reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker begins by expressing their initial lack of bias against electric cars but then reveals some shocking discoveries. They mention that the environmental benefit of electric cars is a lie, as the French environmental agency ADEME states that it takes five years for an electric car to have the same carbon footprint as a traditional car due to the production of batteries. The speaker also highlights the exorbitant cost of electric cars, stating that they are 45-50% more expensive than traditional cars, taking 10-20 years to recoup the savings from not buying fuel. Lastly, the speaker criticizes the European market for giving the Chinese automotive industry a significant advantage, with Chinese cars being 20% cheaper and equally reliable. They conclude by stating that 80% of batteries worldwide are sold by the Chinese.

Electric cars are expensive and will be used to control where people can and cannot go. Unlike traditional cars, autonomous electric cars will be computer-driven and will only take passengers where they are allowed to go. The goal is not to save the planet from climate change, but rather to impose control over people's movements. The idea is to replace petrol and diesel cars with electric ones in order to limit people's freedom and decide where they can travel. The claim of saving the planet is just an excuse.

At CES, we showcased a demonstration with BMW where we integrated the car's entire database into the dashboard. By simply asking the car about a specific light on the panel, it provides detailed information about the issue, potential outcomes, and precise location of the problem. It even suggests how to drive with the issue. Additionally, I can help you schedule an appointment as I have already checked for availability. This allows for a seamless and contextual conversation with your car.

Government installed remote control features on my Hyundai Kona EV without my consent during a MAPS upgrade. The new Blue Link software includes geofencing and geotiming capabilities, allowing them to set range and time limits remotely. Consent is required unless mandated by law. This raises concerns about privacy and control over my vehicle.

Ford Motor Company has filed a patent to install listening devices in new vehicles to monitor conversations. One module will focus on the driver, another on the passenger, to determine when to interrupt with targeted ads, audibly or visually. The technology will track travel habits (local, long haul, gym, grocery store) and driving modes (sports, econo) to tailor ad frequency. High speeds may mean fewer ads, while traffic jams could trigger more. The system will predict destinations based on travel history and present ads in advance, influenced by driving conditions like sunny or rainy weather. The goal is to maximize revenue, with potential third-party involvement. The patent doesn't discuss data protection or privacy. Travel history will be recorded, raising subpoena concerns. The speaker suggests that with Pluto entering Aquarius, this technology is inevitable, unless one buys an older car.

Ford has filed a series of patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office describing sensors and cameras inside the cab of their trucks that can prevent shifting from park to drive if they determine the driver isn’t fit to drive. The concept builds on Ford’s existing telematics, which can pull up real-time cab cameras for fleet vehicles. Ford markets this to insurance companies, highlighting issues of data ownership and liability, noting that even if a person’s name is on the truck title, they may not own the data or the risk. One patent, serial number 0104469, describes a system that uses biometric data—face, iris, fingerprint—and runs it through a criminal database in real time while the driver sits in the truck. Ford’s patent language suggests potential usefulness for police, indicating the technology could be used to screen drivers before any action is taken. This example is presented as part of a broader set of filings Ford made within months of each other. The overarching implication is that the technology could be used to monitor or restrict driving based on biometric and behavioral data. Additional patent concepts include lipreading: cameras inside the cab with machine learning trained on lip movement datasets; cloud-connected processing where the face data is processed somewhere off-device; and acoustic lipreading, where inaudible sound waves are emitted and the echoes from the mouth are read. Other biometric elements mentioned are facial recognition, fingerprint, and iris scanning. There is also a concept labeled “Ad listening,” which would monitor conversations between everyone in the cab and serve targeted ads based on what people are talking about while driving, described by Ford as “maximum opportunity for ad based monetization” with no description of data protection. There is a Ford Pro Telematics product page rather than a patent, describing live in-cab video feeds accessible to managers on their phones and belt/seatbelt compliance alerts advertised as helping to lower insurance costs. The speaker notes that this infrastructure “exists,” and once in place, it “is gonna get used and abused.” The discussion situates Ford within a broader trend: it’s part of an arms race. It notes that Smart Eye driver monitoring software is already in over 2,000,000 cars globally; EU safety regulations are mandating drowsiness systems as standard equipment going forward; GM has deployed biometric seat sensors and heart-rate monitoring in production trucks.

