friday, then FBI director Robert Mueller bundled himself in his tan trench coat against the cold December air in Washington, his scarf wrapped tightly around his neck. Sitting on a small stage at Arlington National Cemetery, he scanned the faces arrayed before him—the victims he’d come to know over years, relatives and friends of husbands and wives who would never grow old, college students who would never graduate, business travelers and flight attendants who would never come home.

    Burned into Mueller’s memory were the small items those victims had left behind, items that he’d seen on the shelves of a small wooden warehouse outside Lockerbie, Scotland, a visit he would never forget: A teenager’s single white sneaker, an unworn Syracuse University sweatshirt, the wrapped Christmas gifts that would never be opened, a lonely teddy bear.

    A decade before the attacks of 9/11—attacks that came during Mueller’s second week as FBI director, and that awoke the rest of America to the threats of terrorism—the bombing of Pan Am 103 had impressed upon Mueller a new global threat.

    It had taught him the complexity of responding to international terror attacks, how unprepared the government was to respond to the needs of victims’ families, and how on the global stage justice would always be intertwined with geopolitics. In the intervening years, he had never lost sight of the Lockerbie bombing—known to the FBI by the codename Scotbom—and he had watched the orphaned children from the bombing grow up over the years.

    Nearby in the cemetery stood a memorial cairn made of pink sandstone—a single brick representing each of the victims, the stone mined from a Scottish quarry that the doomed flight passed over just seconds before the bomb ripped its baggage hold apart. The crowd that day had gathered near the cairn in the cold to mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing.

    For a man with an affinity for speaking in prose, not poetry, a man whose staff was accustomed to orders given in crisp sentences as if they were Marines on the battlefield or under cross-examination from a prosecutor in a courtroom, Mueller’s remarks that day soared in a way unlike almost any other speech he’d deliver.

    “There are those who say that time heals all wounds. But you know that not to be true. At its best, time may dull the deepest wounds; it cannot make them disappear,” Mueller told the assembled mourners. “Yet out of the darkness of this day comes a ray of light. The light of unity, of friendship, and of comfort from those who once were strangers and who are now bonded together by a terrible moment in time. The light of shared memories that bring smiles instead of sadness. And the light of hope for better days to come.”

    He talked of Robert Frost’s poem “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” and of inspiration drawn from Lockerbie’s town crest, with its simple motto, “Forward.” He spoke of what was then a two-decade-long quest for justice, of how on windswept Scottish mores and frigid lochs a generation of FBI agents, investigators, and prosecutors had redoubled their dedication to fighting terrorism.

    Mueller closed with a promise: “Today, as we stand here together on this, the darkest of days, we renew that bond. We remember the light these individuals brought to each of you here today. We renew our efforts to bring justice down on those who seek to harm us. We renew our efforts to keep our people safe, and to rid the world of terrorism. We will continue to move forward. But we will never forget.”

    Hand bells tolled for each of the victims as their names were read aloud, 270 names, 270 sets of bells.

    The investigation, though, was not yet closed. Mueller, although he didn’t know it then, wasn’t done with Pan Am 103. Just months after that speech, the case would test his innate sense of justice and morality in a way that few other cases in his career ever have.

    ROBERT S. MUELLER III had returned from a combat tour in Vietnam in the late 1960s and eventually headed to law school at the University of Virginia, part of a path that he hoped would lead him to being an FBI agent. Unable after graduation to get a job in government, he entered private practice in San Francisco, where he found he loved being a lawyer—just not a defense attorney.

    Then—as his wife Ann, a teacher, recounted to me years ago—one morning at their small home, while the two of them made the bed, Mueller complained, “Don’t I deserve to be doing something that makes me happy?” He finally landed a job as an assistant US attorney in San Francisco and stood, for the first time, in court and announced, “Good morning your Honor, I am Robert Mueller appearing on behalf of the United States of America.” It is a moment that young prosecutors often practice beforehand, and for Mueller those words carried enormous weight. He had found the thing that made him happy.

    His family remembers that time in San Francisco as some of their happiest years; the Muellers’ two daughters were young, they loved the Bay Area—and have returned there on annual vacations almost every year since relocating to the East Coast—and Mueller found himself at home as a prosecutor.

    On Friday nights, their routine was that Ann and the two girls would pick Mueller up at Harrington’s Bar & Grill, the city’s oldest Irish pub, not far from the Ferry Building in the Financial District, where he hung out each week with a group of prosecutors, defense attorneys, cops, and agents. (One Christmas, his daughter Cynthia gave him a model of the bar made out of Popsicle sticks.) He balanced that family time against weekends and trainings with the Marines Corps Reserves, where he served for more than a decade, until 1980, eventually rising to be a captain.

    Over the next 15 years, he rose through the ranks of the San Francisco US attorney’s office—an office he would return to lead during the Clinton administration—and then decamped to Massachusetts to work for US attorney William Weld in the 1980s. There, too, he shined and eventually became acting US attorney when Weld departed at the end of the Reagan administration. “You cannot get the words straight arrow out of your head,” Weld told me, speaking of Mueller a decade ago. “The agencies loved him because he knew his stuff. He didn’t try to be elegant or fancy, he just put the cards on the table.”

    In 1989, an old high school classmate, Robert Ross, who was chief of staff to then attorney general Richard Thornburgh, asked Mueller to come down to Washington to help advise Thornburgh. The offer intrigued Mueller. Ann protested the move—their younger daughter Melissa wanted to finish high school in Massachusetts. Ann told her husband, “We can’t possibly do this.” He replied, his eyes twinkling, “You’re right, it’s a terrible time. Well, why don’t we just go down and look at a few houses?” As she told me, “When he wants to do something, he just revisits it again and again.”

    For his first two years at so-called Main Justice in Washington, working under President George H.W. Bush, the family commuted back and forth from Boston to Washington, alternating weekends in each city, to allow Melissa to finish school.

    Washington gave Mueller his first exposure to national politics and cases with geopolitical implications; in September 1990, President Bush nominated him to be assistant attorney general, overseeing the Justice Department’s entire criminal division, which at that time handled all the nation’s terrorism cases as well. Mueller would oversee the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, mob boss John Gotti, and the controversial investigation into a vast money laundering scheme run through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, known as the Bank of Crooks and Criminals

    None of his cases in Washington, though, would affect him as much as the bombing of Pan Am 103.

    THE TIME ON the clocks in Lockerbie, Scotland, read 7:04 pm, on December 21, 1988, when the first emergency call came into the local fire brigade, reporting what sounded like a massive boiler explosion. It was technically early evening, but it had been dark for hours already; that far north, on the shortest day of the year, daylight barely stretched to eight hours.

    Soon it became clear something much worse than a boiler explosion had unfolded: Fiery debris pounded the landscape, plunging from the sky and killing 11 Lockerbie residents. As Mike Carnahan told a local TV reporter, “The whole sky was lit up with flames. It was actually raining, liquid fire. You could see several houses on the skyline with the roofs totally off and all you could see was flaming timbers.”

    At 8:45 pm, a farmer found in his field the cockpit of Pan Am 103, a Boeing 747 known as Clipper Maid of the Seas, lying on its side, 15 of its crew dead inside, just some of the 259 passengers and crew killed when a bomb had exploded inside the plane’s cargo hold. The scheduled London to New York flight never even made it out of the UK.

    It had taken just three seconds for the plane to disintegrate in the air, though the wreckage took three long minutes to fall the five miles from the sky to the earth; court testimony later would examine how passengers had still been alive as they fell. Nearly 200 of the passengers were American, including 35 students from Syracuse University returning home from a semester abroad. The attack horrified America, which until then had seen terror touch its shores only occasionally as a hijacking went awry; while the US had weathered the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, attacks almost never targeted civilians.

    The Pan Am 103 bombing seemed squarely aimed at the US, hitting one of its most iconic brands. Pan Am then represented America’s global reach in a way few companies did; the world’s most powerful airline shuttled 19 million passengers a year to more than 160 countries and had ferried the Beatles to their US tour and James Bond around the globe on his cinematic missions. In a moment of hubris a generation before Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the airline had even opened a “waiting list” for the first tourists to travel to outer space. Its New York headquarters, the Pan Am building, was the world’s largest commercial building and its terminal at JFK Airport the biggest in the world.

    The investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103 began immediately, as police and investigators streamed north from London by the hundreds; chief constable John Boyd, the head of the local police, arrived at the Lockerbie police station by 8:15 pm, and within an hour the first victim had been brought in: A farmer arrived in town with the body of a baby girl who had fallen from the sky. He’d carefully placed her in the front seat of his pickup truck.

    An FBI agent posted in London had raced north too, with the US ambassador, aboard a special US Air Force flight, and at 2 am, when Boyd convened his first senior leadership meeting, he announced, “The FBI is here, and they are fully operational.” By that point, FBI explosives experts were already en route to Scotland aboard an FAA plane; agents would install special secure communications equipment in Lockerbie and remain on site for months.

    Although it quickly became clear that a bomb had targeted Pan Am 103—wreckage showed signs of an explosion and tested positive for PETN and RDX, two key ingredients of the explosive Semtex—the investigation proceeded with frustrating slowness. Pan Am’s records were incomplete, and it took days to even determine the full list of passengers. At the same time, it was the largest crime scene ever investigated—a fact that remains true today.

    Investigators walked 845 square miles, an area 12 times the size of Washington, DC, and searched so thoroughly that they recovered more than 70 packages of airline crackers and ultimately could reconstruct about 85 percent of the fuselage. (Today, the wreckage remains in an English scrapyard.) Constable Boyd, at his first press conference, told the media, “This is a mammoth inquiry.”

    On Christmas Eve, a searcher found a piece of a luggage pallet with signs of obvious scorching, which would indicate the bomb had been in the luggage compartment below the passenger cabin. The evidence was rushed to a special British military lab—one originally created to investigate the Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605.

    When the explosive tests came back a day later, the British government called the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for combating terrorism, L. Paul Bremer III (who would go on to be President George W. Bush’s viceroy in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion of Iraq), and officially delivered the news that everyone had anticipated: Pan Am 103 had been downed by a bomb.

    Meanwhile, FBI agents fanned out across the country. In New York, special agent Neil Herman—who would later lead the FBI’s counterterrorism office in New York in the run up to 9/11—was tasked with interviewing some of the victims’ families; many of the Syracuse students on board had been from the New York region. One of the mothers he interviewed hadn’t heard from the government in the 10 days since the attack. “It really struck me how ill-equipped we were to deal with this,” Herman told me, years later. “Multiply her by 270 victims and families.” The bombing underscored that the FBI and the US government had a lot to learn in responding and aiding victims in a terror attack.

