 |
|
|
|||||
Elon Musk fought court cases on opposite coasts Monday, raising a question about the billionaire that could either speed his plan to put self-driving Teslas on U.S. roads or throw up a major roadblock: Can this wildly successful man who tends to exaggerate really be trusted?In Miami, a Tesla driver who has admitted he was wrong to reach for a dropped cell phone moments before a deadly accident, spoke of the danger of putting too much faith in Musk’s technology in this case his Autopilot program.“I trusted the technology too much,” said George McGee, who ran off the road and killed a woman out stargazing with her boyfriend. “I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.”In unusual coincidence, regulators arguing an Oakland, California, case tried to pin exaggerated talk about the same Tesla technology at the center of a request to suspend the carmaker from being able to sell vehicles in the state.Musk’s tendency to talk big whether it’s his cars, his rockets or his government costing-cutting efforts have landed him in trouble with investors, regulators and courts before, but rarely at such a delicate moment.After his social media spat with President Donald Trump, Musk can no longer count on a light regulatory touch from Washington. Meanwhile, sales of his electric cars have plunged and so a hit to his safety reputation could threaten his next big project: rolling out driverless robotaxis hundreds of thousands of them in several U.S. cities by the end of next year.The Miami case holds other dangers, too. Lawyers for the family of the dead woman, Naibel Benavides Leon, recently convinced the judge overseeing the jury trial to allow them to argue for punitive damages. A car crash lawyer not involved in the case, but closely following it, said that could cost Tesla tens of millions of dollars, or possibly more.“I’ve seen punitive damages go to the hundreds of millions, so that is the floor,” said Miguel Custodio of Los Angeles-based Custodio & Dubey. “It is also a signal to other plaintiffs that they can also ask for punitive damages, and then the payments could start compounding.”That Tesla has allowed the Miami case to proceed to trial is surprising. It has settled at least four deadly accidents involving Autopilot, including payments just last week to a Florida family of a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla was victorious in two other jury cases, both in California, that also sought to lay blame on its technology for crashes.Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Miami case argue that Tesla’s driver-assistance feature, called Autopilot, should have warned the driver and braked when his Model S sedan blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles-an-hour in an April 2019 crash. Tesla said that drivers are warned not to rely on Autopilot, or its more advanced Full Self-Driving system. It says the fault entirely lies with the “distracted driver” just like so many other “accidents since cellphones were invented.”Driver McGee settled a separate suit brought by the family of Benavides and her severely injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.McGee was clearly shaken when shown a dashcam video Monday of his car jumping a Key West, Florida, road and hitting a parked Chevrolet Tahoe which then slammed into Benavides and sent her 75 feet through the air to her death. Asked if he had seen those images before, McGee pinched his lips, shook his head, then squeaked out a response, “No.”Tesla’s attorney sought to show that McGee was fully to blame, asking if he had ever contacted Tesla for additional instructions about how Autopilot or any other safety features worked. McGee said he had not, though he was heavy user of the features. He said he had driven the same road home from work 30 or 40 times. Under questioning, he also acknowledged he alone was responsible for watching the road and hitting the brakes.Summarizing the testimony, Tesla said in a statement after the court adjourned that McGee had “stated the simple truth that we all know: If he had just paid attention to the road instead of searching for his dropped cell phone and pressing the accelerator which he was doing for over a minute before the crash this tragic accident would never have happened.”But lawyers for the Benavides family had a chance in the courtroom at parrying that line of argument, asking McGee if he would have taken his eyes off the road and reached for his phone had he been driving any car other than a Tesla on Autopilot.McGee responded, “I don’t believe so.”The case is expected to continue for two more weeks.In the California case, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles is arguing before an administrative judge that Tesla has misled drivers by exaggerating the capabilities of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features. A court filing claims even those feature names are misleading because they offer just partial self-driving.Musk has been warned by federal regulators to stop making public comments suggesting Full Self-Driving allows his cars to drive themselves because it could lead to overreliance on the system, resulting in possible crashes and deaths. He also has run into trouble with regulators for Autopilot. In 2023, the company had to recall 2.3 million vehicles for problems with the technology and is now under investigation for saying it fixed the issue though it’s unclear it has, according to regulatory documents.The California case is expected to last another four days. Condon reported from New York. Bernard Condon and David Fischer, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Social media is overflowing with wellness hacks and tips. While some should be avoided at all costs, others may actually be rooted in medicinal practices dating back to the Dark Ages, new research suggests. After examining hundreds of medieval manuscripts and compiling their findings into a catalog, a new international research project sheds fresh light on early medieval medical practicesmany of which wouldnt be out of place on TikToks For You Page. As the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) sect and wellness girlies gain traction both online and in the Oval Office, natural remedies are back in vogue. From beef tallow as skincare to castor oil in the belly button, these hacks could just as easily have been scribbled in the margins of a 5th-century manuscript as featured in an influencers get-ready-with-me video in 2025. “A lot of things that you see in these manuscripts are actually being promoted online currently as alternative medicine, but they have been around for thousands of years,” wrote Meg Leja, an associate professor of history at Binghamton University. Whether thats a good or bad thing depends on who you ask. One medieval hack involves rubbing a mixture of crushed peach pit and rose oil on the forehead as a cure for headaches. Science now backs this upa study from 2017 suggests rose oil may help relieve migraine pain. Another 9th-century hair hack recommends covering the scalp with herbal-infused salt and vinegar to disinfect it, followed by a salve of oils mixed with the ashes of a burnt green lizard to enhance shine. Perhaps not one to try at home. Other topical ointments and detox cleanses made from dried herbs and distilled alcohols share similarities with recent TikTok trends, like drinking “tadpole water” for debloating or eating dirt to reduce wrinkles. Many of these medieval health and beauty hacks were found scribbled in the margins of books unrelated to medicine, suggesting a preoccupation with wellness that feels distinctly modern. “People were engaging with medicine on a much broader scale than had previously been thought,” Leja told Science Daily. “They were concerned about cures, they wanted to observe the natural world and jot down bits of information wherever they could in this period known as the ‘Dark Ages.'” Sounds like they wouldve loved TikTok.