Government remotely installed geofencing and geotiming on a Hyundai Kona EV without consent during a software upgrade. The new terms allow setting range and time limits on the car remotely, with exceptions for emergencies or legal requirements.

The speaker expresses concern about surveillance technology in modern cars, particularly ADAS (Automated Driver Assistance Systems). These systems, mandated by EU regulations and rolling out worldwide, include multiple cameras, many facing inward, constantly recording the driver. The speaker believes this technology is not for assistance but to ultimately remove driver control. The speaker raises the issue of "fifteen-minute cities" and how geofencing, enabled by these connected cars, could restrict movement. They claim that vehicles might be disabled upon crossing the boundary of a designated zone. They cite an example of someone whose car update included terms allowing manufacturers and authorities to activate geofencing. The speaker suggests this technology will be linked to digital IDs, allowing authorities to identify car occupants via facial recognition. They speculate that attempts to mask one's face might prevent the car from starting. The speaker concludes by expressing a desire to disconnect from the internet and digital devices to avoid a world controlled by a few.

Volkswagen just did something that should make every car owner furious. They're selling their electric I d three with its full horsepower locked behind a paid subscription. The car comes from the factory with 228 horsepower, but if you don't pay a monthly fee, it's software limited to just 201. For about $22 a month, they'll flip a digital switch and unlock the power that was already inside the car that you paid for. Now VW is selling you a subscription for your engine. Their defense, it gives customers a sportier driving experience without a higher initial purchase price. Imagine a monthly fee to use the high heat setting on your oven or the fast cycle on your dishwasher. You don't own the product. You're just renting its best features.

Tesla's fundamental value is to accelerate sustainable energy and autonomy. Without electrification and autonomy, a new car company cannot succeed. Car companies make money selling parts for existing cars, not new car sales. After the warranty expires, companies profit from high-margin replacement parts. This creates a barrier to entry for new car companies without an existing fleet. To succeed, a new car company must charge more for its cars than competitors. The product must be compelling enough to justify the premium. Winning on both autonomy and electrification is essential to make the product worth the higher price.

The Las Vegas police department added 10 Cybertrucks to their fleet, sparking outrage due to the vehicle's expense and unsuitability for police work. The sheriff clarified the Cybertrucks were anonymously donated. The speaker asserts that billionaires are funding the police. Donations for police operations, like Cybertrucks or Flock cameras, directly fund policing in the community. The speaker claims that Flock cameras and Cybertrucks, which are capable of autonomous driving, provide data to those who donate and give them control and influence over the policing system.

In a Toyota '20 25, the screen navigation requires a subscription; "you can't use navigation unless you pay a subscription fee for it." You can't hook your phone up to use free navigation. The speaker notes subscription fees: "it's $15 a month" and "it's also $15 a month to stream music to the actual screen in your car." Together it's "$25 a month." They mention a forum claim: "it's $8 a month to be able to see your oil level and your tire pressure." They also say "The car is, like, $40" to use the car and the key fob. "Remote start" requires a subscription: "you have to literally pay a subscription fee to get remote start." The vehicle is capable of all these things, and "What the fuck reality is to use them."