    INVESTIGATORS MOVED TOWARD piecing together how a bomb could have been placed on board; years before the 9/11 attack, they discounted the idea of a suicide bomber aboard—there had never been a suicide attack on civil aviation at that point—and so focused on one of two theories: The possibility of a “mule,” an innocent passenger duped into carrying a bomb aboard, or an “inside man,” a trusted airport or airline employee who had smuggled the fatal cargo aboard. The initial suspect list stretched to 1,200 names.

    Yet even reconstructing what was on board took an eternity: Evidence pointed to a Japanese manufactured Toshiba cassette recorder as the likely delivery device for the bomb, and then, by the end of January, investigators located pieces of the suitcase that had held the bomb. After determining that it was a Samsonite bag, police and the FBI flew to the company’s headquarters in the United States and narrowed the search further: The bag, they found, was a System 4 Silhouette 4000 model, color “antique-copper,” a case and color made for only three years, 1985 to 1988, and sold only in the Middle East. There were a total of 3,500 such suitcases in circulation.

    By late spring, investigators had identified 14 pieces of luggage inside the target cargo container, known as AVE4041; each bore tell-tale signs of the explosion. Through careful retracing of how luggage moved through the London airport, investigators determined that the bags on the container’s bottom row came from passengers transferring in London. The bags on the second and third row of AVE4041 had been the last bags loaded onto the leg of the flight that began in Frankfurt, before the plane took off for London. None of the baggage had been X-rayed or matched with passengers on board.

    The British lab traced clothing fragments from the wreckage that bore signs of the explosion and thus likely originated in the bomb-carrying suitcase. It was an odd mix: Two herring-bone skirts, men’s pajamas, tartan trousers, and so on. The most promising fragment was a blue infant’s onesie that, after fiber analysis, was conclusively determined to have been inside the explosive case, and had a label saying “Malta Trading Company.” In March, two detectives took off for Malta, where the manufacturer told them that 500 such articles of clothing had been made and most sent to Ireland, while the rest went locally to Maltese outlets and others to continental Europe.

    As they dug deeper, they focused on bag B8849, which appeared to have come off Air Malta Flight 180—Malta to Frankfurt—on December 21, even though there was no record of one of that flight’s 47 passengers transferring to Pan Am 103.

    Investigators located the store in Malta where the suspect clothing had been sold; the British inspector later recorded in his statement, “[Store owner] Anthony Gauci interjected and stated that he could recall selling a pair of the checked trousers, size 34, and three pairs of the pajamas to a male person.” The investigators snapped to attention—after nine months did they finally have a suspect in their sights? “[Gauci] informed me that the man had also purchased the following items: one imitation Harris Tweed jacket; one woolen cardigan; one black umbrella; one blue colored ‘Baby Gro’ with a motif described by the witness as a ‘sheep’s face’ on the front; and one pair of gents’ brown herring-bone material trousers, size 36.”

    Game, set, match. Gauci had perfectly described the clothing fragments found by RARDE technicians to contain traces of explosive. The purchase, Gauci went on to explain, stood out in his mind because the customer—whom Gauci tellingly identified as speaking the “Libyan language”—had entered the store on November 23, 1988, and gathered items without seeming to care about the size, gender, or color of any of it.

    As the investigation painstakingly proceeded into 1989 and 1990, Robert Mueller arrived at Main Justice; the final objects of the Lockerbie search wouldn’t be found until the spring of 1990, just months before Mueller took over as assistant attorney general of the criminal division in September.

    The Justice Department that year was undergoing a series of leadership changes; the deputy attorney general, William Barr, became acting attorney general midyear as Richard Thornburgh stepped down to run for Senate back in his native Pennsylvania. President Bush then nominated Barr to take over as attorney general officially. (Earlier this month Barr was nominated by President Trump to become attorney general once again.)

    The bombing soon became one of the top cases on Mueller’s desk. He met regularly with Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent heading Scotbom. For Mueller, the case became personal; he met with victims’ families and toured the Lockerbie crash site and the investigation’s headquarters. He traveled repeatedly to the United Kingdom for meetings and walked the fields of Lockerbie himself. “The Scots just did a phenomenal job with the crime scene,” he told me, years ago.

    Mueller pushed the investigators forward constantly, getting involved in the investigation at a level that a high-ranking Justice Department official almost never does. Marquise turned to him in one meeting, after yet another set of directions, and sighed, “Geez, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you want to be FBI director.”

    The investigation gradually, carefully, zeroed in on Libya. Agents traced a circuit board used in the bomb to a similar device seized in Africa a couple of years earlier used by Libyan intelligence. An FBI-created database of Maltese immigration records even showed that a man using the same alias as one of those Libyan intelligence officers had departed from Malta on October 19, 1988—just two months before the bombing.

    The circuit board also helped makes sense of an important aspect of the bombing: It controlled a timer, meaning that the bomb was not set off by a barometric trigger that registers altitude. This, in turn, explained why the explosive baggage had lain peacefully in the jet’s hold as it took off and landed repeatedly.

    Tiny letters on the suspect timer said “MEBO.” What was MEBO? In the days before Google, searching for something called “Mebo” required going country to country, company to company. There were no shortcuts. The FBI, MI5, and CIA were, after months of work, able to trace MEBO back to a Swiss company, Meister et Bollier, adding a fifth country to the ever-expanding investigative circle.

    From Meister et Bollier, they learned that the company had provided 20 prototype timers to the Libyan government and the company helped ID their contact as a Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who looked like the sketch of the Maltese clothing shopper. Then, when the FBI looked at its database of Maltese immigration records, they found that Al Megrahi had been present in Malta the day the clothing was purchased.

    Marquise sat down with Robert Mueller and the rest of the prosecutorial team and laid out the latest evidence. Mueller’s orders were clear—he wanted specific suspects and he wanted to bring charges. As he said, “Proceed toward indictment.” Let’s get this case moving.

    IN NOVEMBER 1990, Marquise was placed in charge of all aspects of the investigation and assigned on special duty to the Washington Field Office and moved to a new Scotbom task force. The field offce was located far from the Hoover building, in a run-down neighborhood known by the thoroughly unromantic moniker of Buzzard Point.

    The Scotbom task force had been allotted three tiny windowless rooms with dark wood paneling, which were soon covered floor-to-ceiling with 747 diagrams, crime scene photographs, maps, and other clues. By the door of the office, the team kept two photographs to remind themselves of the stakes: One, a tiny baby shoe recovered from the fields of Lockerbie; the other, a picture of the American flag on the tail of Pan Am 103. This was the first major attack on the US and its civilians. Whoever was responsible couldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

    With representatives from a half-dozen countries—the US, Britain, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, France, and Malta—now sitting around the table, putting together a case that met everyone’s evidentiary standards was difficult. “We talked through everything, and everything was always done to the higher standard,” Marquise says. In the US, for instance, the legal standard for a photo array was six photos; in Scotland, though, it was 12. So every photo array in the investigation had 12 photos to ensure that the IDs could be used in a British court.

    The trail of evidence so far was pretty clear, and it all pointed toward Libya. Yet there was still much work to do prior to an indictment. A solid hunch was one thing. Having evidence that would stand up in court and under cross-examination was something else entirely.

    As the case neared an indictment, the international investigators and prosecutors found themselves focusing at their gatherings on the fine print of their respective legal code and engaging in deep, philosophical-seeming debates: “What does murder mean in your statute? Huh? I know what murder means: I kill you. Well, then you start going through the details and the standards are just a little different. It may entail five factors in one country, three in another. Was Megrahi guilty of murder? Depends on the country.”

    At every meeting, the international team danced around the question of where a prosecution would ultimately take place. “Jurisdiction was an eggshell problem,” Marquise says. “It was always there, but no one wanted to talk about it. It was always the elephant in the room.”

    Mueller tried to deflect the debate for as long as possible, arguing there was more investigation to do first. Eventually, though, he argued forcefully that the case should be tried in the US. “I recognize that Scotland has significant equities which support trial of the case in your country,” he said in one meeting. “However, the primary target of this act of terrorism was the United States. The majority of the victims were Americans, and the Pan American aircraft was targeted precisely because it was of United States registry.”

    After one meeting, where the Scots and Americans debated jurisdiction for more than two hours, the group migrated over to the Peasant, a restaurant near the Justice Department, where, in an attempt to foster good spirits, it paid for the visiting Scots. Mueller and the other American officials each had to pay for their own meals.

    Mueller was getting ready to move forward; the federal grand jury would begin work in early September. Prosecutors and other investigators were already preparing background, readying evidence, and piecing together information like the names and nationalities of all the Lockerbie victims so that they could be included in the forthcoming indictment.

    There had never been any doubt in the US that the Pan Am 103 bombing would be handled as a criminal matter, but the case was still closely monitored by the White House and the National Security Council.

    The Reagan administration had been surprised in February 1988 by the indictment on drug charges of its close ally Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and a rule of thumb had been developed: Give the White House a heads up anytime you’re going to indict a foreign agent. “If you tag Libya with Pan Am 103, that’s fair to say it’s going to disrupt our relationship with Libya,” Mueller deadpans. So Mueller would head up to the Cabinet Room at the White House, charts and pictures in hand, to explain to President Bush and his team what Justice had in mind.

    To Mueller, the investigation underscored why such complex investigations needed a law enforcement eye. A few months after the attack, he sat through a CIA briefing pointing toward Syria as the culprit behind the attack. “That’s always struck with me as a lesson in the difference between intelligence and evidence. I always try to remember that,” he told me, back when he was FBI director. “It’s a very good object lesson about hasty action based on intelligence. What if we had gone and attacked Syria based on that initial intelligence? Then, after the attack, it came out that Libya had been behind it? What could we have done?”

    Marquise was the last witness for the federal grand jury on Friday, November 8, 1991. Only in the days leading up to that testimony had prosecutors zeroed in on Megrahi and another Libyan officer, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah; as late as the week of the testimony, they had hoped to pursue additional indictments, yet the evidence wasn’t there to get to a conviction.

    Mueller traveled to London to meet with the Peter Fraser, the lord advocate—Scotland’s top prosecutor—and they agreed to announce indictments simultaneously on November 15, 1991. Who got their hands on the suspects first, well, that was a question for later. The joint indictment, Mueller believed, would benefit both countries. “It adds credibility to both our investigations,” he says.

    That coordinated joint, multi-nation statement and indictment would become a model that the US would deploy more regularly in the years to come, as the US and other western nations have tried to coordinate cyber investigations and indictments against hackers from countries like North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

    To make the stunning announcement against Libya, Mueller joined FBI director William Sessions, DC US attorney Jay Stephens, and attorney general William Barr.

