Random Musk Fan Tries To Get Trademarks On Tesla’s Behalf, Which Is Not How This Works

from the sigh dept

It’s amazing how some people think trademarks work. In the last week or so, several media outlets briefly went into a frenzy over a trademark application that was filed for Tesla’s yet to be released Cybertruck specifically for vehicle categories other than “on land” vehicles. Notably, Elon Musk made some questionable claims that the Cybertruck, which has been delayed for over a year now, was waterproof enough that it could be used as both a truck and a boat. While this led to government officials hurriedly imploring the public to not attempt to drive their non-existent trucks into the water on the basis of the claim by Musk, that fact led many to believe that Musk was going to make good on his claim to make a half-truck, half-boat hybrid vehicle and, oh god, I cannot even believe I’m writing this sentence.

But no, the truth is actually somehow much dumber than that. You would have to be blind to not have noticed that a cult following has sprung up around Musk. For a certain segment of the population, the man can do no wrong. Not only that, but this following also appears to enjoy running to Musk’s rescue whenever a perceived slight occurs, as though they expect some kind of relationship with the man to suddenly spring into existence as a reward.

And that, dear friends, is how you get to a place where a Musk fan applied for the boat-related trademarks on Tesla’s behalf.

In the wake of Musk promising the company’s much-hyped Cybertruck can double as a boat, Tesla enthusiast Jerome Eady thought he could save his favorite billionaire some legwork.

The Elon superfan filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office on the automaker’s behalf to extend the Tesla trademark to electric “not for land vehicles,” namely boats and airplanes, Bloomberg reports — a baffling decision, considering he isn’t affiliated with Tesla in any way.

Now I’m sure this post will be visited by the hivemind in the comments, but that simply isn’t how any of this works. If you like Elon Musk, good for you. So be it. There’s plenty I like about him myself. If you think liking him gives you license to apply for trademarks for his companies on his behalf, then it’s probably time to seek psychiatric care. You simply cannot do that.

As of the time of this writing, the status on the application still reads that it’s waiting an assignment for review, but you can fully expect it to be tossed out immediately, given that Eady has no grounds to apply for the mark for a company he isn’t remotely involved in.

Will the Cybertruck hit the waves some day? Hey, it’s possible. I think I’ll wait to see if it can hit the streets, first.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: tesla

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Random Musk Fan Tries To Get Trademarks On Tesla’s Behalf, Which Is Not How This Works”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
210 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Someone anonymously wrote a post jokingly implying that the person who submitted a trademark application in place of Musk was you.

You then called that post a “slur” directed at you, as though it was meant to be taken seriously. (It clearly wasn’t.) I pointed out it was a joke, and you were reading a slur into it that wasn’t actually there. You responded to me by saying I was “reading a lot into not very much”.

Stephen then said that you were projecting. There are three parts to this:

  1. At no point in my post was I reading much into anything. All I did was point out that someone was obviously joking, not slurring you like you explicitly said they were. That’s clearly not a case of me “reading a lot into not very much”.
  2. In this very thread, you read a slur against you into a post that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously. That is a case where you read a meaning into something that simply isn’t there.
  3. Additionally, you have on multiple occasions been accused of reading threats and coercion (among other things) into the Twitter Files that simply are not there. Even if you don’t agree with that (obviously), it does provide a reason to say that you are projecting when accusing someone else of reading too much into something.

Are you still confused? Because honestly at this point, I’m confused about what you don’t understand about all this. It’s pretty straightforward. Even if you don’t agree with the reasons given for saying you’re projecting, it shouldn’t be hard for you to figure out what they’re talking about.

And yes, you literally did accuse the AC of “slurring” you in the post I was replying to:

Point being that they had posted under “anonymous” to slur me, who uses a consistent name. (happens to be my actual name)

(Emphasis added.)

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Darwin Awards, Darwin Awards everywhere...

Notably, Elon Musk made some questionable claims that the Cybertruck, which has been delayed for over a year now, was waterproof enough that it could be used as both a truck and a boat. While this led to government officials hurriedly imploring the public to not attempt to drive their non-existent trucks into the water on the basis of the claim by Musk, that fact led many to believe that Musk was going to make good on his claim to make a half-truck, half-boat hybrid vehicle and, oh god, I cannot even believe I’m writing this sentence.