The speaker expresses growing concern about how modern cars are becoming surveillance devices through automated driver assistance systems (ADAS) and connected technology. He describes a recent rental car as full of surveillance features, noting that ADAS regulations are EU-based but likely to be adopted worldwide. These systems can beep for minor speed overages and require constant attention to the windscreen; they can also shout if you remove your hands from the wheel. He cites that, on average, there are more than ten cameras in a car, most of which face inward to monitor the driver, with at least one camera focusing on the eyes to assess whether the driver is looking at the screen or is tired, suggesting that the goal is to ensure the driver cannot effectively control the car. He introduces the concept of geofencing, describing it as a feature that could restrict a vehicle’s operation when it crosses the edge of a defined boundary, such as the boundary of a “fifteen minute city.” He explains that with always-on, connected cars, crossing the boundary could trigger the car to slow down or enter a limp mode, allowing only first and second gear and effectively preventing out-of-bound travel. He urges listeners to look up geofencing as a standalone term and shares a personal anecdote: a dealer updated a car, and the owner had to accept new terms and conditions that allowed the manufacturer and authorities to activate geofencing software in the vehicle. The speaker connects these technologies to broader identification and tracking systems, suggesting that the car already reveals its location and that the owners' identity could be inferred by associating the car with the driver through facial recognition captured by in-car cameras. He speculates that masking could prevent the car from starting, and he imagines an intentionally malicious designer could exploit such features. He asks whether this is the world people want and expresses a personal desire to detach from the Internet and digital devices, even at the cost of inconvenience, as a way to avoid concentrated control. He emphasizes that the crucial point is a world that cannot be taken over by a small number of people.

Today, I will demonstrate the software defined vehicle using a PlayStation controller. This remote driving demo is solely for showcasing the technology, but we strongly believe that software has the potential to create new functions and value.

The speaker argues that five years ago the WEF claimed we would own nothing by 2030, tied to the UN Agenda 2030, with digital ID as a key component. They question how ownership has shifted toward non-ownership in that period. They point to homeownership: ownership in homes has remained flat over the last five years while rent has skyrocketed, with a claimed increase of 5,600,000.0. As a result, homeownership is expected to decline, and younger generations, particularly Gen Z, are described as priced out and the largest generation ever to be renting. The speaker claims many goods and services are moving to subscription models. They note that vehicles are adopting subscription features from brands like Toyota, Mercedes, and BMW, and that farming equipment from John Deere can be shut down if a subscription service is not maintained, with mechanics needed to fix issues tied to that service. Printer ink subscriptions are cited with HP, asserting that canceling the ink subscription would cause the printer to stop functioning. They argue that media, movies, and music have moved to streaming services, and ownership is eroded because items are stored in cloud rather than in the user’s possession. CDs and DVDs are gone, and gaming systems can be shut down if the user’s behavior is not acceptable. Software previously owned, such as Adobe Creative Suite, Quicken, and Microsoft Office, is now offered on a subscription basis, so users no longer own the software but pay to use it regularly. Ebooks are also hosted on Kindle, with a specific claim that in 2009 Amazon removed George Orwell’s books from some users’ digital libraries. The speaker asserts that such controls illustrate how digital content can be removed. They argue that digital ID would enable even broader control, allowing authorities to shut users down or deny access to services. The speaker emphasizes that incremental steps are leading toward owning nothing and paying regularly for access to services that were once purchased outright. They claim social media platforms can suspend users for things they disapprove of, reinforcing the potential reach of this agenda. The overall conclusion presented is that this is the direction of Agenda 2030 and how ownership is being eroded.