    “We charge that two Libyan officials, acting as operatives of the Libyan intelligence agency, along with other co-conspirators, planted and detonated the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103,” Barr said. “I have just telephoned some of the families of those murdered on Pan Am 103 to inform them and the organizations of the survivors that this indictment has been returned. Their loss has been ever present in our minds.”

    At the same time, in Scotland, investigators there were announcing the same indictments.

    At the press conference, Barr listed a long set of names to thank—the first one he singled out was Mueller’s. Then, he continued, “This investigation is by no means over. It continues unabated. We will not rest until all those responsible are brought to justice. We have no higher priority.”

    From there, the case would drag on for years. ABC News interviewed the two suspects in Libya later that month; both denied any responsibility for the bombing. Marquise was reassigned within six months; the other investigators moved along too.

    Mueller himself left the administration when Bill Clinton became president, spending an unhappy year in private practice before rejoining the Justice Department to work as a junior homicide prosecutor in DC under then US attorney Eric Holder; Mueller, who had led the nation’s entire criminal division was now working side by side with prosecutors just a few years out of law school, the equivalent of a three-star military general retiring and reenlisting as a second lieutenant. Clinton eventually named Mueller the US attorney in San Francisco, the office where he’d worked as a young attorney in the 1970s.

    THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY of the bombing came and went without any justice. Then, in April 1999, prolonged international negotiations led to Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi turning over the two suspects; the international economic sanctions imposed on Libya in the wake of the bombing were taking a toll on his country, and the leader wanted to put the incident behind him.

    The final negotiated agreement said that the two men would be tried by a Scottish court, under Scottish law, in The Hague in the Netherlands. Distinct from the international court there, the three-judge Scottish court would ensure that the men faced justice under the laws of the country where their accused crime had been committed.

    Allowing the Scots to move forward meant some concessions by the US. The big one was taking the death penalty, prohibited in Scotland, off the table. Mueller badly wanted the death penalty. Mueller, like many prosecutors and law enforcement officials, is a strong proponent of capital punishment, but he believes it should be reserved for only egregious crimes. “It has to be especially heinous, and you have to be 100 percent sure he’s guilty,” he says. This case met that criteria. “There’s never closure. If there can’t be closure, there should be justice—both for the victims as well as the society at large,” he says.

    An old US military facility, Kamp Van Zeist, was converted to an elaborate jail and courtroom in The Hague, and the Dutch formally surrendered the two Libyans to Scottish police. The trial began in May 2000. For nine months, the court heard testimony from around the world. In what many observers saw as a political verdict, Al Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah was found not guilty.

    With barely 24 hours notice, Marquise and victim family members raced from the United States to be in the courtroom to hear the verdict. The morning of the verdict in 2001, Mueller was just days into his tenure as acting deputy US attorney general—filling in for the start of the George W. Bush administration in the department’s No. 2 role as attorney general John Ashcroft got himself situated.

    That day, Mueller awoke early and joined with victims’ families and other officials in Washington, who watched the verdict announcement via a satellite hookup. To him, it was a chance for some closure—but the investigation would go on. As he told the media, “The United States remains vigilant in its pursuit to bring to justice any other individuals who may have been involved in the conspiracy to bring down Pan Am Flight 103.”

    The Scotbom case would leave a deep imprint on Mueller; one of his first actions as FBI director was to recruit Kathryn Turman, who had served as the liaison to the Pan Am 103 victim families during the trial, to head the FBI’s Victim Services Division, helping to elevate the role and responsibility of the FBI in dealing with crime victims.

    JUST MONTHS AFTER that 20th anniversary ceremony with Mueller at Arlington National Cemetery, in the summer of 2009, Scotland released a terminally ill Megrahi from prison after a lengthy appeals process, and sent him back to Libya. The decision was made, the Scottish minister of justice reported, on “compassionate grounds.” Few involved on the US side believed the terrorist deserved compassion. Megrahi was greeted as a hero on the tarmac in Libya—rose petals, cheering crowds. The US consensus remained that he should rot in prison.

    The idea that Megrahi could walk out of prison on “compassionate” ground made a mockery of everything that Mueller had dedicated his life to fighting and doing. Amid a series of tepid official condemnations—President Obama labeled it “highly objectionable”—Mueller fired off a letter to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill that stood out for its raw pain, anger, and deep sorrow.

    “Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision,” Mueller began. “Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of ‘compassion.’”

    That nine months after the 20th anniversary of the bombing, the only person behind bars for the bombing would walk back onto Libyan soil a free man and be greeted with rose petals left Mueller seething.

    “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world,” Mueller wrote. “You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution. You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification—the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.”

    For Mueller, walking the fields of Lockerbie had been walking on hallowed ground. The Scottish decision pained him especially deeply, because of the mission and dedication he and his Scottish counterparts had shared 20 years before. “If all civilized nations join together to apply the rules of law to international terrorists, certainly we will be successful in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism,” he had written in a perhaps too hopeful private note to the Scottish Lord Advocate in 1990.

    Some 20 years later, in an era when counterterrorism would be a massive, multibillion dollar industry and a buzzword for politicians everywhere, Mueller—betrayed—concluded his letter with a decidedly un-Mueller-like plea, shouted plaintively and hopelessly across the Atlantic: “Where, I ask, is the justice?”

    #USA #Libye #impérialisme #terrorisme #histoire #CIA #idéologie #propagande

  • To Become a #space Faring Civilization, We need to Move Beyond Rockets, including #spacex and Blue…

    To Become a Space Faring Civilization, We need to Move Beyond Rockets, including SpaceX and Blue Origin“It’s not rocket science. Or at least It shouldn’t be!”Recently, the idea of humanity becoming a space faring civilization has gotten lots of attention, particularly from billionaires like Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos’ with his Blue Origin, and Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic. Along with this increased interest has been the mega-trend of the privatization of space, showing that our space-based future may not rely on governments at all but private companies.The short term goals that are most talked about are launching smaller satellites more cheaply, space tourism, ferrying to space stations, missions to and around the moon, and eventually, settling on Mars.Since (...)

    #space-exploration #nasa #science-fiction

  • AI in #medicine : A Beginner’s Guide

    Introduction“My AI will seek to collaborate with people for the greater good, rather than usurp the human role and supplant them” — from the Hippocratic oath on artificial intelligence by Oren Etzioni [1]Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently one of the most hotly debated topics in technology with seemingly every business leader and computer scientist voicing an extreme opinion on the topic. Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking are all pessimists who have posited that AI poses an existential threat to humanity. Musk even publicly states that, “AI is far more dangerous than nukes” [2]. Famed futurist and technologist Ray Kurzweil, who studied under the inventor of the AI field, has a more optimistic outlook, “My view is not that AI is going to displace us. It’s going to enhance us. It (...)

    #healthcare #artificial-intelligence #machine-learning

  • Working Through the Pain at TeslaReveal

    Inside Tesla’s factory, a medical clinic designed to ignore injured workers
    By Will Evans / November 5, 2018

    When a worker gets smashed by a car part on Tesla’s factory floor, medical staff are forbidden from calling 911 without permission.

    The electric carmaker’s contract doctors rarely grant it, instead often insisting that seriously injured workers – including one who severed the top of a finger – be sent to the emergency room in a Lyft.

    Injured employees have been systematically sent back to the production line to work through their pain with no modifications, according to former clinic employees, Tesla factory workers and medical records. Some could barely walk.

    The on-site medical clinic serving some 10,000 employees at Tesla Inc.’s California assembly plant has failed to properly care for seriously hurt workers, an investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found.

    The clinic’s practices are unsafe and unethical, five former clinic employees said.

    But denying medical care and work restrictions to injured workers is good for one thing: making real injuries disappear.

    “The goal of the clinic was to keep as many patients off of the books as possible,” said Anna Watson, a physician assistant who worked at Tesla’s medical clinic for three weeks in August.

    Watson has nearly 20 years of experience as a medical professional, examining patients, diagnosing ailments and prescribing medications. She’s treated patients at a petroleum refinery, a steel plant, emergency rooms and a trauma center. But she said she’s never seen anything like what’s happening at Tesla.

    Anna Watson was a physician assistant at the medical clinic inside Tesla’s electric car factory in Fremont, Calif. She was fired in August after raising concerns. Credit: Paul Kuroda for Reveal

    “The way they were implementing it was very out of control,” said Watson, who was fired in August after she raised her concerns. “Every company that I’ve worked at is motivated to keep things not recordable. But I’ve never seen anybody do it at the expense of treating the patient.”

    Workers with chest pain, breathing problems or extreme headaches have been dismissed as having issues unrelated to their work, without being fully evaluated or having workplace exposures considered, former employees said. The clinic has turned away temp workers who got hurt on Tesla’s assembly lines, leaving them without on-site care. And medical assistants, who are supposed to have on-site supervision, say they were left on their own at night, unprepared to deal with a stream of night-shift injuries.

    If a work injury requires certain medical equipment – such as stitches or hard braces – then it has to be counted in legally mandated logs. But some employees who needed stitches for a cut instead were given butterfly bandages, said Watson and another former clinic employee. At one point, hard braces were removed from the clinic so they wouldn’t be used, according to Watson and a former medical assistant.

    As Tesla races to revolutionize the automobile industry and build a more sustainable future, it has left its factory workers in the past, still painfully vulnerable to the dangers of manufacturing.

    An investigation by Reveal in April showed that Tesla prioritized style and speed over safety, undercounted injuries and ignored the concerns of its own safety professionals. CEO Elon Musk’s distaste for the color yellow and beeping forklifts eroded factory safety, former safety team members said.

    The new revelations about the on-site clinic show that even as the company forcefully pushed back against Reveal’s reporting, behind the scenes, it doubled down on its efforts to hide serious injuries from the government and public.

    In June, Tesla hired a new company, Access Omnicare, to run its factory health center after the company promised Tesla it could help reduce the number of recordable injuries and emergency room visits, according to records.

    A former high-level Access Omnicare employee said Tesla pressured the clinic’s owner, who then made his staff dismiss injuries as minor or not related to work.

    “It was bullying and pressuring to do things people didn’t believe were correct,” said the former employee, whom Reveal granted anonymity because of the worker’s fear of being blackballed in the industry.

    Dr. Basil Besh, the Fremont, California, hand surgeon who owns Access Omnicare, said the clinic drives down Tesla’s injury count with more accurate diagnoses, not because of pressure from Tesla. Injured workers, he said, don’t always understand what’s best for them.

    “We treat the Tesla employees just the same way we treat our professional athletes,” he said. “If Steph Curry twists his knee on a Thursday night game, that guy’s in the MRI scanner on Friday morning.”