And yet you know one or more of them will do it anyway because Musk, who can do no wrong said it, and it will be glorious.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

I mean, the Muskrats have been posting videos about them driving through flooded streets with their 70K cars. I’ve seen reports that like submerging your phone, it might work fine at first, and fail in the hours or days later as any minor flaw or corrosion can let water work its way to where it shouldn’t.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“waterproof” essentially isn’t a thing, it’s a term that’s been sued of existent as supposedly misleading. “water resistant” is what most people think of as “waterproof” (usually to a certain pressure depth). I have no idea how long you can keep a new iphone submerged but it’s quite a while. Probably indefinitely and it’s the depth you have to worry about.

The comparison was wrong and dumb. Sorry not sorry.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Considering that YOU keep coming to this site to harass people…

Even though this was more aimed at Elon’s fanbois who think they can get trademarks on behalf of their Racist White South African Cult Leader whose mind never left Apartheid South Africa, if you found it offensive enough to respond, congrats.

YOU’RE IN THE CULT.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Elon could really use a boat.
Things aren’t exactly going swimmingly for him lately.
Some of his investments are underwater. Tesla stock is taking a dive. He is way out of his depth trying to manage Twitter, which itself is treading water at best. Not to mention that he is in hot water with a bunch of regulatory entities.

He should not build his own though, seeing how he seems unable to stop leaks.
Full Self Drowning engage!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, they’re Duck Boats, routinely branded as such in tours in most major US cities that have large bodies of water nearby. “Duck Boats” is now the common name for them. Furthermore, I knew that, I didn’t use it because it is not the name by which they are most easily recognized.

Using an older, less known name for them is not a correction, and frankly kinda pathetic as an attempt.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Using an older, less known name for them is not a correction, and frankly kinda pathetic as an attempt.

What’s pathetic is that you are wrong and acting like you are correct.

D – production series
U – Utility
K – Front wheel drive
W – Tandem rear axles, both driven

That is their name. Just because commercial companies called themselves Duck Boats, does not change the FACT that they are and forever will be DUKW boats.

Anything else is just an amphibious vehicle.

Simple as that you pathetic fucking idiot.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You are making a big deal out of not much and still failing.

A “name” is whatever someone uses to refer to a thing and others recognize what they’re talking about. I would not have corrected you had you initially called them DUKW Boats but “Duck Boats” is actually more common. Yes, common usage absolutely changes names. Things can and in fact usually do have more than one name.

They’re called Duck Boats. Don’t get mad at me cuz your pedantic attempt to seem smart failed.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Cuz the majority are not even DUKW boats (some are, SOME). They superficially resemble them but are actually substantially redesigned (and often a very different size). Some are completely different.

You’re just wrong.

Here’s a link you like so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_tour

Now kindly STFU and go away. Take the L

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Go do a quick experiment… search for “duck boat” on wikipedia and tell me what happens?

Here, I’ll help:

“Duck boat” redirects here. For tours using amphibious vehicles, see Duck tour.

So, can you not see the difference that the tour groups are called “duck tours” but the boats themselves, if you search for “duck boat”, are called DUKW boats.

Why does that term “duck boat” redirect to the page of the DUKW boats?

If you feel you are “more correct” than wikipedia, I urge you to go and edit that page.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:9

….you…you realize that redirection indicates that “Duck Boat” is one name for them, right? That one thing is the first and most obvious example of a Duck Boat? But most Duck boats are not DUKW boats. Very few, these days, in fact.

All facial tissue is not Kleenex. You can’t try to correct someone and say “it’s not ‘facial tissue’ it’s ‘Kleenex!'” but that’s not how it works. You could call it either but can’t “correct” someone and insist they call it by the brand name.

Duck Boats is derived from DUKW but DUKW is only one type of Duck Boat, and is also a duck boat.

You lost. Go homne.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Wikipedia literally is telling you DUKW are a type of Duck Boat, or can be called Duck Boat.

Wikipedia is literally telling you that if you call something a duck boat, it’s actually a DUKW boat.

How do you not understand that?

Otherwise, why wouldn’t the DUWK page redirect to the “duck boat” page?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

You still haven’t demonstrated that “duck boats” is not a valid term for the amphibious vehicles in question. All you have demonstrated is that “DUKW boats” is a valid term, and that “duck boats” doesn’t have a Wikipedia article separate from it. That a given term doesn’t have a Wikipedia article distinct from anything else doesn’t mean the term is incorrect.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

If duck boat was generic, Wikipedia would not link it to DUCKW.

