Boring Company Flamethrower

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Boring Company Flamethrower, Tesla Model S Long Range and Truck update

Not much got in the way of Elon Musk fans determined to win bragging rights for picking up one of the first 1,000 flamethrowers sold by the billionaire’s Boring Co.

Dennis Dohrman hopped in his truck and drove 2,620 miles from North Carolina to Boring headquarters in Hawthorne, California. Dan Thorman cut short a business trip to Singapore and came straight to Saturday’s event from Los Angeles International Airport. George Matus brought along his parents and younger brother on a 10-hour road trip.

“Imagine if you had the opportunity to get a kite and a key from Benjamin Franklin,” said Dohrman, 45, an environmental scientist who drove 39 hours from Hampstead, North Carolina, referencing the Revolutionary War-era inventor and statesman.

Dohrman snagged the first spot in line on Saturday to collect one of the flamethrowers sold to raise $10 million for Boring, a tunnel-digging company that’s working on a futuristic type of train-like transportation known as Hyperloop.

The company is working on a test tunnel in Hawthorne, has permission to work on another tunnel in Maryland, and is bidding on a project in Chicago. A usable tunnel that connects transportation hubs is probably years away.

Held in a parking lot adjacent to Musk’s rocket company, Space Exploration Technologies Corp., the event was a festival of all things Musk, set to the sounds of a mariachi band as customers snacked on complimentary churros from a food truck.

The Tesla Model S Long Range has accomplished 400 miles of range in another genuine test, as Elon Musk has been guaranteeing, however there's a trick.

Recently, Tesla discharged another "Long Range Plus" form of the Model S with an EPA-evaluated extend that was later refreshed to 391 miles on a solitary charge.

The new form of the vehicle was accomplished through a few little changes in the course of the most recent year and Tesla expected to change the name all together for the EPA to give it new evaluating.

Around a similar time, CEO Elon Musk asserted that Tesla is near having a 400-mile electric vehicle.

During Tesla's Q1 2020 outcomes, Musk guaranteed that they previously accomplished it on the grounds that the EPA committed an error when testing the new Model S Long Range Plus.

The CEO asserted that the EPA left an entryway open with the key inside the vehicle during their cycle test – bringing about the electric vehicle not going to 'rest' and depleting the battery excessively much.

The EPA has denied that, yet Musk accepts that the Model S is presently ready to accomplish an EPA scope of 400 miles and it will formally get it once the EPA continue testing.

Youtuber Bjorn Nyland, who regularly performs run tests on electric vehicles, chose to take an ongoing Tesla Model S Raven on a range test to check whether the vehicle can accomplish 400 miles of range on a solitary charge.

Elon Musk says that he is rejecting plans to make Tesla Cybertruck littler and rather recommends that the automaker could make an alternate littler electric pickup truck for the worldwide market later.

Not long in the wake of divulging the Cybertruck model a year ago, Musk began looking at making the electric pickup littler to fit inside an ordinary carport.

A month ago, Musk offered a few remarks with respect to the Tesla Cybertruck and how it will change when it arrives at creation.

He discussed how proprietors should wrap the electric pickup to get various hues, and he said that Tesla is refreshing the Cybertruck's versatile air suspension.

The CEO was asked what the greatest change is to Cybertruck from the model, and he reacted that Tesla "decreased the size by ~3%," made the "inside line increasingly level," and "brought down the window ledge tallness."

In any case, Musk said today on Twitter that he looked into the Cybertruck's structure with Franz von Holzhausen, Tesla's Chief Designer, the previous evening and they reached the resolution that they can't make the truck littler:

“Reviewed [the Cybertruck] design with Franz last night. Even 3% smaller is too small. It will be pretty much this size [referring to the prototype].”

Sources:
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review
-boring company flamethrower review

https://boringcompanyflamethrower.data.blog/

https://boringcompanyflamethrower.wordpress.com/

https://boringflamethrower.puzl.com/

http://boringflamethrower.mystrikingly.com/

https://boringflamethrower.cabanova.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNpevXraK6TLM0i8dHfW6wA/about

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Tesla shares dropped to $808 after hours, Elon Musk can still tweet according to judge

Tesla ($TSLA) shares dropped from almost $820 to $808.01 yesterday without any major news or disastrous tweets from its CEO Elon Musk.

A Delaware judge has denied a request by attorneys for Tesla shareholders to pursue a lawsuit seeking to prevent CEO Elon Musk from using his personal Twitter account to disseminate information regarding the electric vehicle and solar panel manufacturer.