Category:
E-Commerce
The U.S. Department of Labor is aiming to rewrite or repeal more than 60 “obsolete” workplace regulations, ranging from minimum wage requirements for home health care workers and people with disabilities to standards governing exposure to harmful substances.If approved, the wide-ranging changes unveiled this month also would affect working conditions at constructions sites and in mines, and limit the government’s ability to penalize employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently risky activities such as movie stunts or animal training.The Labor Department says the goal is to reduce costly, burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations, and to deliver on President Donald Trump’s commitment to restore American prosperity through deregulation.“The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity,” Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, which boasted the “most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government.”Critics say the proposals would put workers at greater risk of harm, with women and members of minority groups bearing a disproportionate impact.“People are at very great risk of dying on the job already,” Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO union’s occupational safety and health director, said. “This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.”The proposed changes have several stages to get through before they can take effect, including a public comment period for each one.Here’s a look at some of the rollbacks under consideration: No minimum wage for home health care workers Home health care workers help elderly or medically fragile people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting with toilet use, accompanying clients to doctor appointments and performing other tasks. Under one of the Labor Department’s proposals, an estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage currently $7.25 per hour and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren’t covered by corresponding state laws.The proposed rule would reverse changes made in 2013 under former President Barack Obama and revert to a regulatory framework from 1975. The Labor Department says that by lowering labor and compliance costs, its revisions might expand the home care market and help keep frail individuals in their homes for longer.Judy Conti, director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project, said her organization plans to work hard to defeat the proposal. Home health workers are subject to injuries from lifting clients, and “before those (2013) regulations, it was very common for home care workers to work 50, 60 and maybe even more hours a week, without getting any overtime pay,” Conti said.Others endorse the proposal, including the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative nonprofit based in Virginia. Women often bear the brunt of family caregiving responsibilities, so making home care more affordable would help women balance work and personal responsibilities, the group’s president, Carrie Lukas, said.“We’re pleased to see the Trump administration moving forward on rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanaging of relationships that were making it hard for people to get the care they need,” Lukas said.Samantha Sanders, director of government affairs and advocacy at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, said the repeal would not constitute a win for women.“Saying we actually don’t think they need those protections would be pretty devastating to a workforce that performs really essential work and is very heavily dominated by women, and women of color in particular,” Sanders said. Protections for migrant farm workers Last year, the Labor Department finalized rules that provided protections to migrant farmworkers who held H-2A visas. The current administration says most of those rules placed unnecessary and costly requirements on employers.Under the new proposal, the Labor Department would rescind a requirement for most employer-provided transportation to have seat belts for those agriculture workers.The department is also proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, hearing or proceeding.“There’s a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work. And with H-2A it’s even worse because the employer can just not renew your visa,” said Lori Johnson, senior attorney at Farmworker Justice.Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, applauded the deregulation efforts, saying farmers were hit with thousands of pages of regulations pertaining to migrant farmworkers in recent years.“Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months and then be liable for every one of them?” he asked. Adequate lighting for construction spaces The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Department, wants to rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, saying the regulation doesn’t substantially reduce a significant risk.OSHA said if employers fail to correct lighting deficiencies at construction worksites, the agency can issue citations under its “general duty clause.” The clause requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards which are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.Worker advocates think getting rid of a specific construction site requirement is a bad idea. “There have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there’s not adequate lighting,” Reindel said. “It’s a very obvious thing that employers should address, but unfortunately it’s one of those things where we need a standard, and it’s violated all the time.” Mine safety Several proposals could impact safety procedures for mines. For example, employers have to submit plans for ventilation and preventing roof collapses in coal mines for review by the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration. Currently, MSHA district managers can require mine operators to take additional steps to improve those plans.The Labor Department wants to end that authority, saying the current regulations give the district manager the ability to draft and create laws without soliciting comments or action by Congress.Similarly, the department is proposing to strip district managers of their ability to require changes to mine health and safety training programs. Limiting OSHA’s reach The general duty clause allos OSHA to punish employers for unsafe working conditions when there’s no specific standard in place to cover a situation.An OSHA proposal would exclude the agency from applying the clause to prohibit, restrict or penalize employers for “inherently risky professional activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.”A preliminary analysis identified athletes, actors, dancers, musicians, other entertainers and journalists as among the types of workers the limitation would apply to.“It is simply not plausible to assert that Congress, when passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, silently intended to authorize the Department of Labor to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale show at SeaWorld,” the proposed rule reads.Debbie Berkowitz, who served as OSHA chief of staff during the Obama administration, said she thinks limiting the agency’s enforcement authority would be a mistake.“Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they’ll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have,” Berkowitz said. Cathy Bussewitz. Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||