I’ve seen plenty of cases where a generic term is redirected to a more specific term. Where in the rules for redirection does it say otherwise?

The Wikipedia editors know the difference between a generic and specific name, and an alternative name.

I’m sure they do. However, that one term redirects to another doesn’t tell us which reason was the basis for deciding which one to use.

Moreover, if this is a case of an alternative name, this only further demonstrates that redirection on Wikipedia doesn’t prove that a specific term is incorrect.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, Matthew is correct for once. While the first duck boats were just modified DUKW boats bought from surplus from the military, they were still called “duck boats” in civilian applications, and most modern ones were never used by the military and were custom-made almost from the ground up for civilian use with numerous design changes to make it better suited for giving tours on land and on the water, so it’d actually be less correct to call them “DUKW boats”.

Now, there is still the fact that Elon’s trucks would clearly be different from duck boats or DUKW boats, which were specifically designed to act both as boats and as land vehicles, but he is certainly not wrong to call the vehicles used on so-called “duck tours” the name “duck boats” because that is what they were actually called and branded as in civilian use.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Flakbait (profile) says:

Prediction delayed

In the early 60s, Newsweek had an article on the Amphicar, a car that really did operate on land and water (fastest car in the water; fastest boat on land). They said that, “it promises to revolutionize drowning.” Unfortunately for them, that didn’t come to fruition as the thing worked as advertised.

Perhaps the prediction can be dusted off in the near future and reused to describe the aquatic demise of overly enthusiastic Teslavangelists.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re:

  1. Big Tech does get regulated like any other industry. It just doesn’t get held responsible for how others use the platform (outside of CSAM, which is a very narrow exception) and can moderate user-generated content as it wishes because platform holders also have 1A rights and are not responsible for how others use their platform.
  2. Social media platforms are no more responsible for cyber bullying, harassment, or cyberstalking using their platforms than email providers, telephone companies, or postage companies are responsible for bullying, harassment, or stalking done using their services, or a business who sells cutlery is responsible for one of their customers using a knife bought from them to kill someone. That’s just not how it works. Suing the messenger does nothing to actually solve the real problems here.
  3. Repealing §230 wouldn’t make platforms legally responsible. They still have 1A rights, and there is still the issue of the fact that they are not legally responsible for how others use their platforms under basic legal principles regarding fault.
  4. Moderation at scale is impossible. Both false positives and false negatives are inevitable. Your expectations are simply unrealistic.
  5. This article isn’t even about §230. It’s about trademarks and Musk’s not-yet-released truck. There are plenty of articles on this site where §230 is relevant; this isn’t one of them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

Re:

“Outed himself as a terrible person”. Literally all you mean by that is “does not always agree with liberals”.

None of you hated him before he ripped up his factories from CA and moved them to TX over bad CA regulation, and you only REALLY hated him once started pointing out Twitter’s moderation policies were very bad and politically skewed. (And btw, it turns out it was much worse than even he knew, then)

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. It has nothing to do with anything he’s done, merely that he’s called out liberal bullshit.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Literally all you mean by that is “does not always agree with liberals”.

Yes, because Musk calling someone a pedophile without any proof because said someone rebuffed Musk’s offer to help do something he had no business sticking his nose into is the exact same thing as “not agreeing with liberals”~.

Dude, do you listen to yourself talk, or do your ears filter out everything you say so you don’t accidentally damage your brain?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

……that’s what your handing your hat on? A random insult you don’t agree with amounts to “outed himself as a terrible” person? As if the calling anyone you disagree with racists, nazis, bigots isn’t the stock and trade of the majority of liberals?

Do YOU listen to yourself?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

A random insult you don’t agree with amounts to “outed himself as a terrible” person?

Musk literally accused someone of being a pedophile without proof, and he did that because said someone essentially told Musk to fuck off when he wanted to interfere with the rescue of several children trapped in a cave. Yes, that makes Musk a terrible person⁠—especially since he never really apologized for making that baseless accusation.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I get called a racist by unhinged liberals (including in this comment section, even though no issue touching on race has even come up) several times a day. Insults are cheap.
Again, fucking so?

Again, you HATE him, for reasons that are based him opposing your (largely awful) goals. Starting from that fact you’re looking for a justification. That he called one guy a pedo maybe without reason to is not a terribly great justification. But you’ll grasp at anything.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

That he called one guy a pedo maybe without reason to is not a terribly great justification.