    Yet at one point, Watson said a Tesla lawyer and a company safety official told her and other clinic staff to stop prescribing exercises to injured workers so they wouldn’t have to count the injuries. Recommending stretches to treat an injured back or range-of-motion exercises for an injured shoulder was no longer allowed, she said.

    The next day, she wrote her friend a text message in outrage: “I had to meet with lawyers yesterday to literally learn how not to take care of people.”

    Tesla declined interview requests for this story and said it had no comment in response to detailed questions. But after Reveal pressed the company for answers, Tesla officials took time on their October earnings call to enthusiastically praise the clinic.

    “I’m really super happy with the care they’re giving, and I think the employees are as well,” said Laurie Shelby, Tesla’s vice president for environment, health and safety.

    Musk complained about “unfair accusations” that Tesla undercounts its injuries and promised “first-class health care available right on the spot when people need it.”

    Welcome to the new Tesla clinic
    Back in June, on stage at Tesla’s shareholder meeting, Musk announced a declining injury rate for his electric car factory.

    “This is a super important thing to me because we obviously owe a great debt to the people who are building the car. I really care about this issue,” Musk said to applause.

    It wasn’t long after that that Stephon Nelson joined the company. Working the overnight shift Aug. 13, Nelson got a sudden introduction to Tesla’s new model of care.

    He was bent over putting caulk inside the trunk of a Model X. Something slipped and the hatchback crunched down on his back. Nelson froze up in agonizing pain. He had deep red bruises across his back.

    “I couldn’t walk, I couldn’t sit down. I couldn’t even stand up straight,” said Nelson, who’s 30 and used to play semiprofessional football.

    He asked for an ambulance, but the on-call Tesla doctor said no – he could take a Lyft to the hospital instead.

    “I just felt heartbroken,” Nelson said. “What they was telling us in the orientation, that Tesla is a company that cares about their employees’ safety, it just seemed like it was just a whole reversal.”

    No one was allowed to call 911 without a doctor’s permission, said Watson and two medical assistants who used to work at the clinic under Besh’s direction. Anyone who did so would get in trouble, they said.

    “There was a strong push not to send anybody in an ambulance,” Watson said.

    “I couldn’t walk, I couldn’t sit down. I couldn’t even stand up straight,” Stephon Nelson says of what happened when he injured his back while working on a Tesla Model X. Credit: Paul Kuroda for Reveal

    It’s unclear why there was such a focus on avoiding 911, though some former employees thought it was to save money. Also, 911 logs become public records. And first responders, unlike drivers for ride-hailing services, are required to report severe work injuries to California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the state’s workplace safety agency. Besh said ambulance use is based on “clinical judgment only.”

    The system was especially problematic on the night shift, as the factory continued churning out vehicles around the clock, but there were no doctors or nurses around, former employees said.

    Two medical assistants who used to work there said they often were left on their own – one on duty at a time – and struggled to tend to all the injured. Both had to do things such as take vital signs, which medical assistants aren’t allowed to do without on-site supervision, according to the Medical Board of California. Reveal granted them anonymity because they fear speaking out will hurt their careers. Besh said no one works alone.

    For a severely injured worker lying on the assembly line, it could take 10 to 15 minutes for a medical assistant to arrive and then contact on-call doctors, a medical assistant said. Getting a code for Tesla’s Lyft account was a drawn-out process that could take hours, she said.

    The medical assistants said they were alarmed and uncomfortable with the doctors’ orders to use Lyft because they worried some patients could pass out or need help en route. One worker directed to take a Lyft was light-headed and dizzy. Another had his fingers badly broken, contorted and mangled.

    Besh, who often serves as the on-call doctor, said anyone could call 911 in a life-threatening situation. He said he recommends using Lyft for workers who don’t need advanced life support.

    Besh gave the example of a worker who had the top of his finger cut off. He needed to go to the hospital, but not by ambulance, Besh said. He likened the situation to people at home who get a ride to the hospital instead of calling an ambulance.

    “We right-size the care,” he said. “Obviously, it’s all about the appropriate care given for the appropriate situation.”

    It’s a doctor’s judgment call to use Lyft, but many on the factory floor found it inhumane. In some cases, including the worker with an amputated fingertip, factory supervisors refused to put their employees in a Lyft and instead drove them to the hospital, according to a medical assistant.

    Injured workers sent back to work

    In Nelson’s case, he called his girlfriend to take him to the hospital. But he said his supervisor told him that he had to show up for work the next day or Nelson would get in trouble.

    Nelson needed the job, so he forced himself to come in. He shuffled slowly, hunched over in pain, to his department, he said. When it was clear he couldn’t do the job, he was sent to the Tesla health center, a small clinic on an upper level of the factory.

    Workers too injured to do their regular jobs are supposed to receive job restrictions and a modified assignment that won’t make the injury worse.

    But the health center wouldn’t give Nelson any accommodations. He could go home that day, but he had to report to work full duty the following day, he said.

    By law, work-related injuries must be recorded on injury logs if they require medical treatment beyond first aid, days away from work or job restrictions. The clinic’s practices were designed to avoid those triggers, said Anna Watson, the physician assistant.

    There was a clinic rule, for example, that injured employees could not be given work restrictions, Watson said. No matter what type of injuries workers came in with – burns, lacerations, strains and sprains – clinic staff were under instructions to send them back to work full duty, she said. Watson said she even had to send one back to work with what appeared to be a broken ankle.

    Medical clinics are supposed to treat injuries and keep workers safe, she said, “and none of that’s happening. So at the most acute time of their injury, they don’t have any support, really.”

    A medical assistant who formerly worked at the clinic remembered an employee who was sent back to work even though he couldn’t stand on one of his feet. Another employee passed out face down on the assembly line – then went back to work.

    “You always put back to full duty, no matter what,” said the medical assistant.

    Dr. Basil Besh said patients are given work restrictions when appropriate. He said those hurt at night get first aid and triage, followed by an accurate diagnosis from a physician the next day.

    “There’s always going to be somebody who says, ‘No, I shouldn’t be working,’ ” he said. “But if you look objectively at the totality of the medical examination, that’s not always the case.”

    Four days after Nelson’s injury, Watson herself sent him back to work with no restrictions, according to medical records he provided. Nelson said this happened repeatedly as he hobbled in pain.

    But Watson did what she could to help: She referred him to Access Omnicare’s main clinic, about 5 miles from the auto factory. It was allowed to give work restrictions, Watson said. But most workers aren’t sent there, and it can take a while to get an appointment.

    Eight days after his injury, the outside clinic diagnosed Nelson with a “crushing injury of back,” contusions and “intractable” pain. He finally was given work restrictions that said he shouldn’t be bending, squatting, kneeling, climbing stairs or lifting more than 10 pounds.

    Even after that, the health center at one point sent Nelson back to his department in a wheelchair, he said.

    “And I’m rocking back and forth, just ready to fall out of the wheelchair because I’m in so much pain,” he said.

    In September, Nelson got a warehouse job at another company. It was a pay cut, but he quit Tesla right away. “I feel like it’s really not safe at all,” he said.

    Besh said he couldn’t comment on a specific case without a signed release from the patient. But, he said, “a physician examined that patient and saw that there was not a safety issue.”

    Besh was named chairman of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ Board of Councilors this year. A Tesla spokeswoman set up and monitored his interview with Reveal.

    There’s been a “culture shift” at the health center since Tesla hired him to take over, he said.

    “So culturally, there were folks in the past who were expecting that any time they come to the clinic, they would be taken off of work,” he said. “And when we told them, ‘No, we really want to do what’s best for you’ … it’s taking some time to get buy-in.”

    In the end, Tesla counted Nelson on its injury logs, which is how Reveal identified him. That’s another reason the system didn’t make sense to Watson: Some workers whose injuries were so serious that they eventually would have to be counted still were denied proper care when they needed it most, she said.

    Many more injured workers never were counted, she said. Tesla’s official injury logs, provided to Reveal by a former employee, show 48 injuries in August. Watson reviewed the list for the three weeks she was there and estimated that more than twice as many injuries should have been counted if Tesla had provided appropriate care and counted accurately.

    Other ways Tesla’s clinic avoids treating workers
    The clinic seemed geared toward sending workers away instead of treating them, Watson said. The culture of the clinic, she said, was to discount workers’ complaints and assume they were exaggerating.

    The clinic would look for reasons to dismiss injuries as not work-related, even when they seemed to be, former employees said.

    Watson recalled one worker who had passed out on the job and went to the hospital because of her exposure to fumes in the factory. Even though a work-related loss of consciousness is required to be counted, no such injury was recorded on Tesla’s injury logs.

    Temp workers hurt on the production line also were often rebuffed by the clinic, said former clinic employees. At one point, there was a blanket policy to turn away temps, they said.

    Tracy Lee wears a brace to help with a repetitive stress injury she developed while working at Tesla’s factory. She says the in-house health center sent her away without evaluating her because she wasn’t a permanent employee. Credit: Paul Kuroda for Reveal

    Tracy Lee developed a repetitive stress injury over the summer when a machine broke and she had to lift car parts by hand, she said. Lee said the health center sent her away without evaluating her because she wasn’t a permanent employee.

    “I really think that’s messed up,” said Lee, who later sought medical treatment on her own. “Don’t discriminate just because we’re temps. We’re working for you.”

    By law, Tesla is required to record injuries of temp workers who work under its supervision, no matter where they get treatment. But not all of them were. Lee said her Tesla supervisor knew about the injury. But Lee’s name doesn’t appear on Tesla’s injury logs.

    Besh pushed back on the claims of his former employees.

    He said the clinic didn’t treat some temp workers because Access Omnicare wasn’t a designated health care provider for their staffing agencies. About half of the agencies now are able to use the clinic, and the rest should be early next year, he said.

    Besh said a physician accurately and carefully determines whether an injury is work-related and the clinic is not set up to treat personal medical issues. He said the clinic is fully stocked.

    As for prescribing exercises, Besh said the clinic automatically was giving exercise recommendations to workers who were not injured and simply fixed the error.

    These sample Work Status Reports, posted in Tesla’s health center, show how clinic staff were instructed to handle different situations. The document on the left, labeled “Work Related,” is marked “First Aid Only” and “Return to full duty with no limitations or restrictions,” scenarios that would mean Tesla wouldn’t have to count the injury. Those were the only options, says Anna Watson, a physician assistant who used to work there. One document for contract employees such as temp workers (center) and another for non-occupational injuries (right) both say to refer the patients elsewhere. Credit: Obtained by Reveal

    Clinic source: Tesla pressured doctor
    Access Omnicare’s proposal for running Tesla’s health center states that Tesla’s priorities include reducing recordable injuries and emergency room visits, according to a copy obtained by Reveal.