The speaker analyzes Tesla's situation by focusing on valuation and future cash flows rather than hype. They note Tesla has a market cap of about a trillion and is selling at around 15 times revenues, with autos and auto-related services making up 87% of sales. They argue that even if Tesla is not exclusively an auto company, valuing it on its parts yields a rough figure of about $50 per share at best, or less. A central claim is that Elon Musk stated their current system for robotaxis, self-driving cars, and related robotics “doesn't work,” which undermines a large portion of the bull case built on those future businesses. The speaker cites a recording with Gordon Johnson to discuss Tesla’s components, suggesting a generous valuation would still place the stock around $50, far below current levels. The speaker asserts this creates significant legal liability risks, implying potential refunds or litigation from customers or regulators, and mentions Tesla’s per-share earnings estimates: Gordon Johnson around $1 per share; Street consensus around $1.80, with a possibility of a loss. With 3,700,000,000 shares outstanding, they estimate a potential market-cap impact of roughly $4 to $6 billion in earnings, contrasted with last year’s $6 billion in depreciation and amortization. They project substantial capital expenditures of $25 billion, leading to cash flow negativity and the likely need to issue equity. They forecast auto sales to decline for the third consecutive year and label Tesla’s valuation at 15 times revenues as “complete insanity,” noting they will not delve into price-earnings ratios further. They challenge the defense that the company’s value lies in robotaxis and other ventures, arguing the market has already punished the stock despite hype. For comparison, the speaker contrasts Tesla with Waymo, claiming Waymo has 10 million miles and is valued at $100 billion, suggesting that even with a modest auto value (roughly $20 if generous, or $30 when including the robot/AI angle), the combined case still falls short: Waymo’s valuation implies Tesla would be far from reaching even $30 per share. They summarize the current price at $3.80 and conclude the stock is effectively priced for failure, implying a forthcoming crash. The speaker dismisses opposing views as irrelevant to the core facts presented and ends by asserting that Tesla investors will eventually realize the returns they deserve, closing with a nod to a famous quote about opinions versus facts.

An automobile has really represented freedom. 'Freedom to go wherever the heck you want, whenever you want.' Yeah. And the politicians have hated it from day one. You know? 'It's like it's too hard to control a population that's free to do whatever they want.' Here here's what said narrative manipulation will play a role. The media will portray manual drivers as dangerous or selfish as they once did with anti maskers. Expect op eds like, why letting grandpa drive as a threat to public safety, or should you be allowed to drive when AI can do it safer? Yeah.

On June 8, 2024, Brian's 2023 Toyota Corolla GR caught fire unexpectedly. Although some damages were covered by insurance, Toyota denied his warranty claim, citing data showing he had driven over 85 mph, unrelated to the fire. A Mozilla Foundation report revealed that all 25 major car brands, including Toyota, fail to meet privacy standards, collecting sensitive data like health and driving habits. Car companies are selling this data to insurance firms, impacting premiums without drivers' knowledge. Many drivers are unaware their data is shared with third parties, often hidden in legal jargon. Critics call for clearer consumer protections, emphasizing the need for transparency in data collection practices and its implications on insurance costs. While data can improve services, the potential for misuse is significant, raising concerns about consumer rights in the evolving auto industry.

A person states that they and their husband drive Teslas. They learned that a friend is being disowned and uninvited from gatherings by friends and family simply for driving a Tesla. The speaker emphasizes that owning a Tesla is not a political statement or an attempt to impose beliefs on others. The friend is facing social consequences solely because of the car they drive.

Speaker rents a car for repairs and asserts, 'These new cars are cell phone towers. That's what that is right there. See that?' and, 'you can't turn them off.' They suggest buying an old car to avoid being blasted with radio frequencies the entire time checked out, like a cell phone tower while you're driving around. 'So when they ask where all the chat GPT information is coming from, guess what? Here you go.' They mention 'GSR speed assist app.' 'This tracks your speed so that Google gets your information the entire time,' and claim, 'Google knows and they can get send you a ticket.' Finally, 'In the newer cars, you're not allowed to turn this LTE off. You can turn off Bluetooth and Wi Fi, but you can't turn off your car being a cell phone.'

I have a Tesla. I got it because it's a cool car. Nothing to do with its green aspirations, which I don't buy into anyways. But in The US, the largest segment of employment in The United States is driver. And the FSD is to the point now, it will be within the next six months, it's gonna eliminate over time all of those jobs. When I asked AI about it, it said in ten years, you will be perceived as a, an insane person for wanting to drive your own car, and you'll be banished. Driving is just like, forget it, unless you live in an inner city and you take mass transit all over. But for most of us in the world here in North America, driving is fundamental to our day to day existence.