Actually, it kind of is. Who does that sort of shit besides assholes?

And again: I dislike Musk, but I don’t hate him. That would imply I have any real emotional investment in his existence⁠—which, beyond mocking him, I don’t.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

WarioBarker (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

I demand a higher quality of insult.

You know, I considered it.

I considered pulling out one of SFDebris’ lengthy insults and changing a few names. I considered copy-pasting a decent-size insult I made towards someone else here a while back. I even considered crafting a brand-new insult here.

I considered all those things.

…but I decided you’re just not worth my time and effort.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That’s not true⁠—you disagree with me all the time, and I don’t hate you. I can’t hate you because I don’t even know you.

And by the by, I don’t even hate Elon Musk. He’s a privileged halfwit who lucked into being the richest man in the world and decided to use his wealth and privilege for the sake of building a cult of personality around himself and a bunch of companies he bought but didn’t actually found, but that’s not enough to make me hate him. Dislike him thoroughly, yes, but not hate.

The only person in this world that I truly, unequivocally, from-the-bottom-of-my-heart hate is Donald Trump. And if you have to ask why, you’re probably part of his cult of personality, too.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Hate is a strong emotion, as it should be. Hate should, ideally, be reserved for someone who does things so terrible and so hurtful to you or to others that their continued existence fills you with rage.

I don’t feel that way about Elon Musk. At all. I don’t like the guy, but dislike is different from hate. If Musk does something stupid, I don’t generally care other than to point and laugh at him doing something stupid (and to point out how it will affect other people). Otherwise, I pay him no mind, because I don’t need to. I don’t own a Tesla, I don’t use Twitter, and nothing else he does affects my life.

You’re the one who keeps rushing to his defense every time someone even mildly criticizes him in the smallest way. You’re the one who keeps harping on about how great Musk is and how we’re all just haters who can’t see his playing-5D-chess genius. You’re the only person here who is having strong emotions about Elon Musk, and I think you owe it to yourself to figure out why you’re so eager to kiss the ass of someone who would probably kill you if it meant his obscene wealth would grow even more obscene.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Again, your critizims are dumb. I’m annoyed at the hypocrisy. I’m annoyed that most of you seemed to like the old censorship (which I hated with a passion) and I’m annoyed that you all want to look the other way on government involvement.

I find the double standards on Clinton-Trump-Biden maddening.

For the nth time, I’m really here to point out what you (and others, primarily Masnick) say is dumb and makes no sense. If you want me to defend Musk less, be less mindlessly surreal in attacking him.

“who would probably kill you if it meant his obscene wealth would grow even more obscene” See? You have no basis to say that, it’s just made up mindless shit because yes, despite your protestations, you hate him. Which is fine if you have a good reason, but you don’t.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

most of you seemed to like the old censorship (which I hated with a passion)

Yes, yes, you want to say the N-word without consequence, we get it.

I’m annoyed that you all want to look the other way on government involvement.

None of us are looking the other way. We’re looking right at the evidence provided by Elon Musk himself, and we’re noting that it doesn’t show any kind of coercion or threats coming from the FBI. If you can point to the exact language in the letter that threatens or otherwise attempts to coerce Twitter into doing exactly what the FBI wants⁠—or to any consequences visited upon Twitter for its refusal to act on more than half of the suggestions sent to it by the U.S. government⁠—this would be a great time to do that.

I’m really here to point out what you (and others, primarily Masnick) say is dumb and makes no sense

It only makes no sense if you assume that conservatives/right-wingers are always telling the truth and liberals/progressives/left-wingers are always lying. Otherwise, looking at the plain language of the letter shows that the FBI didn’t demand that Twitter take action on any of the suggestions “or else”. I’m not going to kiss the collective ass of the FBI, but I’m not going to condemn it for something it didn’t do.

You have no basis to say that

He is obscenely wealthy and he didn’t get that way by doing hard labor. Chances are good that he’s done more than a few illegal, immoral, and/or unethical things to get where he is today. If he felt he needed to kill you just so he wouldn’t lose any more of his personal wealth, I have little doubt that he’d find a way to have you killed. People with that kind of power and wealth will never give it up, and they will go to lengths greater than you can imagine to keep it.

I mean, look at Donald Trump. He instigated an insurrection against the U.S. government in an attempt to hold onto the power of the presidency.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Yes, yes, you want to say the N-word without consequence, we get it.