    It says Access Omnicare’s model, with more accurate diagnoses, reduces “un-necessary use of Emergency Departments and prevents inadvertent over-reporting of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) recordability.”

    Even before Access Omnicare took over the on-site health center in June, Tesla sent many injured workers to its main clinic as one of the automaker’s preferred providers.

    Tesla exercised an alarming amount of pressure on the clinic to alter how it treated patients in order to keep injury rates down, said the former high-level Access Omnicare employee.

    “There was a huge, huge push from Tesla to keep things nonrecordable,” said the former employee.

    A Tesla workers’ compensation official routinely would contact the clinic to intervene in individual cases, said the former employee. Tesla would take issue with diagnoses and treatment decisions, arguing that specific workers should be sent back to work full duty or have their injuries labeled as unrelated to work. The clinic gave Tesla what it wanted, the former employee said.

    For example, Bill Casillas’ diagnosis suddenly was changed by Access Omnicare after discussions with Tesla.

    In December, Casillas was working in Tesla’s seat factory. When he touched a forklift, he felt an electric shock jolt him back. Later that shift, it happened again. He said he felt disoriented and found he had urinated on himself.

    Casillas said he hasn’t been the same since. He struggles with pain, tingling and numbness. At 47, he’s unsteady, uses a cane and hasn’t been able to work, he said.

    A doctor at Access Omnicare diagnosed a work-related “injury due to electrical exposure” and gave him severe work restrictions and physical therapy, medical records show.

    Then, nearly two months after his injury, another Access Omnicare physician, Dr. Muhannad Hafi, stepped in and dismissed the injury.

    “I have spoken again with (the workers’ compensation official) at Tesla and he informed that the forklift did not have electric current running. With that said, in my medical opinion, the patient does not have an industrial injury attributed to an electrical current,” he wrote.

    Hafi, who’s no longer with Access Omnicare, didn’t respond to questions. Besh said he can’t discuss patient details.

    The co-worker who was in the forklift during the second shock, Paul Calderon, said he disagrees with the Tesla official but no one asked him. He backed up Casillas’ account and said Tesla “tried to really downplay what happened to him.”

    Hafi’s January report noted that Casillas said he was “miserable,” used a cane and had pain all over his body. But he discharged him back to work full duty, writing, “No further symptoms of concern.”

    A Tesla safety team manager informed Casillas last month that his injury was not counted because it was “determined to not be work-related.” Casillas is still a Tesla employee, but he’s off work because of his injury. His workers’ comp claim was denied based on Hafi’s report, but his lawyer, Sue Borg, is seeking an independent medical evaluation.

    Besh said Tesla does not pressure him to dismiss injuries.

    “What Tesla pressures us on is accurate documentation,” he said. “What they want is their OSHA log to be as accurate as possible, so what they’ll push back on is, ‘Doctor I need more clarity on this report.’ And we do that for them.”

    “They are not in the business of making clinical determinations at all,” he said. “We make those clinical determinations only based on what the patient needs.”

    State regulators not interested
    By late August, Watson, the physician assistant, reached her breaking point. She got into an argument with Besh, who fired her for not deferring to doctors.

    Afterward, she filed a complaint to Cal/OSHA, California’s workplace safety agency.

    “I just see the workers at Tesla as having absolutely no voice,” she said. “I do feel extra responsible to try to speak up for what’s going on there.”

    Watson thought Cal/OSHA would put an immediate stop to the practices she witnessed. But the agency wasn’t interested.

    Cal/OSHA sent her a letter saying it folded her complaint into the investigation it started in April after Reveal’s first story ran. The letter said it had investigated and cited Tesla for a recordkeeping violation.

    But Cal/OSHA already had closed that investigation two weeks before Watson’s complaint. The agency issued a fine of $400 for a single injury it said was not recorded within the required time period. Tesla appealed, calling it an administrative error.

    Reveal had documented many other cases of injuries that Tesla had failed to record. But the agency had only about six months from the date of an injury to fine a company. By the time Cal/OSHA concluded its four-month investigation, the statute of limitations had run out.

    After Reveal reported that the time limitation makes it difficult to hold employers accountable, state legislators passed a bill giving investigators six months from when Cal/OSHA first learns of the violation. It was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, but it was too late for the Tesla investigation.

    A Cal/OSHA spokeswoman said the investigation found four other “injury recording violations that fell outside of the statute of limitations.” Even if those other violations had been included, the spokeswoman said Cal/OSHA would have had to combine them in a single $400 citation.

    Tesla, meanwhile, inaccurately cites Cal/OSHA’s investigation as vindication.

    “We do get these quite unfair accusations,” Musk said on his October earnings call. “One of them was that we were underreporting injuries. And it’s worth noting that OSHA completed their investigation and concluded that we had not been doing anything of the sort.”

    Watson called Cal/OSHA officials to insist they investigate her complaint. She told them that she had detailed knowledge of a system that undercounted injuries by failing to treat injured workers.

    But Cal/OSHA officials told her that it wasn’t the agency’s responsibility, she said. They suggested contacting another agency, such as the medical board or workers’ compensation regulators.

    As Watson kept pushing and Reveal began asking questions, a Cal/OSHA spokeswoman said her complaint now is being investigated.

    Watson has a new job at an urgent care clinic. She said she just wants someone to make sure that Tesla workers get the care they need.

    “You go to Tesla and you think it’s going to be this innovative, great, wonderful place to be, like this kind of futuristic company,” she said. “And I guess it’s just kind of disappointing that that’s our future, basically, where the worker still doesn’t matter.”

    #USA #Tesla #Arbeit #Krankheit

  • Military robots are getting smaller and more capable (https://www.e...

    Military robots are getting smaller and more capable

    Soon, they will travel in swarms Article word count: 1557

    HN Discussion: Posted by prostoalex (karma: 64719) Post stats: Points: 90 - Comments: 68 - 2018-09-02T18:45:51Z

    #HackerNews #and #are #capable #getting #military #more #robots #smaller

    Article content:

    ON NOVEMBER 12th a video called “Slaughterbots” was uploaded to YouTube. It is the brainchild of Stuart Russell, a professor of artificial intelligence at the University of California, Berkeley, and was paid for by the Future of Life Institute (FLI), a group of concerned scientists and technologists that includes Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees, Britain’s Astronomer Royal. It is set in a near-future in which (...)

  • L’enfer vert s’étend au Palais Rameau – Contre la cyber-agriculture Hors-sol, Braderie 2018 - 31 Aout 2018 - hors-sol.herbesfolles

    La Ville de Lille vient de céder le Palais Rameau à trois écoles d’ingénieur qui en feront un laboratoire d’agriculture automatisée et hors-sol. Alors que la Ville détruit les derniers espaces possibles de verdure, îlot Pépinière et friche Saint-Sauveur, elle recrée une nature artificielle, sous cloche, et pilotée par des capteurs. Cette artificialisation des terres et de l’agriculture avance d’un pas serein grâce l’appui des Verts qui voient là une réponse aux « enjeux écologiques du XXIe siècle ». Avec des amis pareils, la nature n’a plus besoin d’ennemis.

    Le calendrier se passe parfois de commentaire. Dans le même Conseil municipal, Martine Aubry rappelle son engagement dans la bétonnisation de l’îlot Pépinière, ancienne parcelle horticole, et cède le Palais Rameau, du nom d’un horticulteur lillois, à trois écoles d’ingénieur spécialisées dans l’« agriculture de précision ». Donc : Martine Aubry remplace des horticulteurs avec de la terre sur les mains par des agro-informaticiens du substrat chimique. Après que la mécanisation des champs ait saigné les rangs des paysans, l’automatisation supprime les derniers « travailleurs de la terre ».

    Une agriculture sans terre ni agriculteurs
    Les trois écoles d’ingénieur en question appartiennent à la Catho et se nomment ensemble « Yncréa ». Leur regroupement forme des ingénieurs et chercheurs en nanotechnologies, smart farming, chimie verte, smart grids (ex : Linky) ou maison intelligente. Yncréa est donc un agent du renouvellement actuel du capitalisme dans les technologies de pilotage de la planète, de la ville, de la maison et du vivant, pour aller decrescendo dans la perspective. Détail qui ne manque pas de saveur : le directeur d’Yncréa est ingénieur militaire, à la fois chevalier de la Légion d’honneur et du Mérite agricole, passé par la Délégation générale à l’armement et la sûreté nucléaire. Ses rangs de topinambours seront bien désherbés sur les côtés.

    Leur agriculture hors-sol (préférez « urbaine », « de précision », « connectée » ou « verticale » si vous deviez masquer vos intentions) passe au stade 2.0. Les semences sont toujours sélectionnées pour ce type de terroir hydroponique. Les légumes plongent toujours leurs racines dans un substrat et des intrants artificiels. Mais les bâtiments sont désormais « pilotés par des technologies contrôlant les paramètres de production (luminosité, apports en eau, en nutriments…) et alliant les compétences en conception de bâtiments intelligents, agronomie et automatisation. »1 Les Pays-Bas par exemple, surnommés la « Silicon Valley de l’agriculture », ont les meilleurs rendements du monde grâce à des serres où la lumière, l’arrosage, les intrants ou la ventilation sont entièrement automatisés. Le modèle vaut aussi pour les élevages de porcs, de volailles – sans parler des citadins. Le smart farming est à l’agriculture ce qu’un « réseau social » est à l’amitié. Une relation à la terre pilotée par ordinateur, privatisée par des ingénieurs et leurs firmes, produisant une alimentation sans goût pour une vie sans qualité.

    L’avancée du désert vert
    L’élu Julien Dubois soutint l’initiative au nom du groupe écologiste. Reprenant les éléments de langage de circonstance, celle-ci répondrait aux « enjeux écologiques du XXI° siècle ».2 Quels sont ces « enjeux » ? En quoi Yncréa y « répond » ? Nulle explication chez les élus qui s’écharpent à peine sur le superflu, l’absence d’appel d’offres ou la privatisation du Palais Rameau. Mais sur le fond : rien.

    Dans les Hauts-de-France comme au niveau global, les terres cultivables manquent. La planète compte bientôt 10 milliards d’estomacs en même temps que les terres arables disparaissent sous les effets conjoints de l’urbanisation, de la pollution et l’appauvrissement des sols, de l’élevage intensif ou du manque d’eau. Près de nous, autour de l’ancien site Metalleurop, 500ha de terres saturées en plomb interdisent toute culture comestible. À Lille, les 23 ha de la friche Saint Sauveur seront enfouis sous du logement intensif et des bureaux, plutôt que rendus – enfin ! – à des activités plus humaines.

