Argument I’ve seen is that it’s a better chance having someone that might eventually pay rather than no one with absolutely no possibility for pay.
They’ve got to be doing a whole lot of damage with the changes they’re doing so it seems more of a negative thing to keep them to me, but then again, I’m not a landlord 
Because it’s the building owner’s responsibility to make sure their building is in compliance with local regulations. Normally when a tenant fucks up a building in such a way that the city gets involved then the landlord either passes those costs on to the tenant or just evicts them entirely.
Yeah, and I’d buy that in the current office leasing business environment, but he’s messing up the property.
It’s like how small landlords always say they don’t want to rent to college kids because they won’t respect the property. Shorenstein has accidentally rented to Chi Beta Douchebag and now the frat is tearing the place up.
As soon as Musk buys a house, they should plant that burning X on his lawn.
Summary:
Several years ago the town of Jun opened a twitter account for making it easier to communicate with the town. This was lauded by the MIT, appeared in several international newspapers and in general, has aged like spoiled milk.
So they are removing the signage and all references because being associated with the moss aisley of social media does not project a good image.
On my side of the pond this would depend on what the building’s owner and the company renting it have agreed upon in the contract.
And when in doubt, both get a nice letter for a start, what’s what will be sorted out from who reacts how.
Shit that’s scary.
Also - they’ll brick your car.
Putting the responsibility for a building on the building’s owner simplifies the city’s job. A building owner could have any number of lessees who signed who knows what kind of contracts, and it really shouldn’t be up to the city to have to go through everyone’s individual rental agreements when it comes to building code compliance. Your building, your responsibility.
Obviously there’s nothing stopping the building owner from passing the cost on to Musk, or better yet tossing his ass to the curb.
Thanks for explaining my job (well, some aspects of it, anyway), but a lot hinges on the contract(s).
For an industrial property the owner(s) can delegate their responsibilities to the lessee(s). It doesn’t take much time to check who is responsible for what, but going after the wrong party can waste a lot of time and effort.
I did mention that I’m not on the same continent as San Francisco, so maybe over here things are different.
Yup.
I figure what’s going to happen is that they’re going to try to brick the cars that don’t match what’s enabled vs what’s sold and screw up and brick a whole bunch that shouldn’t be.
Twitter isn’t the sole leaseholder for that building, just the most prominent. Last I’d heard they were only using three floors.
Seems like getting your car bricked would be the least of your concerns with such a serious security flaw out there.
(Ok, the Fast and Furious franchise is obviously silly but real-life car hacking is a legitimate concern these days.)
It requires physical access for a long time, so I wouldn’t consider it that bad. Bad for Tesla if things can be enabled, moderately bad for owners with their data becoming available, not bad for safety over and above enabling FSD.
The Blackhat presentation hasn’t been held yet, but the summary mentions being able to migrate the identity tied to the car to another, accessing private data, or enabling the heated seats already in the cars (which the Tom’s Hardware article says Tesla charges 300 USD to unlock). FSD might not be within the realm of this exploit.
In an email to Tom’s Hardware, one of the researchers clarified that not all Tesla software upgrades are accessible, so it remains to be seen if those premium options will also be ripe for picking.
Sooner or later, he’s going to take them all.
X user quits paying for Twitter Blue to protest X commandeering his account.
oooh. $8 / month will show Elon who’s boss.
I hope that all of this is making it very clear to anyone who thinks they are staying on Twitter in order to build their brand (or really for any reason at all) that you are building on shifting sands and as long as you depend on not just Twitter, but any of these platforms, you are at their mercy. Elon is the one making this the most obvious but it has always been the case.