Ooooooooo, the “because you disagree with me you must be racist” argument. Inventive. You guys never haul out that one.

Tbh kinda skimmed here…

He is obscenely wealthy and he didn’t get that way by doing hard labor

Ooooooo, the commie argument. Cool, cool, another raely seen, esoteric play.

Y’know you seemed smarter than a lot of the posters at first. You don’t anymore.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Outed himself as a terrible person”. Literally all you mean by that is “does not always agree with liberals”.

Nope. He also is a dick to his employees and detractors regardless of political affiliation, thinks he knows better than experts, can’t admit when he’s wrong, thinks he’s above the law, is a hypocrite, lies, unilaterally decides not to pay what he owes despite having plenty of money to pay for things with, is thin-skinned, and so on. None of it has anything to do with political views.

None of you hated him before he ripped up his factories from CA and moved them to TX over bad CA regulation, […]

I was honestly unaware of this. I also don’t care. I have no idea why you think anyone else here cares about that, either.

[…] and you only REALLY hated him once started pointing out Twitter’s moderation policies were very bad and politically skewed.

  1. Nope. It was pointed out that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and he has since demonstrated that he is incompetent at running a social media platform and is a massive hypocrite when it comes to speech and moderation of social media platforms, which we called out. That’s not hate; it’s fair criticism. And the reason Musk has appeared more often since then is because he has inserted himself into a position related to previously espoused positions on this very site and has done a lot of crazy things ever since in that capacity. Before Musk, Twitter and Jack Dorsey were also discussed fairly frequently, but now Musk is in charge of Twitter, he is a lot more directly involved with every thing Twitter does now than Jack Dorsey ever was (so now just about everything newsworthy that involves Twitter can be traced to Elon fairly directly), and Musk’s Twitter is doing a lot more newsworthy things a lot more frequently than pre-Musk Twitter ever did.
  2. I still haven’t seen actual evidence of any political skew in Twitter’s moderation policies (except possibly a somewhat conservative skew), and whatever problems Twitter’s moderation policies may have had pre-Musk, they are now a lot worse.

(And btw, it turns out it was much worse than even he knew, then)

No, it really hasn’t. The so-called “Twitter Files” have been almost entirely unremarkable; they’ve just been used as evidence for claims unsupported by their actual contents. Not much in there is all that surprising.

That’s it. That’s the whole thing. It has nothing to do with anything he’s done, merely that he’s called out liberal bullshit.

Tell me this: Is trying to back out of a contract you signed using obviously false excuses, banning journalists who disagree with you or point out the existence of an account on another site, refusing to pay bills you owe, shutting down critical servers without any precautions, laying off a significant portion of your employees (including many highly experienced and critical people), putting major policy decisions in the hands of an online poll, micromanaging everything, and ignoring legally binding agreements and laws “call[ing] out liberal bullshit”? If so, please explain how it is in any way.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

“thinks he knows better than experts, can’t admit when he’s wrong…is a hypocrite, lies..is thin-skinned..”

All of that would apply to Masnick on the subject of Twitter and Musk, which is the main reason I’m here.

I basically disagree with all your other precepts. Twitter is much much better off under Musk.

I don’t think he tried to back out of a contract under false pretences, I think they were entirely legitimate reasons. Twitter was in much worse shape than people want.

Of course he can ban journalists cuz they annoy him, “it’s a private company” remember? At least this time it’s not happening at government suggestion. Several of those people such as Taylor Lorenz were actually awful people who had doxxed private citizens.

I’m really not here to defend him, I’m here to point out your criticisms are dumb. Sure, he’s thin skinned. And?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“I was honestly unaware of this. I also don’t care. I have no idea why you think anyone else here cares about that, either.”

Heh, that’s a new one. Is our friend so ignorant that he thinks that because TD is hosted in CA then all its users are, blissfully unaware that people on the other side of the planet are laughing at him and his god emperor?

Yeah, weirdly, I care more about hate and abuse being platformed by an incompetent moron than I do about which patch of land on the other side of the Atlantic he chose for a business that’s unrelated to it other than the poor fortune to have the same idiot in charge of the purse strings.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Yeah, I honestly don’t get this one. The other stuff I can at least kinda see why he’d think it’s true or a good argument (even though it obviously isn’t), but I really have no idea where this one came from.