Vice Chancellor Joseph Slights III ruled Tuesday that shareholder attorneys had not demonstrated a sufficient reason for him to allow the state court lawsuit to proceed. Slights put the case on hold after it was filed last year because of a pending federal securities fraud lawsuit and a contempt motion against Musk by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC looked to hold Musk in hatred of court after he tweeted in February 2019 about Tesla's vehicle creation objective for the year. Controllers said the tweet damaged a 2018 protections extortion settlement requiring Tesla TSLA, - 0.69% to direct tweets from Musk that could influence the organization's stock. The settlement was reached after the SEC sued Musk for utilizing his Twitter TWTR, +0.81% record to erroneously declare that he had tied down financing to take Tesla private.

The disdain movement was settled in April 2019 with a necessity that Musk get endorsement ahead of time from an organization legal advisor before giving any composed correspondences in regards to Tesla's funds. However, Musk got in increasingly boiling water last July in the wake of sending an unapproved tweet with respect to a figure for his organization's sun powered rooftop board creation.

The Delaware offended parties said in a court recording not long ago that the claim ought to continue since Musk's kept tweeting represents an up and coming danger to Tesla, and that Tesla's board has neglected to get control over Musk and implement the pre-endorsement arrangement on his interchanges.

The "last bit of excess that will be tolerated," they stated, was a May 1 tweet where Musk said he however Tesla's stock cost was excessively high. The offer cost expeditiously fell by over 10%.

"No levelheaded Tesla legal counselor or executive could have endorsed this tweet," investor lawyers composed.

"Musk obviously is reluctant to agree to the SEC settlements, and the board is similarly reluctant or incapable to expect him to do as such and compel his tweeting," they included.

William Chandler III, a lawyer speaking to Tesla chiefs, disclosed to Slights that the case comes down to a battle about potential harms identified with Musk's direct, and that it ought to stay on hold pending goals of the government class activity.

"The main mischief that the offended parties claim is a drop in the market value that existed for short of what one full business day," Chandler stated, alluding to the May 1 tweet.

Chandler likewise proposed that the endeavor to preclude Musk from tweeting about Tesla raises genuine First Amendment issues.

Insults said Musk's tweet regarding sun based board creation didn't give off an impression of being "horribly risky". The stock value tweet, while "inconvenient all over," was one of numerous tweets by Musk over the previous year, in which Tesla has seen enormous development, the appointed authority included.

While depicting his choice to keep the case on hold "a narrow escape," Slights additionally noticed that he can't give a directive dependent on insignificant fear or theory about a litigant's future lead.

He cautioned, be that as it may, he could return to his choice if Musk's lead brings about "likely," instead of "theoretical" damage to investors.

"The choice will be more clear if to a greater degree an example develops, particularly an unchecked example .... Now, however, there's no point in discussing this further," he said.

Sources:

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Tesla Charges Extra $1,000 'Full Self-Driving' Fee Starting July, According To Elon Musk

Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) is expanding the cost of the "Full Self-Driving" highlight in its electric vehicles by $1,000 beginning July 1, Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk said Monday.

The driver-help alternative as of now costs $7,000. As per Musk, the cost of the component will "keep on rising" going ahead. At the point when the independent driving component approaches to "full capacity" and gets administrative endorsement, the cost is "most likely some place in abundance of $100,000," Musk noted. The very rich person business visionary proposed a month ago the cost of the full self-driving element will "likely" increment on July 1.

The tweet is going viral on twitter, with Musk saying: "The FSD price will continue to rise as the software gets closer to full self-driving capability with regulatory approval. It that point, the value of FSD is probably somewhere in excess of $100,000."

Wouldn't you rather spend that extra $1000 getting an awesome boring company flamethrower instead?

Should you buy Tesla ($TSLA) stock options today?

Tesla is on the verge of satisfying the criteria to be eligible for inclusion in the S&P 500 index, based on the S&P's US indexes methodology, The Wall Street Journal first reported on Monday. The stock is currently trading at $814.26, up 0.1%.

The electric-car manufacturer still doesn't meet the S&P's positive-net-income requirement, no matter how fun the boring company flamethrower is according to reviews.

To be eligible for inclusion in one of the most popular stock market indexes, a company needs to post a cumulative profit — as measured by generally accepted accounting principles — over its previous four quarters, with its most recent quarter also showing a profit.

Tesla’s (TSLA) car registrations in China plummeted 64% in April, compared to March, according to consultancy firm LMC Automotive’s data.

Specifically, the electric-vehicle maker’s China registrations dropped to 4,633 units from 12,709 units the previous month. This includes imported cars. “Tesla’s sales in the first month of each quarter are usually lower than the remaining two months” points out Reuters.

Meanwhile sales of Tesla’s Model 3 sedan in China plunged 64% in April vs March, according to the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). Tesla sold 3,635 Model 3 cars in April, a significant decrease from the 10,160 vehicles sold in March.