    Face à ce dilemme comptable, les technocrates ont leurs solutions. Pour aller des plus lointaines aux plus proches, Elon Musk (Tesla) souhaite coloniser Mars ; Peter Thiel (PayPal, Facebook) bâtit des villes flottantes alimentées aux algues3 ; Larry Page (Google) finança le premier steak in vitro ; et toute une flopée d’urbanistes se gaussent d’agriculture urbaine : soit en utilisant les toits des buildings, soit sur les sols pollués des friches industrielles, soit encore dans les souterrains des grandes villes, ainsi qu’Anne Hidalgo l’expérimente à Paris. Après avoir épuisé la Terre, la cyber-agriculture s’attaque aux océans, aux sous-sols, et pourquoi pas à l’espace, dans une fuite en avant technologique. Les écologistes applaudissent. Et l’Union européenne s’interroge sur une labellisation « bio » du hors-sol.

    Ce scénario d’artificialisation et de privatisation du vivant ne devrait surprendre aucun Lillois. Non seulement parce qu’il est d’une banalité confondante au regard de l’état du monde. Surtout parce que la Ville nous avait prévenus, dès 2013, dans une exposition « Natures artificielles » à la Gare Saint-Sauveur. Les artistes convoqués nous y jetaient leurs « visions originales d’un réel transfiguré par une époque mutante où l’homme joue de son emprise ambiguë [sur la nature]. On y crois[ait] des expérimentations scientifiques qui réécrivent l’Histoire, théâtres de robots agriculteurs, parcelles de cosmos comprimées, poupées mutantes issues d’expérimentations génétiques, végétaux à humeurs variables, terre tremblant au son de la voix, etc. »4 L’enfer vert était annoncé.

    Quant à ceux qui ne veulent pas ajouter de l’artifice au désastre, qui ne souhaitent pas gérer les nuisances mais bien les supprimer, ils peuvent se joindre à nous dans une opposition résolue à la bétonnisation de Saint-Sauveur et à la reconversion technologique du Palais Rameau.

    Hors-sol, Braderie 2018

    2Conseil municipal du 22 juin 2018, site d’Europe écologie – Les Verts

    3Paradis Pourri – Smart islands en Polynésie,

    4L’art de nous acclimater à la technopole – Visite de l’expo « Natures artificielles »,

    #Lille #artificialisation #martine_aubry #écologie #agro-informaticiens #Catho #Yncréa #nanotechnologies #smart_farming #chimie_verte #smart_grids #agriculture_urbaine #agriculture_connectée #agriculture_verticale #smart_farming #hydroponique #Julien_Dubois #Hauts-de-France #écologistes #enfer_vert #nuisances

  • No Saudi #Aramco IPO? No problem, potentially, for Saudi Arabia’s investment dreams

    The world’s largest initial public offering is on hiatus. The spending it was to enable may not be.

    Saudi Arabia planned to take its giant oil company, Saudi Aramco, to the public markets. It was to be the linchpin of a grand economic vision, generating billions of dollars to pay for future-proofing the kingdom’s economy, including huge investments in technology.

    It is now postponed, leaving a large funding shortfall. But Saudi Arabia is pursuing alternative transactions that could ensure its dreams aren’t dashed:

    • Saudi Aramco is in discussions to buy a large stake in Sabic, a publicly traded chemical company. Sabic’s controlling shareholder is Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund. While the size of that potential acquisition is unclear, media reports say it could be as big as $70 billion.

    • The Public Investment Fund is in talks to raise $11 billion in bank loans from international lenders, according to The Financial Times. It would be the first time the sovereign wealth fund borrowed money.

    • Saudi Aramco could still sell a stake in itself. Big companies in China and Russia reportedly expressed interest in an investment in the past. It isn’t clear how much a sale would raise, but it would almost certainly run to billions of dollars.

    The Saudi government planned to sell about 5 percent of Saudi Aramco on public stock markets. If the oil giant could have fetched a $2 trillion valuation — and there has been skepticism over that figure — the kingdom would have received roughly $100 billion.

    The three new moves, if they were to happen, could yield almost as much as Saudi Aramco’s I.P.O. would have. The Saudi government would then have the financial firepower to pursue its grand economic goals, collectively known as #Vision_2030.

    That means money to invest in Silicon Valley start-ups. Or to create a giant new city that runs on clean energy and robots.

    Or to even help Elon Musk take Tesla private. Saudi Arabia already has a nearly 5 percent stake in the carmaker, and Mr. Musk has said it is interested in helping fund a buyout. But the Public Investment Fund has yet to send such a signal, and is reportedly in talks to invest in a Tesla rival.


  • Les fournisseurs de Tesla s’inquiètent de ne plus être payés Arthur Marcadé - 22 Aout 2018 - le figaro

    Le constructeur de voitures électriques demande à ses fournisseurs des remises sur des factures déjà réglées, ainsi qu’un prolongement de ses délais de paiement, rapporte le Wall Street Journal. De quoi alimenter les doutes des partenaires de Tesla sur sa solidité financière.

    Les chaînes d’assemblage de Tesla semblent produire autant de voitures que d’ennuis pour son fondateur, Elon Musk. Alors qu’il subit la pression des marchés financiers depuis l’annonce de sa potentielle sortie de la Bourse, le constructeur suscite également des doutes chez ses fournisseurs, d’après le Wall Street Journal. Ceux-ci craignent que leur client en vienne à ne plus pouvoir honorer ses factures. Cette inquiétude est née à la suite de demandes de ristournes faites par Tesla, de délais de paiement rallongés ainsi que d’un rythme de production de la Model 3 tel que les commandes peinent à suivre.

    Tesla dans l’œil du cyclone
    Selon un sondage mené par l’OESA, une association d’équipementiers auto, auprès de cadres supérieurs du secteur, 18 des 22 participants estiment que Tesla représente désormais un risque financier pour les entreprises sous-traitantes. Les remises exigées par le constructeur, allant de 9 à 20% sur des factures payées en 2016 ainsi que des délais de paiement doublés de 60 à 120 jours ont suffi à semer le trouble. Dans une série de mails échangés avec ses fournisseurs, Tesla tient des propos jugés inquiétants par ces derniers. « Cette requête est essentielle pour que Tesla puissent poursuivre ses opérations. Ces sommes sont un investissement dans la société visant à faire perdurer la croissance au long terme de Tesla et de ses fournisseurs », peut-on lire. Denis Virag, consultant en construction interrogé par le Wall street Journal, juge que la situation est « ridicule » et que « cela montre que Tesla est désespéré. Ils sont préoccupés par leur profitabilité mais ne tiennent pas compte de celle de leurs fournisseurs ».

    Depuis, de nombreux petits partenaires en ont profité pour dénoncer des défauts de paiement sur des commandes récentes. Tesla a rapidement cherché à éteindre la polémique. « Nous ne sommes pas en retard car nous ne pouvons pas les payer, c’est simplement parce que nous vérifions si les pièces sont correctes », a répondu Elon Musk au journal américain.

    « 7000 voitures, 7 jours »
    L’inquiétude des prestataires vient aussi du rythme de production actuel de l’entreprise et des sommes qu’impliquent ses commandes. La marque a atteint son objectif de produire 7000 Model 3 en sept jours, comme l’annonçait Elon Musk début juillet sur son compte Twitter. Pour autant, elle connaît des difficultés dans la distribution et la logistique de ses voitures. Pire, elle n’enregistre désormais plus assez de commandes, toujours selon le Wall Street Journal. Des milliers de Tesla attendent ainsi leur acquéreur sous le soleil californien. La dette de l’entreprise envers ses partenaires s’élève aujourd’hui à 2,26 milliards de dollars. Le constructeur inquiète aussi les investisseurs, qui doutent de plus en plus de la capacité de Tesla à devenir un jour rentable.

    De leur côté, Musk et son directeur financier Deepak Ahuka ont réagi dans le Wall Street Journal : « La force financière de Tesla se développe actuellement et est encore sur le chemin d’un rapport trimestriel positif et rentable. Nos relations avec nos fournisseurs sont très bonnes », assurent-ils en concluant : « Nous n’allons assurément pas vers la faillite. »

    #tesla #voiture #mobilité #robotisation #innovation #batteries #électricité #elon_musk #faillitte #économie #baudruche

  • Shocked, burnt and bruised: the plight of workers at Tesla’s plants Peoples Dispatch - 10 Juillet 2018

    A third investigation has been opened last week into carmaker Tesla by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), which received a complaint from a worker at the company’s automobile assembly plant in Fremont. The details of the complaint will be disclosed by the body only after the completion of the investigation.

    The investigation has been launched only days after the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, announced that he would be launching a new production line at the Fremont plant.

    Over the past years, Tesla’s Fremont plant, which employs over 10,000 workers, has proven to be an extremely dangerous workplace, where employes have been “sliced by machinery, crushed by forklifts, burned in electrical explosions and sprayed with molten metal.”

    In 2014, the rate of work-related recordable injuries – i.e injuries that require medical treatment beyond first aid – was 15% higher than the average rate in the automobile industry. The following year, when the industry average of such injuries came down from 7.3 per 100 workers to 6.7, at the Fremont plant, the rate of injuries increased from 8.4 per 100 workers to 8.8, which was 31% higher than the industry average.

    The figures on the rate of serious injuries – i.e those that require days off from work or restricted duty or transfer to a different task – paint a much darker picture of how dangerous working in Tesla is for its employees. As with recordable injuries, the rate of serious injuries also came down industry-wide in 2015. In the case of Tesla’s plant, however, the rate of serious injuries soared and was 103% higher than the industry average, according to a report by Work Safe, a non-profit organization that specializes in workplace health and safety issues.

    The 2018 annual report of The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, which identified Tesla as one of the 12 most dangerous workplaces in the US that puts its employees at risk of physical injuries, pointed out that the rate of recordable injuries was 31% higher than the industry average in 2016, while the rate of serious injuries was 83% higher. Last year, another 722 instances of work-related injuries were reported at the Fremont plant, of which 600 were serious injuries.

    While the industry-average for last year is not yet available, Tesla’s Vice President of Environment, Health and Safety claimed on its website, under an article titled “Becoming the Safest Car Factory in the World”, that the recordable injuries last year had declined by 25% compared to the year before.

    “Relying on 2017 injury data to reach any conclusions about safety trends at the plant is premature and could have misleading results,” said Workspace’s report, which pointed to many irregularities in the way in which the injury logs were maintained by the company.

    “I hear coworkers quietly say that they are hurting but they are too afraid to report it for fear of being labeled as a complainer or bad worker.”

    . . . . . . .