Heck, I’m from the US, but I’m not from either CA or TX, nor do I work for or with any of Elon’s businesses (at least in a way that where they’re located makes any difference), so I don’t care where his factories are. Even if you lived in those states, you’d likely only care insofar as the factories provided jobs in your area (and these are big states, so most people living there were probably not in the relevant areas), so I really have no idea why he thinks that has anything to do with anything here. There have even been large businesses headquartered in my state that I had no idea were based in my state because I just don’t care where they are.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew Bennett says:

You guys know Duck Boats are a thing, right?

Because you hate him, you want to make fun of anything he says, but there are like a dozen examples of car/boat hybrids. There’s not a big market for the concept, but it’s a relatively easy thing to do.

By all means, mock the copyright nonsense, but none of this actually has anything to do with Musk.

But you guys want to point and laugh, no matter how vapid the excuse, and buncha relatively unsuccessful readers are going to say “oh look at how dumb the richest man in the world is!” as if they had any reason to be saying that beyond partisan hatred (funny, since until recently Musk considered himself a liberal) and jealousy.

It’s all just very dumb.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Kinda irrelvant [sic], since the author was attacking the concept of boat/car hybrids even existing.

No, the author said nothing about amphibious vehicles in general. If you’re going to attack an article, it works best to attack what is actually in the article. Otherwise you may get accused of attacking a straw man, because we can all scroll up and read what is really there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

If you can read, where does the article attack amphibious boats as a general concept rather than the specific notion that a particular vehicle is amphibious?

In context, the latter interpretation appears more parsimonious IMO, but you seem to love to insist that no one could possible interpret things differently than you (both where multiple interpretations are possible and where you are objectively wrong), so please point to the specific language you’re getting your interpretation from, and we can work from there.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

This is about trademark, not copyright. The Cybertruck is a physical, practical invention thus covered by patent law. The software inside will be covered by copyright law. The words and visual symbols Tesla will use to identify the Cybertruck as Tesla’s product when Tesla sells Cybertrucks are trademarks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

If you told me Hitler couldn’t draw I’d tell you you’re dumb and he tried to go to art school.

I’m not going to say that Hitler couldn’t draw, but the fact that Hitler tried to go to art school is not evidence that he is actually capable of drawing. Indeed, one could point to the fact that he failed to go to art school as evidence that he actually couldn’t draw.

Again, not saying that Hitler was actually bad at drawing, but your argument that he wasn’t is incredibly weak.

More importantly, how is that even remotely related to the comment you’re replying to? Here’s what it says, in its entirety:

It’s not censored if you can still read it, dipshit.

Nothing about what you said relates to that. It’s a complete non sequitur. It wasn’t even about the general notion of pointing out when someone says something dumb and wrong; it was about whether comments that can still be read are censorship, which is a completely different topic altogether.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Well that’s funny, cuz I am quite sure I care about Musk a lot less personally than you do. I’m just pointing out how dumb your criticism is. You resort to saying I’m “kissing his ass” and talking about “cults” cuz you don’t have anything else.

This is part of the inanity. You just hate him because he disagrees with you on a few key things and has the power to make that matter. And because the facts aren’t on your side you’ll resort grade school level insults.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I am quite sure I care about Musk a lot less personally than you do

…says the dude who defends everything Musk says and does, to the point where you literally tried to wave away his accusing someone of being a pedophile without proof as a mere “insult” rather than a serious, potentially life-destroying accusation.

Like, I like AOC, but I’m not nearly as much of a simp for her as you are for Musk, and you make that abundantly clear every time you defend your favorite oligarch from even the mildest criticism. Again: You do know that kissing his ass won’t make you rich, right?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

If you were paying attention (obviously you are not) I’m much more interested in pointing out how fucking dumb everything you say is than defending Musk. I’m only lukewarm on Musk, tho his shitposting is pretty funny.

WHY would you like AOC? She’s an actual idiot who spends her days in theatrics and giving shame to the institution who apparently rubber stamped her economics degree. But yeah, that tracks, of COURSE you do. You probably like Bernie, too.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If you were paying attention (obviously you are not) I’m much more interested in pointing out how fucking dumb everything you say is

And yet, when you do that, you’re defending your favorite oligarch from criticism because you’re trying to make the rest of us shut up about him. Which, hey, you’re free to try doing that.

I mean, you’ll fail, but you’re still free to try. 😁

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The facts are not your side so you’re going to make up “cults” as if that changes the argument at all.