It sounds like a big drop—and it is. The stock, however, isn’t budging, down a fraction in early Tuesday trading. Tesla bulls aren’t blind to bad news, but sequential sales aren’t that useful for investors. Every business, including Tesla (ticker: TSLA), is seasonal.

Tesla would have been eligible for inclusion now if its loss in the second quarter of 2019 had been less than $264 million, or the sum of its previous three quarters of profits. Instead, it was a $408 million loss.

Monday, May 18, 2020

Comprehensive review of boring company flamethrower

Wondering how boring company flamethrower performs compared to other flamethrowers and kitchen torches? Want to know if you can cook with this flamethrower that Elon Musk designed that sold out?

https://boring-company.webflow.io/boring-company-flamethrower-review-unbiased-audit-of-the-tesla-of-flamethrower has the most in-depth review you can ask for and much more!

Boring Company Flamethrower first impression

Truly, a flamethrower: As in, a weapon that shoots flares. They are 100 percent legitimate — and now, simpler to get than you at any point envisioned.

Boring Company Flamethrower unboxing & how to use

Being one of the most popular product review channels out there, Unbox Therapy couldn’t wait to get their hands on the Boring Company Flamethrower, or as marketed, “not a flamethrower”. So, what did they think of this Elon Musk flamethrower?

This is the only boring company flamethrower review you'll ever need!

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Is the boring company flamethrower dangerous?

Looking for a review of the boring company flamethrower? Wonder if the boring company flamethrower is dangerous or if it can be used at home? Let's look into actual flamethrowers in the past and whether this is just a normal blowtorch or an actual gun.

Between July and November of 1917, one of the greatest disasters of the Great War unfolded near the Belgian town of Ypres, where the British and their allies fought the Germans for control of some ridges running through Flanders.

Better known as the Battle of Passchendaele, hundreds of thousands of men occupied trenches, dugouts and underground tunnels on the front lines. Among the British forces there were many seasoned infantrymen who could claim to have seen all the technological terrors so far gathered together on World War I battlefields—machine gun fire, poison gas, strafing and bombing by aircraft.

But for many soldiers, they would face a weapon for the first time that the Germans had introduced just two years before. The Flammenwerfer—or, in English, the flamethrower.

The results were horrifying. Carried by specially trained assault teams, German flamethrowers were highly effective weapons that would either drive men from their defensive positions … or simply incinerate them.

“When the nozzles were lighted, they threw out a roaring, hissing flame 20 or 30 feet long, swelling at the end to an oily rose, six feet in diameter,” Guy Chapman, a British infantryman at Passchendale, recalled years later in an account about one such assault. “Under the protection of these hideous weapons the enemy surrounded the advance pillbox, stormed it and killed the garrison.”

Fire on the battlefield is nothing new. Fifth-century Greeks during the Peloponnesian War developed a bellows-powered device that squirted flaming liquid at an enemy. Medieval sieges almost always included hurling “fire pots” over the walls of fortified towns or castles in an effort to start a conflagration. The order “set fire the village” is as old as military history.

But during the 20th century, engineers and scientists placed flames under advanced technological control in an effort to make fire-spouting weapons portable, reliable and reasonably safe—a different kind of “friendly fire” that would not kill the operator while he was doing his best to kill the enemy with a weaponized inferno.

The result is a device with as much psychological impact as lethality—perhaps the chief reason why United States, Great Britain and other world powers used the flamethrower from World War I through the Vietnam War. Even today, Russia still has flamethrowers in its inventory.

“The most dramatic hand weapon of World War II and the most effective for its purpose was the flamethrower,” Edwin Tunis wrote in Weapons: A Pictorial History, his classic compilation of weapons through the ages. “It is hoped that it is less frightfully inhuman than it seems.”

In 1901, German inventor Richard Fiedler developed the first Flammenwerfer. He worked steadily with others from 1908 to 1914, refining the weapon’s design and creating two versions for battlefield use.

The Kleinflammenwerfer was a man-portable flamethrower consisting of a two-tank system, one holding flammable oil and the other a pressurized inert gas that sprayed the mixture out of the nozzle of a long wand.

The Grossflammenwerfer was a crew-served weapon with large tanks mounted on a cart or a litter. It shot flames farther and for a longer time.

Early flamethrowers could hit targets ranging from 20 to 40 yards away from the operator. Debuting in 1915 during a battle near Malancourt, France, the Flammenwerfer troops pinned down British troops while German infantrymen assaulted their trenches.

British generals and politicians cried foul, labeling flamethrowers “an inhuman projection of the German scientific mind.” The German high command was so impressed with the results of the attack it ordered formation of Totenkopf Pioniere—“death’s head pioneers”—who served as flamethrower-wielding shock troops in as many as 650 German assaults during the Great War.

Allied forces did not lose time developing their own flamethrowers, although they probably used the weapon far less than the Germans did during the war.