    #tesla#voiture #mobilité #robotisation #innovation #batteries #électricité #accidents_du_travail #pénibilité #danger #elon_musk

    • Une troisième enquête a été ouverte début juillet contre le constructeur automobile Tesla par la Division de la sécurité et de la santé au travail de Californie (OSHA dans son acronyme anglais), à la suite de la plainte d’un ouvrier de l’usine d’assemblage automobile de l’entreprise de Fremont. Les détails de la plainte ne seront divulgués par le service qu’après la fin de l’enquête.

      L’enquête a été entamée quelques jours seulement après l’annonce, par le PDG de l’entreprise Elon Musk, qu’il lancerait une nouvelle ligne de production dans l’usine de Fremont.

      Ces dernières années, l’usine Tesla de Fremont, qui emploie plus de 10 000 ouvriers, s’est avérée être un lieu de travail extrêmement dangereux, où les employés ont été « taillés en pièces par des machines, écrasés par des chariots élévateurs, brûlés dans des explosions électriques et aspergés de métal en fusion ».

      En 2014, le taux de blessures liées au travail rapportées – c’est-à-dire des blessures exigeant un traitement médical au-delà des premiers soins – était de 15% plus élevé que le taux moyen dans l’industrie automobile. L’année suivante, lorsque le taux moyen de ces blessures dans l’industrie est passé de 7.3 à 6.7 pour 100 ouvriers, il a augmenté de 8.4% à 8.8% dans l’usine de Fremont, ce qui était plus élevé de 31% que la moyenne de l’industrie.

      Les chiffres du taux de blessures graves – c’est-à-dire celles qui nécessitent des jours d’arrêt de travail ou un horaire de travail limité ou encore le transfert à un autre poste – brossent un tableau beaucoup plus sombre de la dangerosité du travail chez Tesla pour ses employés. Comme pour les blessures signalées, le taux de blessures graves a aussi diminué dans toute l’industrie en 2015. Dans le cas de l’usine de Tesla, ce taux de blessures graves a explosé pour se situer à 103% de la moyenne de l’industrie, selon un rapport de Work Safe, une organisation à but non lucratif spécialisée dans les questions de santé et de sécurité au travail.

      Le rapport annuel 2018 du Conseil national pour la sécurité et la santé au travail, qui a identifié Tesla comme l’un des 12 lieux de travail les plus dangereux aux États-Unis, qui exposent leurs employés au risque de blessures physiques, a souligné que le taux de blessures signalées était plus élevé de 31% que la moyenne dans l’industrie en 2016, tandis que le taux de blessures graves était plus élevé de 83%. L’an dernier, 722 cas de blessures liées au travail ont été rapportées dans l’usine de Fremont, dont 600 étaient graves.
      . . . . .

  • Pénuries de batteries pour la Model 3 de Tesla 28 Juin 2018 - L’Essentiel

    L’accélération de la cadence de production de la Model 3 de Tesla, après plusieurs mois de retards, a entraîné une pénurie temporaire de batteries.

    Le PDG de Tesla Elon Musk a fait savoir début juin qu’il était confiant dans la capacité du groupe à produire 5 000 berlines Model 3 d’ici la fin du mois, ce qui a été accueilli avec scepticisme par certains analystes à Wall Street. Yoshio Ito, responsable la division automobile de Panasonic, a déclaré jeudi lors de l’assemblée générale du groupe japonais qu’il y avait eu une « forte amélioration de la production », entraînant des pénuries occasionnelles de batteries.

    Panasonic, qui dispose d’un site de production de batteries au Japon et qui exploite avec Tesla l’usine Gigafactory dans l’état du Nevada, est le fournisseur exclusif des cellules de batteries pour les modèles de voitures en cours de production. Le groupe japonais a également une usine en commun avec Tesla pour produire des cellules et des modules solaires à Buffalo, dans l’État de New York.

    Les batteries sont au cœur du plan de Panasonic visant à un quasi-doublement des revenus de son activité automobile à 2 500 milliards de yens (19,6ámilliards d’euros) d’ici mars 2022, contre 1 800 milliards attendus pour l’exercice en cours. Selon les analystes, le partenariat entre le groupe japonais et le constructeur américain n’est toutefois pas sans risque, comme en témoignent les retards de production de la Model 3 ou encore les accidents de route mettant en cause des Tesla.

    Batteries à l’état solide pas prêtes
    Tesla a en outre annoncé le 12 juin son intention de supprimer des milliers d’emplois à travers le groupe, soit environ 9% de ses effectifs, afin de réduire les coûts et d’améliorer sa rentabilité sans mettre en danger la montée en puissance de la production de sa berline Model 3.

    Les retards de la Model 3 ont conduit Panasonic à abaisser en février les perspectives de son pôle batteries. « Je ne dirais pas que le retard (dans la production de la Model 3 de Tesla) n’a eu aucun impact sur nos activités mais nous sommes en étroite communication avec Tesla et travaillons à améliorer constamment la production », a déclaré Yoshio Ito.

    Soucieux de réduire sa dépendance vis-à-vis de Tesla, Panasonic s’est récemment associé à Toyota Motor pour développer et fournir des batteries de véhicules électriques. Le directeur général de Panasonic, Kazuhiro Tsuga, a déclaré lors de l’AG que les batteries à l’état solide, considérées comme plus stables, ne devraient pas arriver sur le marché automobile avant un moment, même si le groupe reste engagé dans le développement de cette batterie de nouvelle génération.

    « Nous pensons que nous pouvons continuer à améliorer les performances des batteries lithium-ion actuelles au moins jusqu’en 2025 », a-t-il ajouté. « La commercialisation des batteries à l’état solide viendrait après ces progrès ». Le constructeur automobile japonais Toyota entend commercialiser des véhicules équipés de batteries à l’état solide d’ici le début des années 2020.

    #tesla #Panasonic #transport #voiture #mobilité #automobile #robotisation #innovation #batteries #électricité #bricolos #elon_musk #pénuries

  • Tesla va supprimer 9% de ses effectifs RTBF - AFP - 12 juin 2018

    Le fabricant de voitures électriques américain Tesla a annoncé mardi dans un courriel adressé à ses employés et consulté par l’AFP qu’il prévoyait de supprimer 9% de ses effectifs.

    Ces licenciements n’affecteront pas la montée en cadence de la production du « Model 3 », voiture censée faire de Tesla un groupe automobile de masse, a assuré l’entreprise qui avait annoncé en mai envisager un plan de restructuration sans en donner les grandes lignes.

    Ils vont épargner les équipes de production, affirme Elon Musk, le PDG auteur du document.

    « Tesla a grandi et évolué rapidement lors des dernières années, ce qui s’est traduit par des doublons dans certains rôles et fonctions », explique Elon Musk. Si ces doublons « faisaient sens par le passé, ils sont difficiles à justifier aujourd’hui ».
    Au 31 décembre 2017, Tesla employait 37.543 salariés à temps plein, mais ses effectifs évoluent beaucoup en fonction de ses montées en cadences et de nouveaux modèles à l’instar du Model 3.

    A Wall Street, le titre gagnait 2,91% à 141,78 dollars vers 18H35 GMT, les investisseurs semblant saluer les efforts du groupe, qui brûle beaucoup d’argent depuis sa création il y a 15 ans, pour essayer d’être rentable cette année.

    #Tesla #licenciement #licenciements #USA #voiture_autopilotée #voiture_autonome #transport #voitures_autonomes #voiture #mobilité #automobile #robotisation #innovation 

  • Elon Musk, le Pdg de Tesla et SpaceX, veut noter les journalistes et les médias

    Pas très content des critiques qui fusent sur ses entreprises et sa personnalité, le milliardaire inventeur tous azimuts prend la mouche. Le fondateur de multiples sociétés innovantes fustige la course au clic des journalistes et leur « hypocrisie ». Les internautes qu’il a sollicités via son compte Twitter ont massivement approuvé son initiative.

    «  Je vais créer un site où le public pourra noter la vérité fondamentale de n’importe quel article, suivre la note de crédibilité de chaque journaliste, rédacteur en chef ou publication. Je songe à l’appeler #Pravda (ndlr, le mot russe pour vérité qui renvoie aussi au titre du journal soviétique)  », a-t-il annoncé sur Twitter.
    Apparemment irrité par de récents articles de presse sur Tesla, Elon Musk, le Pdg de la firme spécialisée dans la construction de voitures électriques, a proposé de créer un site d’évaluation de la crédibilité des journalistes et des médias.

    Le milliardaire, qui préside également la société spatiale SpaceX, a soumis son idée aux 21,8 millions d’abonnés à son compte Twitter. Plus de 680.000 d’entre eux ont donné leur avis, 88% d’entre eux jugeant que « créer un site de notation de la crédibilité des médias (qui signale aussi les réseaux automatiques de propagande) » serait une bonne chose contre 12% qui pensent que « non, les médias sont formidables ».

  • Tesla Model 3 robotic ’production hell’ highlights danger of automating too quickly - TechRepublic

    Tesla may be one of the most high-tech car companies, but being on the cutting edge may have led to the Model 3 “production hell” that the company recently found itself in, CEO Elon Musk said in a Sunday interview with Gayle King on CBS This Morning.

    When the Model 3 was announced in July 2017, the company promised that it would produce 5,000 cars per week. However, it has been building only about 2,000 per week, according to CBS.

    We got complacent about some of the things we felt were our core technology,” Musk said in the interview. “We put too much new technology into the Model 3 all at once. This should have been staged.

    Tesla’s Fremont, CA factory is widely regarded as one of the most robotic-driven assembly lines on the planet, King noted. However, Musk agreed that there were too many robots, and that the company needs more people, as robots sometimes slow production. “We had this crazy complex network of conveyor belts and it was not working, so we got rid of that whole thing,” Musk said.
    I have a pretty clear understanding of the path out of hell,” he said.
    Autopilot will “never be perfect,” Musk said during the interview. “Nothing in the real world is perfect. But I do think that long term, it can reduce accidents by a factor of 10. So there are 10 fewer fatalities and tragedies and serious injuries. And that’s a really huge difference.

    Musk emphasized that Autopilot is not supposed to replace a human driver. “The probability of an accident with Autopilot is just less” when a human is at the wheel, Musk said.

    Before the March fatal crash, the Model X driver had received several warnings earlier in the drive, according to a Tesla statement. The system worked “as described,” as a hands on system, Musk said.

  • Désaccords entre Tesla et les enquêteurs après un accident mortel

    Le ton est monté jeudi entre Tesla et l’organisme chargé de faire la lumière sur les causes d’un accident mortel, aboutissant au retrait du constructeur de voitures électriques de l’enquête portant notamment sur son logiciel de conduite semi-automatique Autopilot.