The “cult” being referred to is not an actual cult, but a “cult of personality”⁠—i.e., a group of people who are enamored with a person not for who he actually is, but for an idealized image of that person as a heroic figure. A cult of personality can be an actual cult, but in the context of this discussion, it’s mainly pointing out how Musk fanboys feel a lot like a cult because of the way they idealize (and thus idolize) Musk. When you defend Musk against even the mildest criticism and refuse to criticize him in even in the tiniest way, you come off as a member of that cult of personality.

I just enjoy owning the libs, man.

What do you think the admission that you like going around trying to hurt people because you don’t agree with their politics says about you, dude? Seriously, I don’t like right-wing politics, but I don’t hang around on services and blogs I don’t like to “own right-wingers” because that would make me an asshole on at least a couple of different levels.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I just enjoy owning the libs

And there we have it folks…

You have absolutely nothing of substance to add to the conversation so all you want to do is shitpost your way in a feeble and childish attempt to “own the libs”

And what the fuck does that even mean? How does your shitpost trolling “own the libs”?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

No, it’s much more commonly known as a Duck Boat, based on the popular tours of the same name. Very few people call them DUKW boats anymore, WW2 was a long time ago, yeah?

If you are going to correct someone, first, be right. Of course, that wasn’t the point, you were just desperately looking for some small thing to smear someone you disagreed with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Very few people call them DUKW boats anymore

It doesn’t matter what people call them, their name is still DUKW. That FACT will not, and can not change.

If you are going to correct someone, first, be right.

I am right… and if not, tell me how I am wrong? Are they not DUKW boats?

BTW, here’s the Wikipedia link to proves I am right!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Actually names change all the time. Let me rephrase: You’re not wrong, I’m merely more correct. More people know of them as “Duck Boats” than “DUKW”. Referring to them as either would be fine, actually, but trying to “correct” me by saying they’re not “Duck Boats” is super dumb.

Suggesting that because they were initially called “DUKW” that that’s the only thing they can ever be called is also extremely dumb and also untrue. That’s literally not how name’s work.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I suppose the point was too subtle for an idiot like you to comprehend what I was saying…

I was more pointing out your childish attempt to be “more correct” than I am.

The fact that you felt you needed to “convince” me that you are “more correct” is something that I would expect to hear in a grade school fracas.

Like anybody even gives a shit about you being “more correct” or not….

But you’re still wrong anyway!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Yes….and wikipedia says you’re wrong.

If I am wrong, then why is the Wikipedia entry list as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW and not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duck%20boat?

If you were right, the main Wiki article would be “duck boat” but it isn’t, it’s DUKW. So that alone proves that you are wrong and that my statement about the proper name being “DUKW” is correct.

Take the L and swallow the load dude… you’ve lost this one over and over and over and over again….

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

That Wikipedia favors one term over another doesn’t mean the other term is wrong; if anything, it tends to (though doesn’t necessarily) mean that the terms are sufficiently related and overlapping such that there is no reason to have a separate article for both, especially if the terms are interchangeable.

Therefore, your citations are at best silent on whether either side is right or wrong, but they could also be evidence that you’re wrong, and that “duck boats” is a valid term. Either way, which term gets used as the title of the article says nothing about the validity or invalidity of other terms. Heck, there are plenty of terms that have no Wikipedia article, so the lack of a Wikipedia article for a term says nothing about the validity of that term.

Seriously, you are reading way too much into the redirect and into how Wikipedia actually works when it comes to article titles. Given multiple terms and/or spellings for the same thing, one of them has to be chosen as the title, while the others are redirected to that. It’d be like having separate articles for “Submarine” and “Sub”, or for “Color” and “Colour”. Additionally, Wikipedia does combine very closely related terms into a single article where there isn’t enough to justify having two different articles. There doesn’t appear to be a universal rule as to which term gets precedence in such a case, so there is no reason to assume that “Duck boats” would be the main title of the combined article rather than “DUKW”. Finally, Wikipedia simply doesn’t have an article for every single term that exists in the English language, so that there isn’t an article for “Duck boats” says nothing about whether or not that is a valid term.

Let me repeat this for emphasis: That DUKW is the title of the main Wiki article rather than “Duck boat” or “Duck Boat” doesn’t mean that “duck boat” is a less proper term than “DUKW”. Wikipedia titles are not prescriptive, nor are they intended to be. Even if both terms are equally valid, only one can be used for the title. That’s just how it works.