Despite the Germans’ technological prowess, their flamethrowers had all the vulnerabilities that would mark the weapon system throughout the century. Although it happened far less than Hollywood movies portray, one shot to the fuel tank of a flamethrower could result in the operator literally going up in flames.

“I saw a large Hun about to aim his flame-thrower in my direction and Company Sgt. Maj. Adams with great presence of mind fired his Very pistol at the man,” wrote Capt. P. Christison, 6th Cameron Highlanders, who saw a German flamethrower operator incinerated at Passchendale because of a well-placed shot from a flare gun. “The round hit the flame-thrower and with a scream the man collapsed in a sheet of flame.”

During World War II, all sides used flamethrowers, including the U.S. Marine Corps. During the “island hopping” campaigns of the Pacific Theater, many Marines believed flamethrowers made the difference between their lives and death.

“We could not have taken the island without the flamethrower,” said Bill Henderson, a Marine Corps veteran who fought on Iwo Jima, in a Marine Corps oral history of the battle. “It saved lives because it did not require men to go into caves, which were all booby-trapped and promised certain death to all who entered.”

The Marines’ M2 flamethrowers were heavy and cumbersome, making it difficult to run when wearing the device. The unit also made the Marine a high-value target—easy to see and easy to shoot.

One Marine Corps flamethrower unit on Iwo Jima had a 92-percent casualty rate—leading a military statistician to estimate the average lifespan on the battlefield of a Marine flamethrower operator at four minutes.

Later, the Marines adapted flamethrower units to the Sherman tank, reducing the number of times that an individual operator had to expose himself to enemy fire on the battlefield.

When soft-hearted Americans protested the use of flame weapons against the Japanese, Gen. George C. Marshall, then chief of staff of the Army, defended them. “The vehement protests I am receiving against our use of flamethrowers do not indicate an understanding of the meaning of our dead.”

During the Vietnam War, for better or worse flamethrowers and other incendiary weapons became widely regarded as inhumane weapons of war. In 1978, the Defense Department issued a directive that ceased the tactical use of flamethrowers and their further development.

However, no international agreement bans flamethrowers.

From 1999 to 2000, the Russians employed flamethrowers against Chechen rebel forces during the battle for Grozny. Russian tacticians concluded that the flamethrower was effective as much for its psychological effect as its ability to flush insurgents or snipers out of enclosed or fortified positions.

The Russian use of flamethrowers was also one reason why in 2003 the United Nations declared Grozny the most devastated city on the planet.

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Elon Musk and humanitarian crises he’s tried to fix, and how it’s going so far

Elon Musk has sought contention and stood out as truly newsworthy for all an inappropriate reasons before, but on the other hand he's had some striking accomplishment in creating world-evolving innovation.

For all his boast, assaults on writers, and odd conduct, he is additionally attempting to understand a portion of mankind's most critical issues. Environmental change? Musk's electric vehicle organization, Tesla, has made electric vehicles energizing. Traffic hardships and all the negative wellbeing impacts of clog caused contamination? Musk made The Boring Company to burrow a system of passages beneath Los Angeles to keep away from gridlocked turnpikes. Colonizing different planets to spare ourselves from eradication? SpaceX is chipping away at it.

Past these moonshot activities, Musk has conveyed genuine outcomes. After Hurricane Maria took out force for many Puerto Rico's occupants in 2017, Musk gave several sun based fueled batteries to the island. Furthermore, as the coronavirus spreads around the world, Tesla has started dealing with ventilator parts and delivery clinical gadgets to emergency clinics out of luck.

Traffic, and the negative wellbeing impacts of gridlock

In the same way as other of us, Musk loathes sitting in rush hour gridlock. His answer for the famously traffic-stopped up turnpikes in Los Angeles: burrowing a system of passages underneath the city.

Traffic is something other than an irritation. As indicated by a recent report, the air contamination created by traffic can prompt an expansion in coronary illness and stroke hazard for those living close to blocked zones. Different investigations have indicated that individuals living close to significant roadways in clogged urban communities have an expansion in crisis room visits and mortality, among other wellbeing impacts.

Through the Boring Company, Musk is trying to associate LA's densest neighborhoods with an underground "Circle" framework that could convey travelers – and even vehicles – up to 155 miles-per-hour, cutting travel times over the city, and lessening traffic-caused contamination simultaneously.

While this sounds stunning in principle, the fact of the matter is somewhat murkier, as Business Insider's Matt DeBord composed.

The framework is set to profit wealthy Angelenos and maintains a strategic distance from some more unfortunate neighborhoods (where drive times are regularly longest) by and large. It's another billion-dollar answer for a difficult that could be all the more effortlessly unraveled by working from home or moving work hours, DeBord composed.

The decision: It's too early to tell.