    Cette enquête avait été ouverte par le régulateur des transports américain (NTSB) à la suite de cet accident survenu le 23 mars en Californie. Le conducteur y avait trouvé la mort alors que le logiciel de conduite semi-automatique Autopilot conçu par Tesla était activé. Les batteries de la voiture, disloquée dans le choc, avaient également pris feu.

    Dans des communiqués diffusés jeudi, Tesla et le NTSB se sont renvoyés la responsabilité de cette décision.

    Tesla veut « trop » communiquer
    « Tesla s’est retiré de l’accord avec le NTSB car il requiert que nous ne diffusions pas d’informations publiquement concernant Autopilot et nous considérons que cette exigence a un impact négatif sur la sécurité du public », a indiqué Tesla dans une première déclaration dans la matinée.

    « Nous croyons en la transparence et un accord qui empêche la publication d’informations pendant près d’un an n’est pas acceptable », y a affirmé le constructeur, précisant qu’il continuera néanmoins de collaborer à l’enquête du NTSB.

    Celui-ci a répondu qu’il avait « révoqué » le statut de Tesla comme partie à l’enquête. « Le NTSB a pris cette décision car Tesla a violé l’accord conclu entre les parties en publiant des informations liées à l’enquête avant qu’elles ne soient vérifiées et confirmées par le NTSB ».
    « De telles publications d’informations incomplètes donnent souvent lieu à des spéculations et des conclusions incorrectes sur les causes probables d’un accident ce qui nuit à l’enquête et au public », ajoute-t-on de même source.

    « Il est malheureux que Tesla, de par ses initiatives, n’ait pas respecté l’accord conclu entre les parties », a souligné le président du NTSB Robert Sumwait en précisant que le PDG de Tesla, Elon Musk, avait été informé de cette décision mercredi soir par téléphone et jeudi par courrier.

    Une telle mesure est rare a souligné l’organisme public mais a connu des précédents, notamment lors d’enquêtes sur des accidents d’avions en 2009 et 2014.
    . . . . . . . . .
    « La fonction Autopilot de Tesla présente des défauts » 
    Ce cabinet, Minami Tamaki LLP, a affirmé que, selon ses conclusions préliminaires, d’autres plaintes de conducteurs de Tesla concernant Autopilot ont été recensées et qu’il estime que « la fonction #Autopilot de #Tesla présente des défauts et a vraisemblablement provoqué la #mort de Huang ».

    Le NTSB avait déjà mené une enquête sur un précédent accident mortel d’une Tesla équipée d’Autopilot survenu en 2016 en Floride. Le constructeur avait alors modifié certaines fonctionnalités du système afin de mieux prévenir les utilisateurs de l’approche d’un danger.
    Le NTSB a toutefois souligné jeudi qu’il « continuait d’inciter Tesla à prendre des mesures dans le cadre des recommandations émises dans le cadre de notre enquête sur l’accident de 2016 en Floride » , ce qui pourrait laisser entendre qu’il n’est pas entièrement satisfait des modifications apportées par le constructeur.

    Suite à ces développements, le titre Tesla a perdu près de 2,3% à Wall Street à 294,08 dollars. Il a cédé plus de 14% de sa valeur sur le mois écoulé, en raison de retards de production sur son dernier modèle, le Model 3, et d’inquiétudes sur la santé financière du groupe.

    #autopilote #voiture_autopilotée #voiture_autonome #transport #Tesla #voitures_autonomes #voiture #mobilité #automobile #robotisation #innovation #silicon_valley #intelligence_artificielle #Tesla #poubelle

  • Will This “Neural Lace” Brain Implant Help Us Compete with AI? - Facts So Romantic

    Smarter artificial intelligence is certainly being developed, but how far along are we on producing a neural lace?Photograph by Ars Electronica / FlickrSolar-powered self-driving cars, reusable space ships, Hyperloop transportation, a mission to colonize Mars: Elon Musk is hell-bent on turning these once-far-fetched fantasies into reality. But none of these technologies has made him as leery as artificial intelligence. At Code Conference 2016, Musk stated publicly that given the current rate of A.I. advancement, humans could ultimately expect to be left behind—cognitively, intellectually—“by a lot.” His solution to this unappealing fate is a novel brain-computer interface similar to the implantable “neural lace” described by the Scottish novelist Iain M. Banks in Look to Windward, part of (...)

  • A propos de John Perry Barlow, Seenthis, The Grateful Dead et The WELL
    En réponse à d’ @arno

    Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

    Aujourd’hui les manifestes ne sont guere d’intérêt pour les jeunes. C’est la la conclusion que j’ai tiré de la rencontre avec des étudiants de la création multimedia à qui j’ai eu l’honneur d’enseigner les systèmes de publication sur internet. Du côté des militants politiques c’est pareil en ce qui concerne le choix et la maîtrise des logiciels pour leur publications.

    Nous, nous sommes les enfants du mariage entre les idées libertaires et les révolutions européennes à l’ère digitale. Nous avons grandi à une époque extraordinaire quand se croisaient le monde ancien et l’ère digitale post-communiste. Nous avons assisté et participé à ses guerres analogues, à ses luttes des classes, nous avons adopté ses modèles de liberté antagonistes et ses musiques bruyantes. Nous avons bâti les premières marches de l’échelle digitale avec JPB et ses amis. Nous avons connu l’époque quand l’internet consistait dans une centaine de serveurs nationaux et quelques milliers dans le reste du monde. C’était notre internet. Les admins étaient nos copains qui restaient au téléphone avec nous pendant des heures quand il fallait implémenter un changement de config important. Tout était encore à faire et il n’y avait que nous qui pouvaient le faire.

    Aujourd’hui #Seenthis est notre The WELL que nous utilison pour créer notre internet à nous. Voilà l’héritage de JPB.

    Bon, après ce discours il est temps d’écouter un des derniers concerts des Grateful Dead avec Jerry Garcia.

    Grateful Dead - The Spectrum - 3-17-95 - Full Show

    The WELL

    The Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link, normally shortened to The WELL, is one of the oldest virtual communities in continuous operation. As of June 2012, it had 2,693 members.

    Home > The WELL

    Why is conversation so treasured on The WELL? Why did members of this community band together to buy the site in 2012? Check out the story of The WELL.

    The Internet Age Began on August 9, 1995

    Two separate things happened on August 9, 1995, both by chance emerging from Northern California though they had little else in common. The first was a scheduled event: the initial public offering (IPO) by Netscape, a startup tech firm designed to make software to power the Internet.
    I remember walking through the hallway at work that morning, probably heading for a coffee refill, when I saw a clump of co-workers and magazine editors talking anxiously. I thought they were talking about the Netscape IPO, but they weren’t. “Jerry Garcia died,” one of the editors said to me. “We need to replace the front page and get a new headline up, stat.”

    Jerry Garcia. This one hit home.
    Nobody said “going viral” yet by the summer of 1995, but that’s exactly what Jerry Garcia’s death did, and it was pretty much the biggest anything had gone viral anywhere up to this point.
    The Grateful Dead’s influence on the evolving culture of the Internet has always been a godsend, and still is. When music-sharing became a way of life with the advent of Napster a few years later, and when online publishers began to give content away for free, many smart observers realized that the Grateful Dead (who had always allowed fans to freely create and share concert recordings) were the greatest success model in the world for a profitable long-term business cycle based on peer-to-peer sharing. The positive and peaceful philosophy the band had always stood for seemed to fit the Internet’s optimistic emerging culture as well.

    John Perry Barlow, Internet Pioneer, 1947-2018 | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    Barlow knew that new technology could create and empower evil as much as it could create and empower good. He made a conscious decision to focus on the latter: "I knew it’s also true that a good way to invent the future is to predict it. So I predicted Utopia, hoping to give Liberty a running start before the laws of Moore and Metcalfe delivered up what Ed Snowden now correctly calls ’turn-key totalitarianism.’”

    A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    by John Perry Barlow, Davos, Switzerland, February 8, 1996

    John Perry Barlow

    The Grateful Dead

    Jerry Garcia Band

    #internet #musique

    • un manifeste d’une naïveté confondante, et qui ne veut strictement rien dire.

      Justement, tu en fais ce que tu veux ;-)

      You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

      Là par contre ce n’est pas dépourvu de sens ; en plus c’est du rock’n’roll, JPB sur son ranch en train de traire les vaches, et qu’il refuse que le gouvernement s’y mêle, c’est une belle image allégorique pour la liberté, non ?

      Autrement c’est vrai l’histoire avec le néoibéralisme, mais bof, pas la peine de tout prendre trop sérieusement. On sait que le vieux était un peu réac, mais son manifeste c’était un beau texte, un truc sentimental quoi.

      Oui, oui, je sais, la CIA payait des écrivains pour qu’ils arrêtent de dire des choses contre les #USA, etc. - mais tu ne critiques pas Bach parce qu’il était religieux, pas vrai ?

      L’ironie de l’histoire c’est qu’aujourd’hui les vaches sont télécommandées par internet ;-)

    • Le rôle joué par l’évangélisme internet dans la victoire du néo-libéralisme est toujours incompris par beaucoup de gens à gauche.

      Coup d’État contre Allende, Chicago Boys, 1973.
      Margaret Thatcher, première Ministre en 1979.
      Milton Friedman, prix Nobel d’économie en 1979.
      Ronald Reagan élu en 1981.
      Georges Stigler, prix Nobel d’économie en 1982.
      Tournant de la rigueur de Mitterrand en 1983

      Quand commence l’« évangélisme internet » ?

      Plus sérieusement, comme je l’écrivais dans mon message sur le sujet :
      dans mon souvenir l’« évangélisme internet » en France était critique de l’espace libertarien américain (même si, à l’époque, ce n’était pas un courant très connu en France). Pour notre petite chapelle, c’est peut-être aussi pour ça qu’on a voulu faire notre propre Manifeste, et pas s’aligner sur une traduction de la Déclaration de Barlow.

      Et paradoxalement, j’ai toujours ressenti que ceux qui agitaient le chiffon route du « libéral libertaire » pour sauver « nos valeurs », l’utilisaient justement pour flinguer la possibilité d’un usage progressiste et social de la liberté d’expression, tout en renforçant l’usage purement mercantile du Net.

    • Qu’il repose en paix.

      Ses propes acolytes ne le laisseront pas reposer longtemps avant de le sortir de sa tombe pour en faire leur zombie pour les basses besognes idéologiques. A ce stade il ne restera pas grand chose du hippie et le « farmer » réactionnaire brandira so revolver pour éliminer tous les défenseur d’un réseau libre au service des peuples du monde.