This really isn’t that complicated: Wikipedia article titles are not evidence that other terms are improper or less proper than the one in the title, and the lack of a separate article for a given term doesn’t say anything about whether or not that term is proper. It’s just that every article can only have exactly one title, and Wikipedia can’t give every subject its own article. That’s it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That’s not how language works. Words change in meaning, spelling, and pronunciation all the time, and new words to describe existing things or concepts also come into being all the time. “Gay” used to mean “happy”; a “fag” once meant a cigarette; a “nigger” used to refer to a kind of bug; dragons used to be large serpents, not winged, dinosaur-like creatures; starfish are often now called “sea stars” instead; a “computer” was once an occupation; whores used to be called “rakes”; what we now call “donkeys” used to be called “asses”; and so on.

The fact of the matter is that the amphibious vehicles used for so-called “duck tours” are most commonly referred to as “duck boats”, not “DUKW boats”. Even if “DUKW boats” is a correct way to refer to them, that doesn’t make calling them “duck boats” any less correct, so you’re wrong in saying that Matthew is wrong to call them “duck boats”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Do quick experiment… go to wikipedia and search for duck boat and tell me what the results are…

Irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn’t have an article for every single term, and given two terms that are too closely related to have different articles, only one can be the title with any others redirecting to it (and there doesn’t appear to be a rule as to which should be favored in a case like this). It doesn’t disprove anything I said. My claims have no implications at all regarding the titles of Wikipedia articles, and even without doing the experiment, I would not have any expectations whatsoever about the results I would see.

Now, I actually do know the results (“duck boat” redirects to “DUKW”), but that doesn’t actually mean anything other than that “DUKW” is a proper term and that “duck boat” is closely related to that term. It doesn’t mean anything more than that. Again, that’s not how Wikipedia works.

Modern amphibious vehicles are not called duck boats.

I never said all modern amphibious boats are called “duck boats”. I said that duck boats are amphibious boat which include DUKWs that were modified to provide tours for civilians, and that most (though not all) modern duck boats are quite different from DUKWs. That isn’t even remotely the same as saying, “Modern amphibious vehicles are called duck boats.” Don’t twist my words.

Here’s how it works: All DUKWs and all duck boats are amphibious vehicles. DUKWs were originally a specific model of amphibious vehicle initially made and used by the military during WWII. Duck boats are a kind of amphibious vehicles that are used to provide tours both on land and in water to groups of people, operating like a tour bus on land and a small boat in water. Older duck boats were just modified DUKWs. Most modern duck boats are quite different from DUKWs, having been custom made for these “duck tours” and having a number of differences from the military DUKWs. Other amphibious vehicles besides DUKWs and duck boats exist.

Anonymous Coward says:

Will the Cybertruck hit the waves some day? Hey, it’s possible. I think I’ll wait to see if it can hit the streets, first.

Cybertruck-less me has been hitting the streets since last year and my hands hurt. I’m going to take my Cybertruck, hit the beach immediately, and hang ten Musk haters. Wait, I hope I didn’t drop a comma.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I’m curious, myself.

There was a time when I thought Musk — disregarding the obvious-even-then butter-up-your-boss hagiographic stuff his employees would say about how he was well-versed in the technical stuff — was if nothing else a good publicist with a knack for finding companies doing interesting things. This would’ve been at about the point where SpaceX managed its first tandem recovery landing.

But since then I’ve come to the conclusion that the PR side of things was something he had someone hired to do and that that person is no longer doing so. He’s shown far too much of his entire ass on Twitter; he’s just your standard issue Twitter-poisoned shitposter who happened to start with a pile of money.

PaulT (profile) says:

“he helped a lot”

But, not as much as he likes to claim. He’d probably get a lot more leeway if he didn’t have a track record of claiming he founded companies he bought, inventions that other people came up with, etc. Especially if he stuck to companies that were on a mission to improve humanity like those things instead of trying to force Twitter to help him make it worse – something that’s causing his other companies to experience massive problems even though they really have nothing to do with it.

I think that when the dust has settled, he will have a place in history. But, it will be as someone who helped force incumbent industries to properly invest in different ways of doing things, before spectacularly self-immolating, and not as someone who personally delivered the end benefits.

Most people remember the name Howard Hughes, but they will be able to talk about the story of the insane rich guy with foot long nails in a Vegas penthouse long before they can tell you when he did before that to make his fame and fortune. The main differences with Musk are his relative youth and how utterly public he’s making every step of his decline.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...